Poll: Circular Avatars
-
I mean...they fix stuff all the time.
Of course they do. They're breaking it all the time too, so there's a never-ending stream of things to fix.
-
Of course they do. They're breaking it all the time too, so there's a never-ending stream of things to fix.
Yes, of course. But that's a very different thing than what I was replying to.
-
Yes, of course. But that's a very different thing than what I was replying to.
To be fair, they don't seem to have too many catastrophic security holes. Just lots and lots of weird problems (especially with the UI and with performance) that would be better off being handled by adjusting their development practices to be more like the professional norm.
-
Actually, I have an update on that: meta.d now highlights the most recent poster. But only when they're also the OP.
-
I can't figure out if this is trolling or if you really think this. I mean...they fix stuff all the time.
Does it really count as a fix if there is no testing put in place to ensure that it remains fixed?
-
To be fair, they don't seem to have too many catastrophic security holes anymore.
Shut up Ducksauce.
-
I seems I was on TDWTF default theme. I had no idea what you were talking about...
Conclusion :meh...
-
Does it really count as a fix if there is no testing put in place to ensure that it remains fixed?
As a user? Yes. Also, I have actually documented cases (here) where a bug was fixed and a test for it was added.
-
To be fair, they don't seem to have too many catastrophic security holes.
anymore.
damnit @abarker hanzoed me.
-
-
I hanzoed you that time, the proof is in that my post is before yours and was ninja edited so you can't tell what time I updated it ;)
-
Also, that should be,
To be fair, they don't seem to have too many catastrophic security holes anymore yet.
I'm sure more holes are coming.
-
I hanzoed you that time, the proof is in that my post is before yours and was ninja edited so you can't tell what time I updated it
Nope, I hanzo'd you. The proof is in the quote of your original post contained within my post. :P
-
Also, that should be,
To be fair, they don't seem to have too many catastrophic security holes anymore yet.
I'm sure more holes are coming.
Good call.
-
Dischorse‽
And closing the bold tag still doesn't fix it.
-
I don't always close my tags.
But when I do, Duckwhores screws it up anyway.
-
For those not paying attention - Private Messages have been renamed to Messages.
Because someone thought that conveyed they were more super private then they are.
https://meta.discourse.org/t/change-private-message-to-message-individual/26795?u=loopback0
-
Also circular avatars cause off centre letters avatars
https://meta.discourse.org/t/letter-avatars-issues-with-circular-profile-images/27249?u=loopback0
-
You wouldn't want to give the illusion of pseudo-privacy1.
1 actual reason given for why our new office is not going to have any walls on the cubes2.
2 they're not really cubes then, are they.....
-
I can't figure out if this is trolling or if you really think this. I mean...they fix stuff all the time.
And yet quoting remains in the same broken state it always has been...
-
And yet quoting remains in the same broken state it always has been...
Sure, but I never said they fixed everything. You, however said they fixed nothing. I can't keep you from being wrong, but I can mock you for it.
-
Dischorse‽
<img src="/uploads/default/19080/7c97916b180e6ac8.png" width="690" height="253">
And closing the bold tag still doesn't fix it.
It's a quote—it's working "as designed", presumably.
-
-
Also circular avatars cause off centre letters avatars
https://meta.discourse.org/t/letter-avatars-issues-with-circular-profile-images/27249?u=loopback0
Do you mean to imply that some random CSS tweaking which Jeff pulled out of his ass wasn't actually tested properly before being imposed on everyone?
-
I don't know why, but I am feeling particularly proud of this little rant...
https://meta.discourse.org/t/changing-or-removing-the-last-poster-avatar-highlight/27211/61?u=darkmatterDAMN YOU ONE-BOXING YOU LEFT OUT THE QUOTE FROM MY POST WHICH DEFEATS THE ENTIRE POINT OF MY FSCKING POST YOU POS.
Here, have a picture, because duckwhores blows, and because I have a feeling my post will get Jeffed.
-
This message is being sent out of spite, because Dickshorse told me not to.
Consider replying to several posts at once
Rather than many sequential replies to a topic, please consider a single reply that includes quotes from previous posts or @name references.
You can edit your previous reply to add a quote by highlighting text and selecting the quote reply button that appears.
#It's easier for everyone to read topics that have fewer in-depth replies versus lots of small, individual replies.
#No it fucking isn't, it's a fucking pain in the ass to read through some fukcing multiquoted wall of text. Who the actual fuck do you think you are to impose your own fucking values which came out of your fucking ass on everyone else, you god damn cunt.
-
It's a quote—it's working "as designed", presumably.
I'm sure. Doesn't help that the design is bugged.
-
#No it fucking isn't, it's a fucking pain in the ass to read through some fukcing multiquoted wall of text THAT YOU CAN'T EVEN NEST WITHOUT MANUALLY FIXING IT. Who the actual fuck do you think you are to impose your own fucking values which came out of your fucking ass on everyone else, you god damn cunt.
FTFY.
-
Sure, but I never said they fixed everything. You, however said they fixed nothing. I can't keep you from being wrong, but I can mock you for it.
AFAICT it looks like they just fiddle with inconsequential shit, anything that's actually a genuine bug usually gets jeffsplained away as intentional behaviour.
-
i wonder... does one-boxing reveal hidden HTML comments in posts?
nope
-
anything that's actually a genuine bug usually gets jeffsplained away as intentional behaviour.
That happens occasionally. It's usually stuff that really comes down to a design philosophy thing. Legitimate implementation bugs are usually recognized as such.
-
It's usually stuff that really comes down to a design philosophy thing. Legitimate implementation bugs are usually recognized as such.
I guess I just have a hard time accepting a "design philosophy" which expresses sentiments such as: "if a user quotes another user's post, then any embedded formatting should be either stripped entirely, or escaped into literal text, depending on how the quote was initiated, and if valid images and URLs are destroyed in the process, that's exactly what we'd like to see in the final result".
-
you're just lucky his imbecilic "design philosophy" allows for quoting at all.
-
I suppose. I guess intentionally disabling copy/paste is something they'd try, if they thought they could get away with it...
-
What's bizarre is that they did the fancy "highlight portions to quote" deal, but then made it fail-whale for at least 50% of uses. Surprising that he could stand it... usually it's been, "this one terribly unlikely use-case breaks the functionality, so REMOVE ALL OF THE FUNCTIONALITY", except in the case of quoting it is the exact opposite... a large percent of the time it fails to work properly, and they just ignore it as WAD. I guess because if their forum software couldn't quote at all, it'd never get adopted by anyone, ever.
-
And @Monarch spent, what, an hour or two to come up with an implementation of quoting which isn't just broken? ( I would link to that topic, but hey, discosearch...)
So you'd think the crack development team of discodevs ought to at least be able to address some of the more egregious aspects of quoting. Either they geniunely can't code, or they have some bizarre attachment to the current behaviour. I have no idea which interpretation is more likely...
-
They want it broken to discourage its use and cram jeffilosophy down our throats, but acknowledge that it would be impossible to sell forum software that can't do quoting.
So you'd think the crack development team of discodevs
I will quote you so your statement loses the sarcasm and makes it look like you actually think they're awesome.Nevermind, there's too much sarcasm to lose
-
jeffilosophy
sarcasm
Oh my god, I literally cannot believe how good at coding the discourse development team is.
-
So you'd think the crack development team of discodevs ought to at least be able to address some of the more egregious aspects of quoting.
This is the one thing that CS was indisputably better at than Discourse.
-
Either they geniunely can't code, or they have some bizarre attachment to the current behaviour. I have no idea which interpretation is more likely...
Or option 3: Jeff.
-
new avatar...
https://meta-discourse.global.ssl.fastly.net/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/darkmatter/320/40803.png
-
And @Monarch spent, what, an hour or two to come up with an implementation of quoting which isn't just broken? ( I would link to that topic, but hey, discosearch...)
I feel offended that you forgot my 8 minute fix to breaking emoji in spoilers!
Ok, not really, but I think that one is even more egregious. I mean, it actually took @Monarch 2 hours. He put some effort into it. I farted around on Google and JSFiddle for 8 minutes. I didn't even know how to do it before googling!
-
Let's not get distracted, that the main point is that quoting a message without mutilating it is something which is actually fairly easy to do. How much effort did the dickodevs put into into fucking it up?
-
Honestly, no idea. And I don't intend to learn Ruby just to go and find out.
-
I'm going to write my own forum software, on .NET, with hookers and blackjack...
-
Let's not get distracted, that the main point is that quoting a message without mutilating it is something which is actually fairly easy to do.
This is a JavaScript problem and a hard one, you have 2 anchors in "cooked" and you need to find them in "raw", + you need to preserve half formatted text so you need a rebuild formatting markers from a stack.
Either that or you go backwards from "cooked" to "Markdown" in a reverse md parser.
Filed Under: wasn't this topic about circular avatars?
-
-
This is a JavaScript problem and a hard one, you have 2 anchors in "cooked" and you need to find them in "raw", + you need to preserve half formatted text so you need a rebuild formatting markers from a stack.
For a partial quote, yes, but for a full quote, what's wrong with just getting the raw of the post in question?
-
I'm just confused by this. Cooked should already be pure HTML, shouldn't it? Once you cook it you're done with it, no?
It's 1AM and I'm not about to go poke through JSON, but what am I missing?
-
But when quoting, you want the raw, not the cooked