The Official Status Thread
-
@jaloopa
If you want a second set of eyes on it, feel free to DM me a lightly anonymized version.
-
@weng said in The Official Status Thread:
So I ordered replacements.
Guess what showed up today?
A GIANT PILE OF PACKAGES!
Both the replacements, for which I have already been refunded, and the originals.I had this happen at Christmas. Sorta.
I ordered a 300 quid coffee machine and 3 quid filter.
The machine arrived and the filter did not.
As it was a gift I got a bit shirty and Amazon sent out a replacement on next day delivery with apologies. The new package arrived with the original filter which had obviously been un-lost by the carrier.
Except what Amazon had re-shipped was another 300 quid coffee machine, not a 3 quid filter.
It was a bit of a pain in the bum to send it back. But it's nice Amazon trusts customers enough that you can get a reshipping of a 3 quid item as easily as a 300 quid item. It's nice that you can get them on the phone too, unlike PayPal.
-
@cartman82 said in The Official Status Thread:
STATUS:
Got a job candidate with a bunch of porn sites in resume.
Colleagues are wondering why I have porn on screen during work (instead of after hours, as usual).
IT'S RESEARCH, OK!?No time for testing, said Boss.
Just added him to a dumpster fire project with the code leaker guy and another contractor. YOLO.
-
status: Dangit our new stove has suffered the IoT worm, hasn't it?
-
Status: Confused
99% of these folders is one big folder, yet Windows stops being able to copy it fast-like after a bit (two different machines in the screenshots).
-
@tsaukpaetra said in The Official Status Thread:
@dcon said in The Official Status Thread:
Representative line of code I was reviewing...
for (int i = 0; i < (int)array.size(); i ++) { if (somecomplexcondition) doSomething(); array[i] += DoSomethingElse(); }Yes. All one line. Stop it. Just stop it. And met with resistance when I point out that's not our coding style.
/me walks away slowly.
No I did not literally just do something not too dissimilar with a in-query Linq query...For the curious:
//Get their current character aCHAR_Characters character = usr.CHAR_Characters .Where(x=>x.Name == usr.CharacterName) .Select( x => new aCHAR_Characters() { //...snip CHAR_HeadsOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 0).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList(), CHAR_TorsosOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 1).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList(), CHAR_LHandsOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 2).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList(), CHAR_RHandsOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 3).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList(), CHAR_ULegsOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 4).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList(), CHAR_LLegsOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 5).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList(), CHAR_FeetOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 6).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList() }).FirstOrDefault();This because I merged seven tables that were nearly identical (with exception to the name) with a single one.
I'm really curious to know if the resultant query is any more performant...
-
@raceprouk said in The Official Status Thread:
Status: Found this very interesting:
Don't Take Security Advice from SEO Experts or Psychics
As best I understand it, one of the most effective SEO things you can do is to repeat all the important words on your site down the bottom of the page. To save it from looking weird, you make the text the same colour as the background so people can't
And to anyone who's taking security advice from people who aren't security experts, I have a
I'd like you to meet... 
I dunno why Google is pushing https so hard, but I don't believe it's just for users's security.
-
@wharrgarbl Because they control
refererdata that way.Well, there's probably more to it than that. But it does mean if you want
refererdata from Google searches, you gotta fucking talk to Google-- you can't just grab the search terms from the headers like you used to be able to.
-
ESLint:
Severity Code Description Project File Line Suppression State
Warning no-extra-parens (ESLint) Gratuitous parentheses around expression. Miscellaneous Files xxx.js 382Code:
result = (offset.left <= cursorX) && (offset.left + element.offsetWidth > cursorX) && (offset.top <= cursorY) && (offset.top + element.offsetHeight > cursorY);Srsly ESLint? Fuck your suggestion.
-
@tsaukpaetra said in The Official Status Thread:
99% of these folders is one big folder, yet Windows stops being able to copy it fast-like after a bit (two different machines in the screenshots).
Each file has quite a bit of fixed overhead in copying, so the cost really ought to include some extra time/cost for each file. (I think it's for stuff like synching metadata, virus-scanning the header of each file, etc.) Instead, it just uses the aggregate sizes, and that's wrong as a directory that contains a lot of small files (annoyingly common on Windows IME) ends up being claimed to be far cheaper than it really is. Stupidity and lies.
I think it's something that doesn't show up so much in their testing environments, as I suspect those work with either lots of small files or some large files, but with largely balanced sizes in both cases, making the time/cost calculations using file sizes appear correct.
-
@blakeyrat said in The Official Status Thread:
@wharrgarbl Because they control
refererdata that way.Well, there's probably more to it than that. But it does mean if you want
refererdata from Google searches, you gotta fucking talk to Google-- you can't just grab the search terms from the headers like you used to be able to.I'm not convinced that makes sense. HTTPS just locks down the communications channel that the HTTP traffic is going over; the server will still get headers that they expected. Other random servers won't get anything, but shouldn't have been doing so anyway. Perhaps there's some subtlety I'm missing; it's Friday evening and I feel a bit hard-of-thinking right now.
No, it smells more to me like someone at Google has a bee in their bonnet over this, and has managed to convince quite a few of his colleagues. That sort of thing happens.
-
@dkf said in The Official Status Thread:
I'm not convinced that makes sense. HTTPS just locks down the communications channel that the HTTP traffic is going over; the server will still get headers that they expected.
They won't get
referer. Try it. Unless something's changed very recently.
-
@blakeyrat said in The Official Status Thread:
They won't get referer. Try it. Unless something's changed very recently.
You might be right (given that it would be a cross-domain reference). I've never cared to try logging that stuff in my sites in the first place.
-
@dkf Google made their search HTTPS-default to strong-arm website owners into signing up for Google Analytics, because that's the only way to get search terms now.
Now the question is: why do they care if the REST of the internetz is HTTPS? I don't know.
-
@blakeyrat bonus points for the Referrer policy controls in Content Security Policy 1.1 where you can even restrict what referer might be sent...
-
Status: just saw this pic
How can something so simple be so accurate...
-
@tsaukpaetra said in The Official Status Thread:
status: Dangit our new stove has suffered the IoT worm, hasn't it?
Connect a device to the internet that can output 5KW of heat and can heat up to 900F that is usually enclosed in a wooden cabinet to be controlled by anyone who figures out your slipshod protocols. What could possibly go wrong?
-
@dkf said in The Official Status Thread:
@tsaukpaetra said in The Official Status Thread:
99% of these folders is one big folder, yet Windows stops being able to copy it fast-like after a bit (two different machines in the screenshots).
Each file has quite a bit of fixed overhead in copying, so the cost really ought to include some extra time/cost for each file. (I think it's for stuff like synching metadata, virus-scanning the header of each file, etc.) Instead, it just uses the aggregate sizes, and that's wrong as a directory that contains a lot of small files (annoyingly common on Windows IME) ends up being claimed to be far cheaper than it really is. Stupidity and lies.
I think it's something that doesn't show up so much in their testing environments, as I suspect those work with either lots of small files or some large files, but with largely balanced sizes in both cases, making the time/cost calculations using file sizes appear correct.
Well what's happening is there's about 50 mb worth of about 178-ish files, those transfer ok, and then it gets to the big one it goes fine until suddenly slowing down for no apparent reason. I did the same test just transferring the big file alone later.
-
"This thing will burn your house down if you leave it on while you're not looking."
"We'd better make a remote on/off switch for it so you can stop that from happening!"
"Wait, an on switch?"
[scene missing]
@tsaukpaetra said in The Official Status Thread:
status: Dangit our new stove has suffered the IoT worm, hasn't it?
-
@tsaukpaetra said in The Official Status Thread:
@tsaukpaetra said in The Official Status Thread:
@dcon said in The Official Status Thread:
Representative line of code I was reviewing...
for (int i = 0; i < (int)array.size(); i ++) { if (somecomplexcondition) doSomething(); array[i] += DoSomethingElse(); }Yes. All one line. Stop it. Just stop it. And met with resistance when I point out that's not our coding style.
/me walks away slowly.
No I did not literally just do something not too dissimilar with a in-query Linq query...For the curious:
//Get their current character aCHAR_Characters character = usr.CHAR_Characters .Where(x=>x.Name == usr.CharacterName) .Select( x => new aCHAR_Characters() { //...snip CHAR_HeadsOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 0).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList(), CHAR_TorsosOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 1).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList(), CHAR_LHandsOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 2).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList(), CHAR_RHandsOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 3).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList(), CHAR_ULegsOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 4).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList(), CHAR_LLegsOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 5).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList(), CHAR_FeetOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 6).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList() }).FirstOrDefault();This because I merged seven tables that were nearly identical (with exception to the name) with a single one.
I'm really curious to know if the resultant query is any more performant...
arm_ok?
-
@blakeyrat said in The Official Status Thread:
@wharrgarbl Because they control
refererdata that way.Well, there's probably more to it than that. But it does mean if you want
refererdata from Google searches, you gotta fucking talk to Google-- you can't just grab the search terms from the headers like you used to be able to.If Google wanted to hide search terms that people used, they could just put the search parameters after
#in the URL. That part of the URL isn't included in thereferer.
-
-
Status: Why did my brain have to shut down so damn early on Friday? There were interesting discussions here, but I could only think of how tired I was. I don't even have the excuse of it being chemically-induced: I was stone-cold sober.
Now it is Saturday and I woke at an ungodly hour. Bleah…
-
@ben_lubar said in The Official Status Thread:
@tsaukpaetra said in The Official Status Thread:
@tsaukpaetra said in The Official Status Thread:
@dcon said in The Official Status Thread:
Representative line of code I was reviewing...
for (int i = 0; i < (int)array.size(); i ++) { if (somecomplexcondition) doSomething(); array[i] += DoSomethingElse(); }Yes. All one line. Stop it. Just stop it. And met with resistance when I point out that's not our coding style.
/me walks away slowly.
No I did not literally just do something not too dissimilar with a in-query Linq query...For the curious:
//Get their current character aCHAR_Characters character = usr.CHAR_Characters .Where(x=>x.Name == usr.CharacterName) .Select( x => new aCHAR_Characters() { //...snip CHAR_HeadsOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 0).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList(), CHAR_TorsosOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 1).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList(), CHAR_LHandsOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 2).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList(), CHAR_RHandsOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 3).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList(), CHAR_ULegsOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 4).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList(), CHAR_LLegsOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 5).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList(), CHAR_FeetOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 6).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList() }).FirstOrDefault();This because I merged seven tables that were nearly identical (with exception to the name) with a single one.
I'm really curious to know if the resultant query is any more performant...
arm_ok?
I have no idea?
-
@tsaukpaetra said in The Official Status Thread:
@ben_lubar said in The Official Status Thread:
@tsaukpaetra said in The Official Status Thread:
@tsaukpaetra said in The Official Status Thread:
@dcon said in The Official Status Thread:
Representative line of code I was reviewing...
for (int i = 0; i < (int)array.size(); i ++) { if (somecomplexcondition) doSomething(); array[i] += DoSomethingElse(); }Yes. All one line. Stop it. Just stop it. And met with resistance when I point out that's not our coding style.
/me walks away slowly.
No I did not literally just do something not too dissimilar with a in-query Linq query...For the curious:
//Get their current character aCHAR_Characters character = usr.CHAR_Characters .Where(x=>x.Name == usr.CharacterName) .Select( x => new aCHAR_Characters() { //...snip CHAR_HeadsOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 0).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList(), CHAR_TorsosOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 1).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList(), CHAR_LHandsOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 2).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList(), CHAR_RHandsOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 3).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList(), CHAR_ULegsOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 4).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList(), CHAR_LLegsOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 5).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList(), CHAR_FeetOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 6).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList() }).FirstOrDefault();This because I merged seven tables that were nearly identical (with exception to the name) with a single one.
I'm really curious to know if the resultant query is any more performant...
arm_ok?
I have no idea?
-
@ben_lubar said in The Official Status Thread:
@tsaukpaetra said in The Official Status Thread:
@ben_lubar said in The Official Status Thread:
@tsaukpaetra said in The Official Status Thread:
@tsaukpaetra said in The Official Status Thread:
@dcon said in The Official Status Thread:
Representative line of code I was reviewing...
for (int i = 0; i < (int)array.size(); i ++) { if (somecomplexcondition) doSomething(); array[i] += DoSomethingElse(); }Yes. All one line. Stop it. Just stop it. And met with resistance when I point out that's not our coding style.
/me walks away slowly.
No I did not literally just do something not too dissimilar with a in-query Linq query...For the curious:
//Get their current character aCHAR_Characters character = usr.CHAR_Characters .Where(x=>x.Name == usr.CharacterName) .Select( x => new aCHAR_Characters() { //...snip CHAR_HeadsOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 0).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList(), CHAR_TorsosOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 1).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList(), CHAR_LHandsOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 2).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList(), CHAR_RHandsOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 3).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList(), CHAR_ULegsOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 4).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList(), CHAR_LLegsOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 5).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList(), CHAR_FeetOwned = db.CHAR_Parts.Where(k => k.PartType == 6).Join(x.CHAR_PartsOwned, pp => pp.Id, po => po.PartID, (pp, po) => po).ToList() }).FirstOrDefault();This because I merged seven tables that were nearly identical (with exception to the name) with a single one.
I'm really curious to know if the resultant query is any more performant...
arm_ok?
I have no idea?
Now was that so hard?
Quote in context:
named after "arm_ok", a variable that counts the number of arms you have left, for inventory purposes.
-
My daughter tried surströmming yesternight:
A thousand trolls just farted in my mouth!
-
Status: Currently trying to figure out how to cash a US check in Germany. Because apparently, a wire transfer to my US bank account is too complicated.
Can you please join the 21st century, guys?
-
Status: listening to music through cheap bluetooth headphones with annoying voice messages
DISCONNECTEDCONNECTED
-
Status: FFS Excel...
-
Something is horribly wrong. I can refresh this website, but no other sites seem to load.
EDIT: It says my DNS server isn't responding. Also, my CSS here seems to have defaulted.
-
@tsaukpaetra said in The Official Status Thread:
Status: FFS Excel...
I've had that before - if I remember, it's usually when I try to open a non-xls* file directly. Importing worked. But dbl-clicking didn't.
-
@dcon said in The Official Status Thread:
@tsaukpaetra said in The Official Status Thread:
Status: FFS Excel...
I've had that before - if I remember, it's usually when I try to open a non-xls* file directly. Importing worked. But dbl-clicking didn't.
Yes, it's a CSV file where the first column is called "ID". Because that's obviously one of the best ways to detect SYLK files after all.
I guess it serves me right, using a 16-year-old program...
-
Status: Today I bought a collection of Transformers off of some guy on Craigslist who needed money. After I had paid him I mentioned how our oldest would be super excited as he loves Transformers. When he realized I was buying them for an almost 6 year old you could see the look of horror on his face. Like the Simpsons, you could pinpoint the moment his heart broke.
-
Status:
Opened up a VM last night I hadn't touched in ...well, a while.
It's gonna be some time before it's useful.
Also, Windows 10 looked a lot worse when it was fresh.
-
@dreikin said in The Official Status Thread:
useful
Because version numbers like that are so consumer friendly....
"OMG I'm 4,823 versions behind
! I'm so at risk I'd better just unplug my computer from the interwebs!"
-
Status: To be fair, I think I've managed to sell only four of my ~15 books I put up there anyways, so no skin off my back.
Lemme see...
.... WTF did they do to the login page?!?!
Anyways...
It all seems fine to me.
Status: Wondering if I should just donate these books now....
Edit: half.com is shutting down anyways apparently, so why bother?
Electronics, Cars, Fashion, Collectibles & More | eBay
Buy & sell electronics, cars, clothes, collectibles & more on eBay, the world's online marketplace. Top brands, low prices & free shipping on many items.
-
@polygeekery said in The Official Status Thread:
Status: Today I bought a collection of Transformers off of some guy on Craigslist who needed money. After I had paid him I mentioned how our oldest would be super excited as he loves Transformers. When he realized I was buying them for an almost 6 year old you could see the look of horror on his face. Like the Simpsons, you could pinpoint the moment his heart broke.
-
@polygeekery said in The Official Status Thread:
Status: Today I bought a collection of Transformers off of some guy on Craigslist who needed money. After I had paid him I mentioned how our oldest would be super excited as he loves Transformers. When he realized I was buying them for an almost 6 year old you could see the look of horror on his face. Like the Simpsons, you could pinpoint the moment his heart broke.
Please tell me you took one out of its original packaging in front of him
-
Status: Tops of the list of things you don't want to hear a pilot say when you are in the air is, "Shit, goddamnit, fucking hell".
Thankfully it was just batteries for his headset. :)
-
-
Status: Apparently, Window's idea for getting me six hours of battery life is to limit the CPU to less than 800 MHz...
Fake edit: It revised its estimate just when I took the screenshot, before it claimed over six hours remaining.
-
@tsaukpaetra said in The Official Status Thread:
less than 800 MHz...
Surprisingly enough, the forum is still mostly usable at that speed...
I'm even watching a YouTube video while browsing!
-
@tsaukpaetra That's not surprising: even with the JS-heavy websites of today, a modern CPU can still handle it while throttled down.
-
Status: Apparently the "Just the past hour" setting doesn't apply to Cookies, and will just wipe them all regardless...
GG, Chrome...
-
@tsaukpaetra said in The Official Status Thread:
over six hours remaining.
Status: Imma do some maths:
Nah, no maths, lets just estimate from a chart:
So just over 3.75 hours-ish should my PC die. We'll see...
-
@tsaukpaetra said in The Official Status Thread:
So just over 3.75 hours-ish should my PC die. We'll see...
Close! But I'm not going to wait for an "emergency" shutdown to see if it actually lasts another 18 minutes...
-
Departing in this car for a 3000 mile road trip Tuesday morning. This is suboptimal.
-
@weng said in The Official Status Thread:
Departing in this car for a 3000 mile road trip Tuesday morning. This is suboptimal.
I don't immediately intuitively know what's wrong, so.... Good luck fixing it?
-
@tsaukpaetra the muffler has fallen off.
