🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD
-
about 40 days then for me. then about 80 days to 2^13 and so on...
-
My point is, it would be far less if we knew how far we had to go.
-
but if we spammed we'd either get temp banned, perma banned or @pjh would drop that magic UUID in some more threads
and i don't want any of those things to happen!
-
I, for one, would not be that obvious.
-
are you sure? it's hard to hide markov chains, or the fact that you are making a post a minute through the whole day without sleeping.... ;-P
-
-
I use Monster to game the system, not bots.
-
or a proper elisa bot.
i'd make one of those, but @cleverbot, is a much better eliza than i could create.
-
Giving Discourse an unexpected value.
https://meta.discourse.org/t/overflowed-admin-setting/21793/5?u=riking
it throws a 500 error
Clearly, the admin section has NOT been fuzztested in the slightest...
(p.s. i recommend reading the thread)
[quote=Jeff]
Let us know which setting it was so we can add protection for this!...
https://meta-discourse.global.ssl.fastly.net/uploads/default/36222/50121bdd72244453.gif
[/quote]
-
Clearly, the admin section has NOT been fuzztested in the slightest...
Why would you bother? The only people who should get to make changes there in the first place are people who should have an interest in not breaking things. Admins are deliberately given the power to break things precisely so they can unbreak things
-
so they can unbreak things
Except that here, bad settings broke the admin interface itself, which make a bit difficult to unbreak it.
-
Why would you bother? The only people who should get to make changes there in the first place are people who should have an interest in not breaking things. Admins are deliberately given the power to break things precisely so they can unbreak things
Which assumes that it's really an admin logged in as an admin. Not someone who took advantage of a system account backdoor. Or some other vulnerability. Or social engineering. Or fat fingering. If the site does stupid stuff based on what the admin put in, then fine. But this actually broke the admin stuff based on a value that the interface accepted.
Let's also point out that this is something that should be easy to automate testing for (as opposed to some CSS weirdness that makes some widget unclickable or invisible or whatever).
-
Filed under: Mmmmm pepper
-
A wild Use Case appeared!
Use Case has the Ability Unexpected! CodingHorror is now confused!
CodingHorror is confused. It hurt itself in its confusion.
Use Case used Integer Overflow! It's Super-Effective!
CodingHorror has fainted!
Use next coder? [Y/N]
-
Use Case has the Ability Unexpected! CodingHorror is now confused!
If you read the thread, I'm not sure he's actually wrong here. Bug reporter wanted to have only one thread TL1s could reply on, so they could request whitelisting. I'm going to guess he wanted only TL2s to be able to post, and he'd manually upgrade people to TL2 after they replied to that post. So he tried to abuse the criteria from TL1->TL2 promotion so that it would never happen naturally.
Why not just not let people post at all?
-
Yeah, but it's clearly an unexpected use case: You want people to be able to request whitelisting on a thread that anyone can post on, but not be able to post anywhere outside that thread. The OP mentioned wanting to use groups for this but not being able to. There could be features to support that, but because it's not a typical use case, there isn't a developer-sanctioned way to do it yet. Those kinds of things bite every project in the ass from time to time.
But I thought it'd be funny to write it up as a pokemon battle given the Pokemon gif in the thread :)
-
Oh, absolutely.
When I read the thread here I thought at first someone else was kabooming over Jeff suggetsing he only wanted to fuzz protect the settings the OP had broken. Then I read the thread there and what the user wants is kind of a WTF. But that doesn't mean having the interface be broken is good, either, so Jeff's "tell us what you broke so we can fix it" sounds kaboom-worthy.
-
When I read the thread here I thought at first someone else was kabooming over Jeff suggetsing he only wanted to fuzz protect the settings the OP had broken
Ditto. Reality disappointed.
-
Couldn't he make the other categories TL4 only and manually promote people? No sode effects apart from everyone being effectively a moderator
-
Clearly, the admin section has NOT been fuzztested in the slightest...
They don't do any testing. Why would you even be surprised by this?
BTW you used to be connected to that project somehow, right? Are you still, or are you posting here as a now-disgruntled third-party?
-
-
It's slight hyperbole.
The point is there's about 20,000 more basic kinds of testing that they obviously don't do (such at regression testing) that most companies have pretty well mastered before they move on to something like fuzz testing.
-
Couldn't he make the other categories TL4 only and manually promote people? No sode effects apart from everyone being effectively a moderator
Yeah, give everyone the power to edit everyone else's posts. That'll go over great. </sarcasm>
Edit: make psuedo-HTML tag visible.
-
The bad ideas thread is...
Oh, here. That worked out well then
-
If you read the thread, I'm not sure he's actually wrong here. Bug reporter wanted to have only one thread TL1s could reply on, so they could request whitelisting. I'm going to guess he wanted only TL2s to be able to post, and he'd manually upgrade people to TL2 after they replied to that post. So he tried to abuse the criteria from TL1->TL2 promotion so that it would never happen naturally.
Why not just not let people post at all?
Or -- here's a feature request that could actually happen:
When people sign up on a site that requires approval, let them leave a message.
That actually has a quite reasonable chance of being implemented.
-
They don't do any testing.
They did a small amount of testing.
Filed under: Step 1: install at TDWTF!
-
Bug reporter wanted to have only one thread TL1s could reply on, so they could request whitelisting.
Edit: Scratch that - TL2's TL1 attribute still overrides the TL2 criteria there..
-
Pretty sure you're upside-down with what the request was, anyway (at least as I read it over on meta.d...)
They want to be able to lock the whole forum down to TL1+, and then more or less prevent auto-upgrade to TL1, and have one thread where anyone can post (the "request activation" thread).
-
They want to be able to lock the whole forum down to TL1+, and then more or less prevent auto-upgrade to TL1, and have one thread where anyone can post (the "request activation" thread).
Too much solution in your requirements, rejected.
Requirement:
As an admin
I want to stop new users from posting until they have been vetted
So that I can keep undesirables out.As a new user
I want to be able to request access
so that I can join the community.The task at hand is to reconcile those two user stories using Discourse.
-
The obvious solution is to have two separate Discourse installs. One where users may register and request access to the second one.
-
Hey, don't go pinning the requirements on me. I just TL;DR'd the meta.d thread. Maybe. Assuming I could understand the OP's Engrish correctly.
-
user stories
That sounds too much like a reasonable project management technique. Rejected.
-
Actually possible, with
multisite.yml
.(Note: That's what you get if you sign up for "Buisnessey" at https://payments.discourse.org/buy/.)
Quick explanation:
- $99 one-time install: Basically, you get them to do what @apapadimoulis did when he set up TDWTF, except with a script. (Note: You can do this yourself. The option is there for those who feel the need to spend money.)
- Businessey: Hosted on
virtual_host
using multisite. Any site that CNAMEs tohosted-vh#.discouse.org
has this. - Enterprisey: You get your own Docker container on the DC servers. This is what talk.turtlerockstudios.com (EVOLVE) has. They have a CNAME to
hosted-02.discourse.org
(note the lack ofvh
).
Fun fact: Turtle rock had a massive view count during the Big Alpha release. They were getting around 8-10 posts per minute, as measured by watching the homepage.
-
Note: That's what you get if you sign up for "Buisnessey"
I was really hoping that you spelled that that way on purpose because they did accidentally.
Did you answer the question about whether or not you were previously involved with them?
-
I was really hoping that you spelled that that way on purpose because they did accidentally.
Nope, they do it on purpose. (All the time. It may be a jeff-ism.)
Did you answer the question about whether or not you were previously involved with them?
I was paid for work, and I still make occasional contributions. I'm active and an admin on Meta. I have access to information I consider confidential through the Slack chat, e.g. the one-time customer setup details. So yes, I would consider myself still involved, but with some degree of independence.
-
What the fuck is that thing peeing on the magikarp?
-
What the fuck is that thing peeing on the magikarp?
-
What's that? Some kind of French pokemon?
-
The option is there for those who feel the need to spend money.
Maybe we're weird, but the one reason the company I work for prefers paying for software over using free-as-in-beer open-source options is that they want a support contract. According to that page, they only could get that if they pay the ridiculously huge fee. Pretty sure even the guys who evaluate software for the company would write that off as a scam.
-
Hey, the more reasons to reject Discourse, the better.
-
A cartridge of old terrible game that was dug out of a landfill, it has 15 bids currently (with top being $510).
-
A cartridge of old terrible game that was dug out of a landfill, it has 15 bids currently (with top being $510).
Well, it's a piece of history. It's as if you tried to buy "that piece of crap that takes half a basement and can't even run Minecraft" from the Babbage exposition in Science museum.
-
Fair enough. Just seems like a lot to pay for a minor bit of history.
-
Well, it's a piece of history. It's as if you tried to buy "that piece of crap that takes half a basement and can't even run Minecraft" from the Babbage exposition in Science museum.
With how many there are, and the lack of prestige, I think the point is that it's probably not worth more than $100, regardless of the story.
-
-
That looks like some kind of portable urine drug testing stand.
-
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.
-
A man has been barred from entering a park because of a policy banning single men or women without children from visiting the attraction in case they are paedophiles.
Matthew Richards travelled 25 miles to see a falconry display at Puxton Park, near Weston-super-Mare, but was unable to view the show because of the rule, which is enforced supposedly to protect children.http://www.puxton.co.uk/Home-Page/Prices
Prices from 1st September 2014 - 27th March 2015
Adults: £4.70 (18+)
Children: £6.10 (3-17 years)
Children under 3 years of age: Free
Concessions: £3.70
Family Ticket: £18.00 (2 Adults, 2 Children)[...]
We are sorry but we are unable to let single MEN OR WOMEN without children into the park. If you are here to meet someone let one of our reception staff know and they will happily do a tannoy announcement asking them to come and meet you.
-
do i hear lawsuit?
-
Apparently it's been policy for 7 years - one would have happened by now if it were.