The Official Status Thread

chubertdev

Current status: my body hates me

boomzilla

Sounds like you need to drink more beer.

chubertdev

Costco had a sale on 22s, so we bought a bunch yesterday. Only had one last night, though...

PJH

@PJH I actually wanted you to take a screenshot of the admin page for @ben_lubot that shows the "number of minutes read" thing.

Maciejasjmj

@blakeyrat said:

A year's pretty fucking quick to make a feature-length movie.

Eh, not really in case of a movie series. Think assembly line - the first movie goes to post-prod, the second is already being filmed, and the third has the script being written. I'd say a year is about right - possibly faster, but I guess there are business reasons not to release too often.

abarker

Yeah, they probably need to space them out so they can make sure to get the maximum amount of cash from the first before releasing the second. Also, by spreading them out some, if the first completely flops, they probably haven't fully committed to the rest of the series, and can still kill it.

blakeyrat

@Maciejasjmj said:

Eh, not really in case of a movie series.

Demonstrably this is false.

@Maciejasjmj said:

Think assembly line - the first movie goes to post-prod, the second is already being filmed, and the third has the script being written.

But you can't do it that way-- if you did, you need all the sets built at the same time for the entire duration of the 3-film deal, which is prohibitively expensive. Typically production companies maintain sets only while they scenes that are taking place on those sets are being filmed, then tear them down immediately afterward (heck! usually you don't even have enough physical space for all sets to exist simultaneously)-- under your plan, the sets can't be torn-down because movie 3's script isn't even final enough to know if they'll be needed or not.

The saving grace here would be virtual sets, do the Sin City or the Sky Captain thing and just decide right off-the-bat there will be no physical location shoots or sets. But now you're depending on your SFX department to do everything, and can they do it any quicker than a year-per-film? You can't just shove more warm bodies at SFX and get a decent result.

And that's not even considering stuff like, your actors are going to hate your guts if you're like, "work for 3 months, then take 4 off, then work another 3, then another 4 off", then work for 3." They'd much rather hear, "work for 9 months, then you're done forever with this production and can move on to another." Ditto that with writers, hell, even cameramen. Editors. Everybody. It's a huge PITA and people will hate you.

EDIT: BTW, did you know a huge expense for the movie 2010 was rebuilding all the sets, especially the super-complex Discovery interiors, that Kubrick had destroyed after 2001 was finished?

chubertdev

Current status: wondering why the jQuery wunder-devs thought it was a good idea to reference [0] without a size() check.

chubertdev

Current status: opening a new bug ticket for this, and very amazed that I'm not cussing throughout the ticket.

Maciejasjmj

@blakeyrat said:

But you can't do it that way-- if you did, you need all the sets built at the same time for the entire duration of the 3-film deal, which is prohibitively expensive. Typically production companies maintain sets only while they scenes that are taking place on those sets are being filmed, then tear them down immediately afterward (heck! usually you don't even have enough physical space for all sets to exist simultaneously)-- under your plan, the sets can't be torn-down because movie 3's script isn't even final enough to know if they'll be needed or not.

Okay, so maybe not precisely assembly line (though you can probably have a rough idea which sets you're gonna need by reading the drafts, or even the book you're adapting). But you can still multitask on all three (or four, since it's trendy now to do a trilogy with the last part broken down) movies, so it majorly cuts down the time between releases.

@blakeyrat said:

You can't just shove more warm bodies at SFX and get a decent result.

I'd argue it's a fairly well divisible work - the man-month is still as mythical as ever, but well-coordinated warm bodies don't make it any worse.

@blakeyrat said:

And that's not even considering stuff like, your actors are going to hate your guts if you're like, "work for 3 months, then take 4 off, then work another 3, then another 4 off", then work for 3." They'd much rather hear, "work for 9 months, then you're done forever with this production and can move on to another."

Yep, exactly what I'm saying - you finish scenes for one movie, you start shooting another right off the bat, instead of waiting for it to get through post-prod, theatrical release, DVD release, set construction, et al.

@blakeyrat said:

EDIT: BTW, did you know a huge expense for the movie 2010 was rebuilding all the sets, especially the super-complex Discovery interiors, that Kubrick had destroyed after 2001 was finished?

Wasn't it, like, 16 years later that 2010 was made? There wasn't even a sequel written for the next 14. Yep, I don't think housing the sets for 14 years in hopes that maybe someday Arthur C. Clarke decides to write another book would be a good idea (and it was way before the time that every good movie got 10 sequels).

FrostCat

@faoileag said:

The moment is approaching fast that all that is left to do there is on my todo list.

It's cute that you think that.

FrostCat

@abarker said:

Yeah, they probably need to space them out so they can make sure to get the maximum amount of cash from the first before releasing the second. Also, by spreading them out some, if the first completely flops, they probably haven't fully committed to the rest of the series, and can still kill it.

I suspect these are the real reasons.

HardwareGeek

Status: Not paying attention to which topic I'm reading, and clicking "like" out of habit, then wondering which is worse, being on record as liking a post I didn't really like, or feeling like a heel for undoing the like after the author got notified that I liked its post.

faoileag

@chubertdev said:

Current status: wondering why the jQuery wunder-devs thought it was a good idea to reference [0] without a size() check.

I wonder if this might be a result of jQuery's idea of the "collection object" and that you can call methods on an empty list:

var foo = $('.noelementwiththisclass');
var len1 = foo.length; // == 0
var subset = foo.filter('.anotherclass');
var len2 = subset.length; // == 0

So you don't need boundary checks on collections of jQuery objects, but since you don't need them there, you might also forget about them when dealing with "real" arrays.

HardwareGeek

@Maciejasjmj said:

exactly what I'm saying - you finish scenes for one movie, you start shooting another right off the bat,

But that's pretty much what Blakey already wrote:

@blakeyrat said:

movie series where they do principal photography all at the same time

Post-production still takes on the order of a year per film.

chubertdev

Yeah, I understand that. The original developer didn't.

$chk = $multiselect.find("input:checkbox[value='" + assignedarry[i] + "']");
$chk[0].click();

faoileag

@FrostCat said:

It's cute that you think that.

No, it's actually the moment I dread, because then I can't use the excuse "the builders have yet to do <insert_suitable_work_item>" any more.

And "I CBA doing the tiling this weekend, spent it on the beach instead" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

faoileag

@chubertdev said:

Yeah, I understand that. The original developer didn't.

$chk = $multiselect.find("input:checkbox[value='" + assignedarry[i] + "']");
$chk[0].click();
```</blockquote>
Ooops. That's... novel. And he did even use the $ notation to mark jQuery objects...

blakeyrat

@HardwareGeek said:

But that's pretty much what Blakey already wrote:

No it's worse. I was talking about cases where the scripts were finished before principal begins. Maciejasjmj's saying you start filming before the script for the third one is even finished. That's a complete non-starter.

blakeyrat

@Maciejasjmj said:

Wasn't it, like, 16 years later that 2010 was made? There wasn't even a sequel written for the next 14. Yep, I don't think housing the sets for 14 years in hopes that maybe someday Arthur C. Clarke decides to write another book would be a good idea (and it was way before the time that every good movie got 10 sequels).

Yes but they didn't rot away in storage, they were purposefully destroyed. By Kubrick's order.

FrostCat

@blakeyrat said:

No it's worse. I was talking about cases where the scripts were finished before principal begins. Maciejasjmj's saying you start filming before the script for the third one is even finished. That's a complete non-starter.

Well, to complete the circle, it depends. In the case of The Maze Runners, as far as I know all the books are already out. Ditto, say, the Hunger Games.

It'd be tough to do with, say, Wheel of Time or something.

blakeyrat

Books != screenplays.

Although I guess if you followed the book very closely it would solve the set problem I mentioned above...

HardwareGeek

@blakeyrat said:

if you followed the book very closely

Yeah, like any movie adaptations ever do that.

blakeyrat

Let me introduce you to the word "if".

HardwareGeek

@blakeyrat said:

Let me introduce you to the word "if".

See edit of my post. I was just commenting on the improbability of that happening.

FrostCat

@blakeyrat said:

Books != screenplays.

Although I guess if you followed the book very closely it would solve the set problem I mentioned above...

True, but I suspect it's a lot easier to adapt a book to a screenplay than to start from scratch.

Also, from what I can tell, the maze was only in book one, so there probably won't be any set reuse. Sorry if I spoiled anyone.

Spencer

Current status: at work, freshly cracked can of Mother, feeling a bit pissed off over something that happened last year (I'm planning on writing a post about, it's a work-related WTF)(edit: post is over here) and a colleague who requests information (for an issue, but what she's requesting is kinda irrelevant to the issue) only to have it bounce on her Out Of Office autoreply >_<

PJH

@aliceif said:

Looking forward to @PJH publishing the "who likes whom the most" ranking.

Status: Creating convoluted SQL queries.

[postgres@sofa ~]$ psql -c '
SELECT l.username Liker, count(*), r.username Liked
FROM post_actions pa
INNER JOIN users l ON l.id=pa.user_id
INNER JOIN posts p on p.id=pa.post_id
INNER JOIN users r on r.id=p.user_id
WHERE pa.post_action_type_id=2 AND
   p.topic_id NOT IN (1000)
GROUP BY Liker, Liked
ORDER BY count(*) DESC
LIMIT 25
'
    liker     | count |    liked     
--------------+-------+--------------
 Arantor      |   489 | Onyx
 Arantor      |   418 | chubertdev
 Arantor      |   390 | Matches
 antiquarian  |   357 | Arantor
 Arantor      |   356 | boomzilla
 Arantor      |   334 | faoileag
 Onyx         |   330 | Arantor
 DoctorJones  |   324 | boomzilla
 antiquarian  |   309 | boomzilla
 cartman82    |   294 | blakeyrat
 Arantor      |   284 | darkmatter
 Yamikuronue  |   278 | blakeyrat
 Arantor      |   271 | abarker
 Arantor      |   259 | PJH
 dkf          |   254 | boomzilla
 chubertdev   |   245 | Arantor
 DoctorJones  |   227 | PJH
 Arantor      |   226 | blakeyrat
 ben_lubar    |   222 | boomzilla
 Arantor      |   217 | ben_lubar
 Onyx         |   216 | boomzilla
 Arantor      |   211 | Keith
 HardwareGeek |   202 | Arantor
 Arantor      |   200 | HardwareGeek
 HardwareGeek |   192 | boomzilla
(25 rows)

[postgres@sofa ~]$ #Date of backup
[postgres@sofa ~]$ psql -c '
SELECT MAX(created_at)
FROM post_actions;
'
            max             
----------------------------
 2014-09-29 07:31:45.044283
(1 row)

accalia

why am i not surprised that @arantor shows up so much as a liker of posts?

chubertdev

I hope that @Arantor and @Onyx have beautiful children.

abarker

He is the liker in 12 of those relationships, and you have to go to relationship 8 to find one that doesn't include @arantor.

PJH

And since someone's going to ask...

[postgres@sofa ~]$ psql -c '
SELECT l.username Liker, count(*), r.username Liked
FROM post_actions pa
INNER JOIN users l ON l.id=pa.user_id
INNER JOIN posts p on p.id=pa.post_id
INNER JOIN users r on r.id=p.user_id
WHERE pa.post_action_type_id=2 AND
   p.topic_id IN (1000)
GROUP BY Liker, Liked
ORDER BY count(*) DESC
LIMIT 25
'


      liker      | count |   liked    
-----------------+-------+------------
 Spencer         |  3152 | faoileag
 ChaosTheEternal |  3148 | faoileag
 darkmatter      |  3148 | faoileag
 HardwareGeek    |  3147 | faoileag
 abarker         |  3146 | faoileag
 mott555         |  3145 | faoileag
 obeselymorbid   |  3103 | faoileag
 Luhmann         |  3021 | faoileag
 boomzilla       |  2989 | faoileag
 ChaosTheEternal |  2838 | abarker
 Spencer         |  2838 | abarker
 obeselymorbid   |  2837 | abarker
 HardwareGeek    |  2834 | abarker
 mott555         |  2821 | abarker
 darkmatter      |  2818 | abarker
 reverendryan    |  2773 | faoileag
 the_dragon      |  2694 | faoileag
 boomzilla       |  2678 | abarker
 Luhmann         |  2604 | abarker
 reverendryan    |  2574 | abarker
 the_dragon      |  2519 | abarker
 Spencer         |  2412 | darkmatter
 mott555         |  2411 | darkmatter
 ChaosTheEternal |  2408 | darkmatter
 obeselymorbid   |  2407 | darkmatter
(25 rows)

chubertdev

Hmm, it seems that @antiquarian likes @Arantor, but not the other way around.

abarker

@PJH said:

HardwareGeek | 202 | Arantor
Arantor | 200 | HardwareGeek

Looks like a fairly balanced relationship.

chubertdev

Trying to remember the name for this anti-pattern:

DataSet ds = new DataSet();
ds = classInstance.getData();

accalia

@chubertdev said:

Trying to remember the name for this anti-pattern:

DataSet ds = new DataSet();
ds = classInstance.getData();

DataSet ds = new DataSet();nce.getData();

... wait... WTF? is that a horrible attempt at singleton?

i tried doing a ftfy and failed bnecause WTF...

blakeyrat

Why is that an anti-pattern? Because you run an unnecessary constructor?

chubertdev

Yes. That's how things are done at my company:

Dim DC As New ClassName
Dim DS As New DataSet
DS = DC.GetResults()
DC.Dispose()
DC = Nothing

As opposed to my code:

Using DS As DataSet = (New ClassName).GetResults()

chubertdev

If selComment.SelectedItem.Text <> "Select a Section Type" Then LoadComments()

The best part is that the default option says -- Select Comment --

blakeyrat

Ok you have much bigger WTFs in that code than the one you described as an anti-pattern.

chubertdev

The entire app is easily a huge WTF, although pretty much our entire codebase is. I've already made the front page with it.

Spencer

[code] liker | count | liked
-----------+-------+------------
Spencer | 3152 | faoileag[/code]

Not sure if this means I've adhered most to liking every post in the Likes thread, or just simply shows that me coming on after everyone has posted means I'm the only one that's had the chance to catch up.

Also, wow. Even inside [code] tags, the parser drops leading whitespace.

HardwareGeek

I noticed that. I find it a little disturbing.

abarker

Since this is based on data from a backup, probably the latter. I don't really do much here during my evenings.

abarker

@HardwareGeek said:

I noticed that. I find it a little disturbing.

You afraid to let your love be known?

HardwareGeek

It's not surprising that the most liked posters in that thread are the most active posters. I wonder which of their posts I missed liking.

Arantor

@accalia said:

why am i not surprised that @arantor shows up so much as a liker of posts?

Because I'm a lover not a fighter?

PJH

I'm not even going to start on that query... (well, small white lie - I started and gave up.)

accalia

@Arantor said:

Because I'm a lover not a fighter?

I'm a lover and a fighter, and what I love I gladly fight for.

(i've had this album on repeat on Google Play for a while now)

HardwareGeek

I wasn't asking. If I cared enough, I'd use one of the like scripts to go through and find the missing ones.