The Official Funny Stuff Thread™
-
@Bulb said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
It is indeed the wrong thread, but this seems to be the source in case anybody is interested in details (there are none about the regex speed specifically—it is a general rant about need to do some updates to C++ they are not willing to do because stability).
It's fascinating reading that, watching a committee tie themselves in knots because they haven't really figured out properly what they're NOT doing or who they're working on behalf of.
-
@obeselymorbid said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
I don't want to do maths at the moment but I dit it once for a particular number game and if I remember correctly (and wasn't wrong in my calculations then) buying enough tickets to guarantee a winning combination (not even the main prize necessarily, just a win) required several orders of magnitude more money than the main prize.
I did it once for my state's lottery (whose rules have since changed, so I'm only reporting how it would have been at the time). You got to pick six numbers from 1 to 40, and you won a small prize if you matched four of the six numbers drawn, a significant prize if you matched five, and the big prize if you matched all six.
My calculations showed that you could absolutely guarantee a win of some kind on every single drawing by buying only 500 tickets, well within the realm of plausibility. But you had to choose your combinations carefully, avoiding as much as possible tickets with identical sets of four numbers, and the guaranteed win was usually in the $40-60 range, which means you could expect to make back only about ten percent of what you were spending on tickets.
-
@da-Doctah Some interesting reading on the matter for the stats nerds.
-
@da-Doctah said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
My calculations showed that you could absolutely guarantee a win of some kind on every single drawing by buying only 500 tickets
Decades ago, I remember a games/puzzles magazine that asked this same question as a kind of reader's competition (i.e. who can come up with the smallest number of tickets to guarantee at least one win?). As far as I remember, it went on for many issues, with people coming up with smaller and smaller sets of tickets (that was before the generalisation of computers, so most people probably worked it out by hand!), each time reducing the number of tickets by one or two.
In the end, they got to something like 170 tickets, but of course the number depends on the exact rules of the lottery, and I have no idea what they are now (that's easy to find if I wanted to), much less what they were decades ago.
-
-
@dkf said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Bulb said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
It is indeed the wrong thread, but this seems to be the source in case anybody is interested in details (there are none about the regex speed specifically—it is a general rant about need to do some updates to C++ they are not willing to do because stability).
It's fascinating reading that, watching a committee tie themselves in knots because they haven't really figured out properly what they're NOT doing or who they're working on behalf of.
They're a committee. What did you expect?
Side note: I like the word committee due to how many double letters it has. CCOOMMIITTEE
-
@Gąska said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Side note: I like the word committee due to how many double letters it has. CCOOMMIITTEE
Your dream job: committee bookkeeper.
-
@Bulb said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Gąska said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@pie_flavor said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
I know this is wrong thread for this kind of discussion, but the reason is null terminator.
It is indeed the wrong thread, but this seems to be the source in case anybody is interested in details (there are none about the regex speed specifically—it is a general rant about need to do some updates to C++ they are not willing to do because stability).
So many mentions of being unable to make changes for performance, or in some cases for security... because of what boils down to earlier design choices made in the name of performance. Adding virtual methods to types that don't have one is an ABI break, because language-level micro-optimizations.
With all due credit to Benjamin Franklin, it would appear that those who give up essential security for a little temporary performance will end up with neither.
-
@Mason_Wheeler Yes. The committee needs to decide whether they're going to go all out for performance, or balance it with not breaking existing code where not justified, or go all in for never breaking anything ever. Different groups want different things.
And they probably also need to say “some things don't belong in the standard library” and so stay the hell out of the way of the more complex areas.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
So many mentions of being unable to make changes for performance, or in some cases for security... because of what boils down to earlier design choices made in the name of performance.
Well they were either made in the name of performance at the point the newer, better ways were not available yet, or were made in the name of “simplicity” or backward compati(de)bility.
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Adding virtual methods to types that don't have one is an ABI break, because language-level micro-optimizations.
Adding virtual methods is always ABI break even if they did have some already, as is changing their order. I wouldn't call it a micro-optimization though—it was implemented the most obvious way given lack of care for forward binary compatibility.
But the funny thing is that the C++ standard does not actually define any ABI anyway. The compilers do, and it has changed several times in the past already.
-
@Bulb said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Adding virtual methods is always ABI break even if they did have some already
How does that work?
-
@Mason_Wheeler The virtual method table of a derived class contains the virtual method table of the base class as a member. So if you change the size of the base class' virtual method table…
Note that C++ does not have final classes.
-
@Bulb said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Note that C++ does not have final classes.
-
-
@topspin said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
(since C++11)
… which means it is not specified for any of the standard library classes for backward compatidebility reasons.
Also, I've never seen it used anywhere else either.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Bulb said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@topspin said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
(since C++11)
… which means it is not specified for any of the standard library classes for backward compatidebility reasons.
That's not what you said.
-
-
I correctly predicted the top comment on that YouTube video.
Matt this is not ALWAYS how every argument goes.
-
@Gąska Here's how I'm watching youtubers. If your fancy mic setup is visible at any given point of the video, no matter how good is the content and presentation, you're a dick, lolgf.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity he's Twitch streamer first, Youtuber second. And his YouTube videos consist mostly of his Twitch highlights, and the others don't have him visible.
His GTA V Pacifist series is especially good, if you like the kind of videos where they play video games the wrong way.
-
@Gąska said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
he's Twitch streamer first, Youtuber second
if you like the kind of videos where they play video games
I don't
-
@Applied-Mediocrity not regular playing. "Beat entire Mario game without jumping once" and such. I consider it an entire separate genre. It has little to do with actually playing at that point.
-
-
@Gąska said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Side note: I like the word committee due to how many double letters it has. CCOOMMIITTEE
Than you will love TTEERRRRRIIFFIICC
-
@error It's amazing how non-discoverable Shift+Backspace is.
-
@pie_flavor do you know any discoverable keyboard shortcuts?
-
-
@obeselymorbid said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
buying enough tickets to guarantee a winning combination
I don't know how other lotteries compare, but when California first established their lottery, the revenue was allocated 1/3 for schools (the nominal reason it was created was to fund education), 1/3 for prizes, and 1/3 for overhead/administration. So if you bought a sufficiently large number of tickets, statistically you could expect to spend $3 for every $1 you won. That's a crappy ROI.
-
@Gąska said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@pie_flavor do you know any discoverable keyboard shortcuts?
Yes: things findable by menu option that show a shortcut next to it.
There is no menu option that deletes these entries, only the shortcut.
-
@HardwareGeek said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
I don't know how other lotteries compare, but when California first established their lottery, the revenue was allocated 1/3 for schools (the nominal reason it was created was to fund education), 1/3 for prizes, and 1/3 for overhead/administration. So if you bought a sufficiently large number of tickets, statistically you could expect to spend $3 for every $1 you won. That's a crappy ROI.
Here (and I believe all Europe) requires that lotteries allocate half of the revenue for prizes. And then some fraction for public good (I am not sure whether that's 20% or 30%).
-
@Gąska said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Beat entire Mario game without jumping once
Umm... is that even possible? Like, without jumping, you can't get past the first enemy, the end of any stage, or the bosses.
-
@Mason_Wheeler Have you seen the amount of effort people put into these things? Very few things are impossible in complex games.
Having said that, for Super Mario Bros 1 specifically, that seems to be impossible .
-
@anonymous234 Yeah... and I don't think it's possible in 3 either. There are pipes and pits that must be jumped over, and you have to jump to reach the card at the end of each stage. Not as certain for SMW, but intuitively I think most of the same problems apply there.
-
@Mason_Wheeler said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Gąska said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Beat entire Mario game without jumping once
Umm... is that even possible? Like, without jumping, you can't get past the first enemy, the end of any stage, or the bosses.
It's very close for SM64 at least, I think last time I checked there were less than 20 full A-button presses left.
-
@Mason_Wheeler it's mostly (only?) done in 3D Mario games, where there's plenty of alternative options for vertical movement. Other common challenges include not collecting any coins (harder than you think) and not using the right arrow on the controller.
-
-
@Gąska said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
it's mostly (only?) done in 3D Mario games
Ah. Those.
Confession: I've never played Mario 64. When that generation rolled around, we ended up getting a PlayStation rather than a N64, because all of the fun games were on the PlayStation.
-
@Bulb said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Here (and I believe all Europe) requires that lotteries allocate half of the revenue for prizes.
So -50% ROI instead of -67%. Such a deal!
-
Same in CO. 50% must be allocated to prizes Which is why with a finite set of numbers, games like powerball (the pot rolls over until there is a winner) can be guaranteed money after the prize pool gets large enough (I recall it being somewhere around the $300 mil range). Of course, you have to already have millions to buy that many tickets (rather defeating the purpose) and that assumes that you are the only winner, with the odds of that also decreasing as the prize pool increases.
-
@Zecc said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Gąska said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Side note: I like the word committee due to how many double letters it has. CCOOMMIITTEE
Your dream job: committee bookkeeper.
Employee: "I need your name. Spell it, please?"
Customer: "Oh double tee eye double yoo ee double ell double yoo double oh dee."
Employee: "Wait, what? Slow down and start over."
Customer: "Oh. Double tee. Eye. Double yoo. Ee. Double ell...."
Employee: "Dammit, what are you babbling about?"
Customer: "I'm spelling my name like you asked. Oh double tee eye double yoo...."
Employee: "Fuck this. Just tell me your name and then spell it."
Customer: "Sure. My name is Ottiwell Wood. Oh double tee eye double yoo ee double ell double yoo double oh dee."(My parents, years ago, had the phone number 890-9089. I told them that whenever someone asked, they should say "eight ninety ninety eighty nine" as quickly as possible, no pauses. Never took me up on the suggestion though.)
-
@error said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Around here is USAA. Yoo Ess Double Ay. They're an insurance company.
-
-
@da-Doctah said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
My parents, years ago, had the phone number 890-9089. I told them that whenever someone asked, they should say "eight ninety ninety eighty nine" as quickly as possible, no pauses.
Status: accidentally memorized @da-Doctah's parents' former phone number.
-
@da-Doctah said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
(My parents, years ago, had the phone number 890-9089. I told them that whenever someone asked, they should say "eight ninety ninety eighty nine" as quickly as possible, no pauses. Never took me up on the suggestion though.)
Fun fact: that's how phone numbers are often told in Polish. The "teen" and "tens" suffixes are sufficiently different from each other and from all digits that any confusion is very unlikely. "Osiem dziewięćdziesiąt dziewięćdziesiąt osiemdziesiąt dziewięć" is perfectly cromulent even when spoken fast (I dare you try it.)
-
@error said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
I dread of the day the transmission in my car gains human rights.
-
-
@anonymous234 said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Mason_Wheeler Have you seen the amount of effort people put into these things?
"To answer that, we need to talk about parallel universes!"
EDIT: since this is funny stuff, maybe I should use the opportunity to link to Terminal Montage:
-
@Gąska said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
"Osiem dziewięćdziesiąt dziewięćdziesiąt osiemdziesiąt dziewięć" is perfectly cromulent even when spoken fast
I'll keep that one bookmarked for the next time someone makes a joke about German.
-
@topspin at least we say digits in order.