The Official Status Thread
-
Status: Home swet home.
-
My brain was on it's way but got mugged by a black rapper with a trumpet.
-
Didn't there used to be a "users" option on this menu?
-
That was disabled because it DoSed the site, IIRC.
-
Status:
That was way too much walking to get some simple shit done. It's like we're back in 20th century or something. Hell, the amount of dot-matrix printers I saw today made me think we are.
In any case, I am now a proud owner of a street-legal ancient piece of crap. Rejoice.
-
Status: migraine
-
Status: I am a bad hedgy, and I need a SPANK for this line of code
var currentIndex = $('#CurrentAdIndex').val()++;
@accalia, you'll hate this with a passion…
-
You're really pushing it there with not using
parseInt
. I expect a blowup any day now.Also, will that actually update the value? I'm not sure that it will. Never really tried something as crazy, mind.
-
It's not meant to update the value.
Besides, it blew up anyway:
Invalid left-hand side expression in postfix operation
-
-
And then it blew up again because I didn't use
parseInt()
-
-
Status: I am a bad hedgy, and I need a SPANK for this line of code
var currentIndex = $('#CurrentAdIndex').val()++;
@accalia, you'll hate this with a passion…
i would if it actually worked. but it won't. you want:
var currentIndex = (parseInt($('#CurrentAdIndex').val(), 10) || 0) + 1;
/me scrolls down before posting.
-
```
var currentIndex = (parseInt($('#CurrentAdIndex').val(), 10) || 0) + 1;I *always* forget to define the base. One of these days, this will bite me on the ass. And then I'll come here to whine.
-
Hmm…
parseInt(someStringThing, 3.4);
Now, what would that do…
-
Now, what would that do…
Testing would seem to suggest that the
base
argument getsfloor
ed first.Tested with v8 anyway (if it's still called v8 these days).
-
as i recall it would parse in base 3, although since the spec says it must be an integer between 2 and 36 (inclusive, inclusive) implementations are free to behave however they want to when handed decimals
-
Testing would seem to suggest that the
base
argument getsfloor
ed first.
That's a bit mean, to just punch out a number like that. What did it ever do to anyone?
-
One of these days, this will bite me on the ass.
Interesting...
parseInt('01234');
doesn't use octal, in Chrome at least. I'm sure I read that it at least used to.I'm also sure I managed to make it do that quite recently. Might have been FF or something though.
EDIT: OH!
parseInt(01234);
does though!JavaScript!
EDIT2: So does
parseInt(01234, 10);
! So, the "proper" way to do it is:parseInt('' + 01234, 10);
parseInt(01234 + '', 10);
parseInt(String(01234), 10);
Take a guess! Correct answer in raw!
-
I'm sorry, Microsoft, your shiny new operating system is a confused mess.
Downloading my Win 8.1 ISO yet again...
And my 8.1 PC has been BSODing once a day lately. It must be this blasted Linux hardware.
I don't know if I ever saw the Win7 crash screen. And this is supposed to be better?
-
Status:
Everything is a module! Modulize all the things!
Seriously, why did I not write these things as modules before? Oh, right, the module subsystem wasn't finished yet, no now I have to port all the stuff over to a better architecture after the fact... sigh...
-
Darude - Sandstorm
-
-
Ok, that works.
I still stand by my "This is bullshit!" attitude, though.
-
Does anyone else struggle with spoiler'd images? Is this a thing already?
-
Does anyone else struggle with spoiler'd images?
:hand: Assuming you are talking about trying to spoiler an image that is. It is terribly fiddly and I end up having to dick around with it for a while in order to make it work.
-
-
No, I should have said, viewing spoiler'd images.
IIRC they should display as a kind of blurred box. I just get whitespace in the post. Even though the cursor changes when I hoverover clicking does nothing. I can sometimes view the image by turning the view raw off/on rapidly but generally the images don't work at all.
-
Hmmm... broked filter CSS? Which browser?
-
I'm on Firefox 37.0.1.
OK I've just tried IE10, the image isn't spolier'd n there and I've no "view source" button to check, which is odd.
Post in question is http://what.thedailywtf.com/t/mad-hatter-hijinx/7333/1240 which actually works correctly when opened in a new tab in FF.
Status: I've had a long week and I'm off home in a minute. Chalking this up to experience.
-
Firefox
Should work. You're certainly the first FF user I heard complaining, and I kinda doubt that
-moz
tag is something that Discodevs would miss.OK I've just tried IE10, the image isn't spolier'd n there
I think IE10 need a special MSIE-only filter thing. Might be missing in CSS.
and I've no "view source" button to check, which is odd.
Probably default CSS. Weird, I'd buttume "TDWTF default" is the default here, and old default left in just for the legacy reasons.
-
Spoilered images haven't worked on Firefox for me in ages. There's always an unclickable white area where the image is. Occasionally the image shows, then hides a couple seconds later when it realizes it's supposed to be hidden.
-
Spoilered images haven't worked on Firefox for me in ages
A... WHAT?
Let me try to find my fiddle where I messed with it... if it didn't get deleted, that is.
EDIT: Here it is: https://jsfiddle.net/tp82xmv3/
Does that work in FF?
-
That works, yes. Discourse does not.
-
Well then. You know what to do...
-
No, I should have said, viewing spoiler'd images.
No, but then I customized my spoiler effect. The custom CSS I use is here. Makes unblurring spoilers as easy as a mouse hover, even for images. @ChaosTheEternal uses a similar CSS effect.
-
-
Status: wrote github.com/BenLubar/battcrypt when I was supposed to be falling asleep last night. Really tired this morning.
-
UNSAFE
-
Of course. You are trying to increase and store on a return value.
-
Status: Have to remember not to read the forums right after lunch.
Edit: I was trying to link to this.
Edit 2: And I just earned the "First Link" badger. I have no idea why, because I've done this many times before.
-
Status: I leave for vacation tomorrow. I wish I could bring my electronics case with all my Arduino and Raspberry Pi stuff, but that would probably put me on a government watch list...or more likely it would be confiscated.
Or, I guess I could just unplug while on vacation and just spend my time drunk on the beach.
-
-
Status: is "feckless" a word we're all ok with using now, or what? I'm seeing it even from Americans, and I'm scared.
-
The word's been around for about 400 years or so, so I doubt there's anything to be scared of ;)
-
From merriam webster:
Origin of FECKLESS
Scots, from feck effect, majority, from Middle English (Scots) fek, alteration of Middle English effect
First Known Use: circa 1585
-
See, you had to look it up too!
It's definitely not an American word.
-
See, you had to look it up too!
It's definitely not an American word.
Nor am I American.
The word existed before Mayflower, and hence it was brought over. On the first boat, no less.
-
you are saying that it would be feckless to use that word?
-
I'm assuming that's Beamer. And even though I don't kind of want to start a big flamewar... I don't really like Beamer. I think it (or rather, presentations) emphasizes most of Latex's weaknesses and minimizes most of its strengths. The Tex/Latex philosophy is to separate content and presentation, but presentations intertwine those much more than document-based, uh, documents. Presentations also are very diagram heavy, and so either you have to use tikz for pictures in Latex (which is tremendously time-consuming) or go to another program to make your pictures; the animations you can do (often useful for showing processes, not just stupid whiz-bang BS) in Latex are kind of crappy looking, at least those I have seen.