|
Re: -175 := +127 Thank you all!
by chacham (Prior) on May 24, 2016 at 12:50 UTC
|
heartfelt ire towards me, (or perhaps the subject matter),
I have a love/hate relationship with reading your posts. Your posts are usually quite detailed and informative, but your attitude often leaves much to be desired. The downvotes are probably not "ire" towards you or even the subject matter, but more of a reaction to the tone.
| [reply] |
|
|
> I have a love/hate relationship with reading your posts.
Interesting, John Oliver said similar things about The Man from the High Tower ...
| [reply] |
You're welcome — was Re: -175 := +127 Thank you all! (Updated!Now -152 := +144)
by Your Mother (Archbishop) on May 25, 2016 at 14:50 UTC
|
- If I'm wrong, PROVE IT! Otherwise, shut the f*** up.
- You really are a dumb-arse.
- Instead you write crap like this.
- No shit Sherlock :)
- And no. Not a f***** chance. GO AWAY!
- you'd make some attempt to verify a wild-assed guess
- live in the real -- asynchronous -- world, where shit happens.
- Or "F*ck you Jack, I'm all right!"
- differences make Python a piss poor substitute for Perl.
- and recriminations pointless. As the saying goes: Piss, or get off the pot.
- Twat. Both syntaxes being discussed "already exist
f*** up implementation
- Write-once variables are a piss poor substitute; an anathema to Perl
- Twat! It will be a module on cpan as soon as
- $10,000 == $10,000. QED. B***shit!
- d he could make it transparent; and now we're all f*****!
- Perl has silently and unwantedly f***** my data. Broken!
- Dickhead!
- My app. All my own work. Twat!
- all those nay-sayers -- the cowardly little shits that yap anonymously from the side lines
- I knew you'd see through the bullshit!
- No shit Sherlock!
- comeback and defend it with a bunch of made up crap; is just vintage ikegami.
- FIXED! FIXED!? You make shit up.
- in a vain attempt to cover up the shit you've stirred.
- P>There is some asinine pedant in p5p adding this shit. I guess I could look up who
- Why the F*** does Micr$oft name things with overloaded words?
- n, lay the table and change the rope. Deedee's ex f*** for using er. Grope I, won't convert me. I pee in the cream
- ing counter-productive; automated bean-counting a piss-poor substitute for open and blame-free peer supp
- -- but your over-literal interpretation of it is crap.
- a "fact" for you. You are talking out of your arse.
- apable of learning; just not from people who make shit up and pass it off as knowledge.
- Bullshit! As normal. Why do you bother?
- I was gonna let this slide; but f*** it. You need to learn a lesson.
- Twat!
- No shit Sherlock!
- known as "Unicode". What price your pedantry now? Twat!
- e entirely with those that have to deal with this shit; I'm in a position where I don't have to
- but PM truncated it, and I'm too pissed off to try and re-create it.
- The problem was not taking the piss about the company's products
- thinking that's shite, but house rules
- See what I mean about people "responding" to shit they make up. And perpetuating a non-argument for
- g; you just need to learn how to read you fatuous f***wit.
- much less some half-arsed, pseudo-statistical piece of shit'n'shinola code
Had to remove a couple false positives manually, like Hardon
(Collider). I would talk about your frequent misspellings, improper
casing, bad HTML taking up screen space in every post, rather flexible
dictionary meanings in discussions, shoddy grammar, and such but that would just be
pedantic and you already taught me that lesson, as you promised. All
part of your humble efforts to further your altruism here.
You boasted recently in the middle of being offended that you are hard to offend. Of all the monks
currently active, I offer the list above as partial proof that you are
the easiest to offend and the fastest to reach for nastiness, epithets, and hyperbole as rebuttal. If this simple
profanity search through a fraction of your posts could instead be
targeted for overreaction, insults, and abusive
language, the list would be five times as long. Congratulations on
your mission to save the Perl hoi polloi from our crap algorithms and wrongthink.
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
:P The only part of the recipe that is non-trivial (trivial = loading a list of user nodes on the site, copying the HTML and parsing it into node ids and fetching the ids into ?node_id={id};displaytype=xml with LWP::whatever, with a generous sleep between request to not tax the site, and pulling content from those…) is Regexp::Common::profanity + a little magic to check for elided spellings with as******s. Perl makes this stuff rather easy. I’m super grateful for it and its community every day.
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
|
|
As already said, context matters; and then, taking absolutes as an argument gives a false picture, because if, say, Old Gray Bear was "foul mouthed" in one post, how many such posts of BrowserUk are needed to weigh against that?
See.
But even percentage is wrong, misleading (and off the point), because to get an accurate picture, you would need to conduct a thorough survey of the net effect of BrowserUk's incriminated posts (for "bad language"! seriously? Pipi Kaka Furz?) in an infallible manner. Pulling out only bad words is bad science, as is evaluating the nodes reputation. Many things get downvoted offhand; but they may yield effect, even to the point where one's downvoting is seen later as erroneous.
The effect on each of our fellow monks is always individual and cannot be measured by statistics because... well, because it is individual, an effect caused on an individual mind, with its own settings, background, temporary conditions, parents, condition of spouse and whatnot.
So, this compilation amounts to "he said jehovah! let's stone him!"
Congratulations on your mission to save the Perl hoi polloi from our crap algorithms and wrongthink.
Hmm... nosepicking.?
perl -le'print map{pack c,($-++?1:13)+ord}split//,ESEL'
| [reply] |
|
|
I think stirring up this thread is a big mistake but I respect and like you so it matters to me what you think.
If I had read my own post without context, I would have had the reaction you did. My post was in the context of some then recent history and made because of fatigue from what I perceived as false humility poured over braggadocio wedded with XP whining.
It’s not about profanity; that was just an easy highlight without the need for deep reading and analytical scribbling. It’s about unwarranted hostility and the penchant to dig in and dish the last word.
I considered BUK a friend. I had defended his—and a couple other high-contributing monks who have some rough social skills—attitude in deference to the level of skill and help he brings and I came to his aid personally in private messages in the CB a few years ago and felt pride and a real connection that I could help a senior monk having a hard day. Then, a bit back, he called me a “twat” and a “pedant” (the definition of the pot calling the kettle black here) for replying too flatly about a Unicode/mixed-corrupt-data question; Mixed Unicode and ANSI string comparisons?. He felt to the need to double down on it, too; Context, pedantry and appropriate response.. At that point I’d had enough, clearly, and that sentiment had legs.
I respected and liked him. So it mattered to me what he thought. I was pretty hurt. Deference is permanently off the table for me. Case by case only now and the case in question rattled my cage.
From a couple weeks ago; A data selection problem(in3D).–
OP: Any thoughts, speculations or suggestions gratefully received.
Response: [This? Is this the idea?]
OP: …Either you have something that will help … or you don't, and move on. …if I wanted a half-arsed solution, I had (and demonstrated) that a week ago. …But if joy is too much for you....
Hostility, not grace, for answering the call of participation, for falling short, in direct contradiction to the tone offered in the question. It’s a mode, not an outlier.
Footnote, FTR, I do not dispute whatsoever the plain fact that BUK is among the most valuable contributors here.
Update: regarding “…the penchant to dig in and dish the last word.” Got the last word twice, so far, this time. Oh, it was a banner effing post at the old PerlMonks family.
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in. |
Re: -175 := +127 Thank you all! (Updated!Now -152 := +144)
by eyepopslikeamosquito (Bishop) on May 25, 2016 at 19:49 UTC
|
All 10 worst nodes of the week! Congratulations!
All 10 worst nodes of the month is harder to achieve. I've only ever seen one monk pull it off (see below). I'm pretty sure all 20 worst nodes of the year is going to prove out of reach, at least I've never seen it done -- though the monk you are aspiring to be like currently holds 13 of 20.
Worst Nodes of The Week
As of May 25, 2016 at 19:01 UTC, Next refresh in 3 hours and 45 mins ±15 min
Update 28 May: though you now have some new and unwelcome competition from perlPsycho I see. Also, your worst ten are spread across only three distinct root nodes, a bit repetitious, in contrast to sundialsvc4 below, more impressively spread across nine distinct nodes.
Worst Nodes of The Month
As of Aug 27, 2015 at 01:48 UTC, Next refresh in 20 hours and 30 mins ±15 min
Update: This shows how sundialsvc4 has improved in his worst nodes of the month performance in the past two years:
Worst Nodes of The Month
As of Aug 10, 2017 at 12:47 UTC, Next refresh in 15 hours ±15 min
| [reply] |
|
|
I'm pretty sure all 20 worst nodes of the year is going to prove out of reach, at least I've never seen it done
I've been proved wrong! This rare feat has finally been achieved.
It lasted only for a few days though, towards the end of March 2018 (one example shown below).
This is a mind-bogglingly difficult feat to pull off, so much so that only
one monk in the entire history of Perl Monks has been able to do it, and even then only for a few days.
Though BrowserUk tried for a little while, he lacked the persistence, the staying power, week after week, month after month,
year after year, to keep on relentlessly posting the utter rubbish required to pull it off.
Worst Nodes of The Week
As of Mar 27, 2018 at 23:44 UTC, Next refresh in 1 hour and 15 mins ±15 min
Worst Nodes of The Month
As of Mar 27, 2018 at 12:21 UTC, Next refresh in 9 hours and 45 mins ±15 min
Worst Nodes of The Year
As of Mar 27, 2018 at 12:21 UTC, Next refresh in 9 hours and 45 mins ±15 min
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [reply] |
No, -175 != 127. WAS: Re: -175 := +127 Thank you all!
by ww (Archbishop) on May 24, 2016 at 12:56 UTC
|
Uh, I don't think the implied cause&effect here is reasonable. What else have you written that (deservedly) got upvotes?
My spotcheck suggests the other writings may have had some small influence
++$anecdote ne $data
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Juvenal, Satires -->
| [reply]
[d/l] |
Re: -175 := +127 Thank you all!
by Anonymous Monk on May 24, 2016 at 13:17 UTC
|
Worst nodes page right now: BrowserUk, 15 entries; sundialsvc4, 13 entries. | [reply] |
|
|
Though 15 entries is admittedly a fine performance for worst nodes of the day, week and month, there is room for improvement in the "worst nodes of the year" category. In that category, sd4 is giving Buk quite a shellacking, leading him 13-0.
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
"Worst nodes...BrowserUk, 15 entries; sundialsvc4, 13 entries"
Which gives a false picture, you know ;-) And praise the lord that the latter is seemingly gone. Unfortunately there is no damnatio memoriae on PM. But feel free to down vote the nodes of the certain monk if you want to correct the picture ;-)
Update: Added link to clarify as well as minor corrections. Or are you back?
«The Crux of the Biscuit is the Apostrophe»
| [reply] |
Re: -175 := +127 Thank you all! (Updated!Now -152 := +144)
by chacham (Prior) on May 25, 2016 at 13:43 UTC
|
Another 24 hrs on.
A bold "in your face" update? I wish i could downvote the node again. But what good would that do anyway? Instead, i'll ask you to please post more of your perl specific nodes, and the karma shall balance itself.
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
Nothing; because the XP formula would probably discount it.
So, good or bad is only measured in XP loss or gain?
| [reply] |
|
|
Re: -175 := +127 Thank you all! (Updated!Now -152 := +144)
by wjw (Priest) on Sep 17, 2016 at 01:38 UTC
|
If there was a Saturday Night Live for Perl, this thread would make a for a skit that would have the audience in stitches.
What a hoot! LMAO..
...the majority is always wrong, and always the last to know about it...
A solution is nothing more than a clearly stated problem...
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
