New Feature: Private Groups of One
in Perl Monks Discussion
1 direct reply — Read more / Contribute
|
by jdporter
on Mar 28, 2024 at 15:44
|
|
OK, folks, I've got yet another steaming-fresh feature for you: Private groups of one.
Each monk can have a private group of which they are the only member.
In this group, you have access to the feature which supports threaded discussions on groups.
Here's the trick which makes this feature useful (in my hubrile opinion): the Gods also have access to your private group of one!
This enables to have private threaded discussions with the gods.
I made this because I feel that our inbox-based message system and wikis are rather inadequate for extended discussions.
To access your private group of one, go to your home node. You should see a row labeled
"Private Group:"
at the bottom of the table next to your picture.
If the private group doesn't exist yet, there will be a link to Create it. Otherwise, the link will say Visit.
|
New Feature: What Links Here
in Perl Monks Discussion
1 direct reply — Read more / Contribute
|
by jdporter
on Mar 18, 2024 at 14:15
|
|
Alrighty, folks! I've got another steaming-fresh feature for you: What Links Here
There is a new nodelet you can enable, if you are interested in this feature. Go to your Nodelet Settings and find "What Links Here" somewhere near the top of the list.
Then, whatever node you're on, this nodelet will show what other nodes link to the current node.
The list is capped at 20. For nodes which are the target of many links, such as the PerlMonks FAQ, the nodelet will list 20 nodes, followed by a link to What Links Here where you can see the full list.
The database table behind this feature is not automatically maintained (yet), so I'll need some volunteers from pmdev to occasionally visit Update Userspace Links. Doing so will cause a delta update to the table.
I was inspired by this old quote from Rob Malda:
The thing that I always thought was the most interesting in Xanadu is the idea that links are bi-directional. And the Everything Engine was designed around that.
|
New Feature: Thread Watcher
in Perl Monks Discussion
4 direct replies — Read more / Contribute
|
by jdporter
on Feb 29, 2024 at 14:54
|
|
I am pleased to announce a new feature: thread watching. This lets you receive notification whenever someone posts a comment in a thread of interest.
More specifically, you can get notified when someone replies directly to a specific node of interest, or when someone replies anywhere under a node of interest, no matter how many reply levels below the node. These two modes are called 'direct' and 'any'. The node of interest doesn't have to be a root node in one of the sections; it could be any reply as well, in case you're only interested in a subthread under some post.
To register for notifications, click one of the new links you'll find by each node, near the "Comment on" link. For a node you're viewing directly (that is, the 'root' of a (sub)thread you're viewing), the new text looks like:
Watch for: Direct replies / Any replies
For all other nodes in a (sub)thread you're viewing, the new text looks like:
Watch: Dir/Any
If you have already registered interest in a node in this way, you will instead see a link like:
Unwatch
To see a list of all the nodes you are currently watching, go to My Watched Nodes.
Next to each watch listed, you'll see a "button" (like [X]) which you can click to delete that watch.
In addition...
You can watch a user, i.e. receive notification whenever a specific user posts.
To set up this kind of watch, go to the user's homenode, where you will see a link like Watch for posts by this user.
When you are stalking a user in this way, you will also get notifications of whenever they submit root posts in any of the main sections of the site.
If a post happens to hit multiple criteria you have set up — for example, you're watching for posts in a certain
thread and by a certain user, and that user posts in that thread — you will get just a single notification message.
|
RFC: "Today I Learned" page
in Perl Monks Discussion
9 direct replies — Read more / Contribute
|
by jdporter
on Jan 10, 2024 at 23:40
|
|
Some time in the last year or two I suddenly realized that I should be keeping a log of the interesting things I learn from day to day.
A couple months ago I was talking with my brilliant young nephew about how I didn't have a really satisfactory solution, and he suggested Notion.
He set up a Notion workspace where we can both enter our #TILs. It works really well. Notion is amazing.
But I can see how it might not scale too well with a large number of contributors.
Long story short — I have created Today I Learned, a page where anyone (meeting certain minimum elibility requirements) can share interesting factoids.
Please check it out. What do you think? Is it worthwhile? If not, could it be made better? If so, how? If snot, blow?
I also want to note that the extant page, Today I Learned, is based on a generic mechanism which can be easily leveraged for other similar tasks. The main configurable parameters are: who can view the page, who can add entries, and who can delete entries. (readers/writers/deleters, in short.) These can be based on a user group (such as janitors or breathers of fire), or on monastic level (such as Level 10: Hermit). Can you think of a use for such a feature?
I thank you, and Paco thanks you.
* On the Today I Learned page, entries can be deleted by the Janitors, and the Editors Nodelet contains a link to that page labled 'TIL'.
When there is a new entry on that page, a little flag (*) is appended to the 'TIL' link.
Today's latest and greatest software contains tomorrow's zero day exploits .
|
RFC: Add profile field "emergency contact" or such like as
in Perl Monks Discussion
4 direct replies — Read more / Contribute
|
by jdporter
on Nov 28, 2023 at 16:15
|
|
It has happened from time to time that some monks have expressed concern over the unexpected and prolonged absense of another monk.
In at least one case, a monk contacted the gods to see if a reachout could be done.
Unfortunately, we had to say no, because the contact information stored in the user profile consists only of an email address,
and our policies explicitly state this this email address "is used only to send you your password".
I believe that this creates — correctly — a strong expectation of privacy around this personal information.
Therefore, I would like to propose the addition of an "emergency contact" field, which would probably normally be an email address,
but with a different expectation as to its potential usage.
The use of this field would be strictly optional. That is, as a user, you wouldn't have to put anything in it unless you want to.
Alternatively, we could add a checkbox which, when checked, indicates that you are OK with site administrators using the
existing email for "emergency contact" purposes, in addition to its current purposes (i.e. password recovery).
Any thoughts?
"such like as" is my homage to blazar.
Today's latest and greatest software contains tomorrow's zero day exploits .
|
Another interview with our illustrious founder (aka Slashdot is 25)
in Perl News
No replies — Read more | Post response
|
by jdporter
on Jul 31, 2023 at 10:49
|
|
|
perl 5.38: can the body of a class declaration contain arbitrary code?
in Seekers of Perl Wisdom
2 direct replies — Read more / Contribute
|
by jdporter
on Jul 04, 2023 at 16:41
|
|
The doco saith:
Fields may optionally have initializing expressions.
. . . the expression can . . . see any other variables in scope.
class WithACounter {
my $next_count = 1;
field $count = $next_count++;
}
But it doesn't say that any other kind of code can be present there. For example, maybe I'd like to do this:
class WithACounter {
my $next_count = 1;
if (last_one_was_bad()) { delete_last_one(); $next_count--; }
field $count = $next_count++;
}
Would that be permitted?
Also: it looks like the my variables there are essentially "class static" members — so called in other languages
e.g. C#.
Is that an accurate characterization?
Today's latest and greatest software contains tomorrow's zero day exploits .
|
Probabilities of drawing certain cards
in Meditations
3 direct replies — Read more / Contribute
|
by jdporter
on Jan 06, 2023 at 12:33
|
|
This shows the probabilities of drawing two specific cards (labeled A and B) in a hand of five cards, from decks of various sizes.
All numbers are percentages.
When the deck contains no 'draw' cards:
Deck size | A & B | A & !B | A ^ B | A | B |
6 | 66.7 | 16.7 | 33.3 | 100.0 |
7 | 47.6 | 23.8 | 47.6 | 95.2 |
8 | 35.7 | 26.8 | 53.6 | 89.3 |
9 | 27.8 | 27.8 | 55.6 | 83.3 |
10 | 22.2 | 27.8 | 55.6 | 77.8 |
11 | 18.2 | 27.3 | 54.5 | 72.7 |
12 | 15.2 | 26.5 | 53.0 | 68.2 |
13 | 12.8 | 25.6 | 51.3 | 64.1 |
When the 'A' card causes Draw 1:
Deck size | A & B | A & !B | A ^ B | A | B |
6 | 50.0 | 0.0 | 50.0 | 100.0 |
7 | 41.7 | 8.3 | 50.0 | 91.7 |
8 | 35.7 | 14.3 | 50.0 | 85.7 |
9 | 31.2 | 18.8 | 50.0 | 81.2 |
10 | 27.8 | 22.2 | 50.0 | 77.8 |
11 | 25.0 | 25.0 | 50.0 | 75.0 |
12 | 22.7 | 27.3 | 50.0 | 72.7 |
The probabilities of other combinations can be derived from those given in this table:
- A | !B (A or not B - possibly both conditions) is the inverse of A & !B.
- A ^ !B (A or not B but NOT both conditions) is the inverse of A ^ B.
- !A & !B (neither A nor B) is the inverse of A | B
- !A | !B (not A, or not B - possibly both conditions) is the inverse of A & B.
- !A ^ !B (not A, or not B, but NOT both conditions) is logically the same as A ^ B.
|
RFC: Policy regarding abuses of the voting system
in Perl Monks Discussion
10 direct replies — Read more / Contribute
|
by jdporter
on Jun 09, 2022 at 09:38
|
|
|
How to get programming help
in Meditations
7 direct replies — Read more / Contribute
|
by jdporter
on May 23, 2022 at 11:21
|
|
"Every time I have a programming question and I rly need help, I post it on PerlMonks and then log into another account and reply to it with an obscenely incorrect answer. Ppl don’t care about helping others but they LOVE correcting others. Works 100% of the time"
-- @soychotic
|