It doesn’t have to apply 100% to be a relevant xkcd, they just posted it because, like op’s pic, it’s about a person trying to be clever by messing with speed cameras, but everyone would know whose fault is it the second time it happens because of how weird the plate is.

Your one obviously applies more, but there’s no need to gatekeep.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

because this is about plates and not children.

but this isn't about plates, it is about sql injection.

but everyone would know whose fault is it the second time it happens because of how weird the plate is.

this is obviously not official plate that would be registered to his name, so they would have no idea unless they caught him red-handed.

but there’s no need to gatekeep.

well, yes, i could have phrased that differently

[–] Syrc@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It’s about plates and sql injection.

And (by how I understood it) the point of the I1I1 plate was that it wasn’t easily discernible and the camera couldn’t identify it correctly to link it to the owner, but the police knew who it was nonetheless because it’s always the same guy that already got caught. I might be wrong though, it’s just a funny comic and isn’t probably meant to be looked into that deeply.

[–] 14th_cylon@lemm.ee 2 points 8 months ago

And (by how I understood it) the point of the I1I1 plate was that it wasn’t easily discernible and the camera couldn’t identify it correctly

the point was it was hard to read and remember for a human. hence why the witness in the comic gives only vague description, which is what the owner of the sneaky plate hoped for, but due to its uniqueness the police knew and the plate failed to achieve its intended purpose on a spectacular level. there was no automation involved at all.

[–] Kanda@reddthat.com 1 points 8 months ago

But if you stuck a license plate to a child then it would be a car