Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.
-
Recently, a not only wrong but obviously dangerous answer on Stack Overflow has threatened to come back as the most upvoted answer: at the time of this writing, it stands at 538 upvotes, barely 12 from the top voted answer, and it is closing in.
I call on the Daily WTF community: this is an injustice we cannot allow to let stand.
Now, I am first required to make a case why I think the target answer is intrinsically flawed (even if I think others made better ones). The target answer is intrinsically flawed as anything can happen between the time the process "determines" the file is safe for opening, and the time the process actually gets around to opening it. Yet the target answer is fundamentally based on the assumption an
IsFileLocked(file)function can be provided that would realize such a determination. As a result, not only is that answer flawed in terms of both security and race conditions, but no amount of ethical editing can fix that answer.So I call on the power of the Daily WTF community to correct the situation; in the immortal words of xorsyst (quote edited to add link):
Right, everybody go to that question and upvote the actually correct answer, which is slightly further down. We can fix this!
-
@ZPedro said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
Stack Overflow
:theres-your-problem:
-
@ZPedro said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
obviously dangerous answer
Ooh, yeah, definitely don't want to get any C# on me.
-
EHhh...
Welcome [back] to TDWTF, by the way.
-
I don't have enough rep to do anything on StackOverflow, due to me only asking questions involving tags I don't have rep to use so I have to intentionally miscategorize them and then the mods get upset at me and close the question.
-
It looks like some people were upset that TDWTF came in en masse to help correct the situation in 2013.
If that was the reaction all the way back then, I can't imagine how it would go over in 2020.
-
I mean, what are you gonna do? At least 17 people read how its dangerous and then still say
"yeah, but I like this. I even keep it as an extension!"
-
@WhatYouSay said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
It looks like some people were upset that TDWTF came in en masse to help correct the situation in 2013.
If that was the reaction all the way back then, I can't imagine how it would go over in 2020.
Doing your best to get tdwtf over there I see.
-
@mott555 said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
intentionally miscategorize them
But do you have to categorize them at all?
... This shows that I never bothered asking a question on SO...
-
@mott555 said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
due to me only asking questions involving tags I don't have rep to use
What the hell, why is that even a thing?! Why would you need rep to correctly categorize your question?
-
@topspin said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
Why would you need rep to correctly categorize your question?
Also stupid: it costs rep to downboat an answer.
-
@WhatYouSay said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
I mean, what are you gonna do?
Easy. Not hire them!
-
@error said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
@topspin said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
Why would you need rep to correctly categorize your question?
Also stupid: it costs rep to downboat an answer.
Not so stupid really. The goal would be to put a gate in front of trolls going in and mass downvoting with no-rep accounts.
-
@error said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
@topspin said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
Why would you need rep to correctly categorize your question?
Also stupid: it costs rep to downboat an answer.
Yup, I just realized that. It's hilarious, but I see the point. The idea is that you restrict downvoting to only when it's really necessary, and otherwise comment or improve the answer (I guess some people can edit other's answers?), so people don't just go full Mason.
-
@WhatYouSay said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
ot so stupid really. The goal would be to put a gate in front of trolls going in and mass downvoting with no-rep accounts.
Oh, I have no problem with it requiring rep to downvote; but losing rep? It's not worth it.
-
@topspin said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
The idea is that you restrict downvoting to only when it's really necessary, and otherwise comment or improve the answer (I guess some people can edit other's answers?), so people don't just go full Mason.
That's probably their logic, but to take a rep hit an answer would have to have raped my mother (and then I'd probably just write a sternly-worded comment).
-
@error eh, it was just one point (and I don't have that many), so I did anyway. However, I didn't downvote the similarly wrong answer with the error code mess, because that one wasn't up top.
-
@topspin said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
@mott555 said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
due to me only asking questions involving tags I don't have rep to use
What the hell, why is that even a thing?! Why would you need rep to correctly categorize your question?
It's been a great many years since I've tried posting, but yeah it was one of the stupidest things I'd ever encountered. It was like you needed to gain rep to get access to more tags/categories, and you're totally f
ked if you're a newbie with a question that isn't about JavaScript.
-
@mott555 said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
you're totally fked if you're a newbie with a question that isn't about JavaScript.
Thankfully whatever the question, the answer is jquery.
-
@ZPedro said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
Recently
June 2009 is not recent.
This is a very weak troll.
-
@dcon said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
@WhatYouSay said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
I mean, what are you gonna do?
Easy. Not hire them!
Nah, this has the mark of HPC all over it. They'd get paid 4x$$$ to write that extension method and plant it like weeds in every part of every system.
-
@ZPedro said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
So I call on the power of the Daily WTF community to correct the situation; in the immortal words of xorsyst (quote edited to add link):
Right, everybody go to that question and upvote the actually correct answer, which is slightly further down. We can fix this!
As much as I'd like to help, that requires making an account, and
.Also, I'd like to think we've already done our duty to God and Country by driving Atwood off of here years ago.
-
@ZPedro said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
not only is that answer flawed in terms of both security and race conditions, but no amount of ethical editing can fix that answer
I can only think of one good fix for it: delete.
(I've voted up the right answer. I don't want to be part of mass organised downboating.)
-
@dkf said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
(I've voted up the right answer. I don't want to be part of mass organised downboating.)
Ain't gonna lose the precious internetpointzzz, eh?
-
@dkf said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
I can only think of one good fix for it: delete.
Trouble is that you need at least 3 delete votes, and they need to come within a certain timespan or they "time out". Or you would need to convince someone with epic amounts of Internet Pointzzz, maybe they have earned straight deletion rights...
-
@Gąska said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
@dkf said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
(I've voted up the right answer. I don't want to be part of mass organised downboating.)
Ain't gonna lose the precious internetpointzzz, eh?
No, I happen to know (from before I realised that SO Meta was just full of bullshit that I don't care about) that there's software in place to detect both mass upboats and downboats and that that tends to lead to accounts getting locked. It's part of trying to ensure that the place doesn't get crapped to pieces with botnets, which is a reasonable goal.
But I mostly prefer to upboat anyway. I guess I have a more positive outlook on life than some people?
-
@JBert said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
Trouble is that you need at least 3 delete votes, and they need to come within a certain timespan or they "time out". Or you would need to convince someone with epic amounts of Internet Pointzzz, maybe they have earned straight deletion rights...
Since it's been Accepted as The Answer and has (net) hundreds of upboats, it basically needs mod intervention to nuke if I remember right.
-
It's been edited 8 times since it was accepted as the best answer. The first edit was nearly 3 years later. The code, while it has the same problem, isn't even the same.
Why is this shit allowed?
-
Why would I want to improve that site?
-
@sockpuppet7 said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
Why would I want to improve that site?
Because at some point you will have to deal with the copy-pasta of someone who did the needful?
-
@error said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
@WhatYouSay said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
ot so stupid really. The goal would be to put a gate in front of trolls going in and mass downvoting with no-rep accounts.
Oh, I have no problem with it requiring rep to downvote; but losing rep? It's not worth it.
Designed by the repwhores who have plenty to burn.
-
@ZPedro said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
this is an injustice we cannot allow to let stand
YMBNH
-
@topspin said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
@sockpuppet7 said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
Why would I want to improve that site?
Because at some point you will have to deal with the copy-pasta of someone who did the needful?
Indeed. I can understand reluctance to support the project through participation (full disclosure: even if I myself am rather in support of the project). But I must offer this rebuttal: SO is too big to ignore, so even if I disapproved of it I would rather try and engage it to correct its more egregious issues.
@No_1 said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
@ZPedro said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
this is an injustice we cannot allow to let stand
YMBNH
I dunno, I remember a community of colorful characters, but united in their extremely low tolerance for bullshit (and frequently equipped with a SO account already).
Finally, I don't seem to remember much of a pushback back from the first intervention, quite the contrary, even in SO chat (except from the target answer author, but he has deleted his comment since then). And even if the SO community is unhappy about mass intervention, I will remind them SO still hasn't implemented any system to delete/hide/bury dangerous answers five years after they admitted they needed to do so.
-
@ZPedro said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
SO still hasn't implemented any system to delete/hide/bury dangerous answers five years after they admitted they needed to do so.
The
is mighty, I see…
-
@dkf That
isn't going to repaint itself, you know.Though tbh, it's a bit misleading to say that "they" admitted needing to do so just because of one random discussion on meta SO. That'd be kind of like saying one thread on TDWTF reflects the official position of TDWTF owners (or even moderators).
-
@remi said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
@dkf That
isn't going to repaint itself, you know.Though tbh, it's a bit misleading to say that "they" admitted needing to do so just because of one random discussion on meta SO. That'd be kind of like saying one thread on TDWTF reflects the official position of TDWTF owners (or even moderators).
All garage posts officially endorsed by @apapadimoulis!
-
@remi said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
@dkf That
isn't going to repaint itself, you know.Though tbh, it's a bit misleading to say that "they" admitted needing to do so just because of one random discussion on meta SO. That'd be kind of like saying one thread on TDWTF reflects the official position of TDWTF owners (or even moderators).
Bad example. Doesn't Alex agree with everything said here?
-
@jinpa said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
Doesn't Alex agree with everything said here?
Even :@levicki:?
-
@topspin said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
All garage posts officially endorsed by @apapadimoulis!
@apapadimoulis doesn't even endorse his own forum anymore
-
@loopback0 said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
@topspin said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
All garage posts officially endorsed by @apapadimoulis!
@apapadimoulis doesn't even endorse his own forum anymore
How could you do what you did to such nice boys like @___Wood and Sam? They were just trying to make the forum a
n infinite scrolling mess of unusable garbagebetter place!
-
All of this is a bit moot anyways. This whole forum is just @boomzilla arguing with himself.
-
@WhatYouSay said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
they were just trying to make the forum a
n infinite scrolling mess of unusable garbagebetter place!Yeah, but they were being cunts about it. The issue was more the how not the what.
-
@Zerosquare no I'm not
-
@loopback0 said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
The issue was more the how not the what.
The what was a pile of shit too, but in a fun (
) way.
-
@WhatYouSay said in Correcting Stack Overflow, one dangerous answer at a time.:
@Zerosquare no I'm not
In that case let's repeat the non-conformist oath all together now:
