http://qs321.pair.com?node_id=1163933

This node falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
  • Comment on -175 := +127 Thank you all! (Updated!Now -152 := +144)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
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]
[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
[reply]

      Sorry, would you mind sharing the regex used to collect this?

      No joke intended.

[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]
        I downvoted this node.
[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 (Archbishop) on May 25, 2016 at 19:49 UTC
[reply]
[reply]
        >  only one monk in the entire history of Perl Monks has been able to do it, and even then only for a few days

        I'm pretty sure that's neither the first nor longest time he did it.

        Unfortunately the educating effect on others hiding behind him gets lost.

        Cheers Rolf
        (addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)
        Wikisyntax for the Monastery

[reply]
        Though BrowserUk tried for a little while, he lacked the persistence, the staying power

        Oh! A challenge. I likes a challenge me.

        With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". The enemy of (IT) success is complexity.
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Suck that fhit
[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]

        Victory Conditions! ;-)

[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]
      I wish i could downvote the node again. But what good would that do anyway?

      Nothing; because the XP formula would probably discount it. (And that's my point!)

      With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I knew I was on the right track :)
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[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...

    wjw
[reply]
      What a hoot!

      I totally agree, though I suspect, for different reasons. But what would really be amusing would be your motivation in resurrecting such a pointless thread.

      With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
      Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
      "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I knew I was on the right track :)
      In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]
        "But what would really be amusing would be your motivation in resurrecting such a pointless thread."

        Wot ur motivations to start it?

[reply]

Back to Meditations