The Official Funny Stuff Thread™
-
@Arantor said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
fucking Sharepoint
There's a limit to not kink-shaming, you know
-
-
@Arantor said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Tsaukpaetra Did we mention, it's built on fucking Sharepoint?
Did I stutter?
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Bulb said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Tsaukpaetra said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@LaoC I really do wonder if any older school tinkerers would be able and willing to create a fat client that's not web browser based. How hard could it possibly be?
Impossible. A lot of the content comes from the server as HTML+JS and can be essentially anything. Where anything includes other microsoft apps and third party apps. So it absolutely needs a webview, and then there is little reason not to use it as the UI framework as well.
Sure for the tab pages and embeds and whatnot, but for actual chat lines and channels? I would think IRC-level functionality would be more than enough for most-of-the-time, and a click-to-enable webview for when it's not.
The messages are HTML so you still need a renderer anyway.
-
-
@Bulb said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Tsaukpaetra said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Bulb said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Tsaukpaetra said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@LaoC I really do wonder if any older school tinkerers would be able and willing to create a fat client that's not web browser based. How hard could it possibly be?
Impossible. A lot of the content comes from the server as HTML+JS and can be essentially anything. Where anything includes other microsoft apps and third party apps. So it absolutely needs a webview, and then there is little reason not to use it as the UI framework as well.
Sure for the tab pages and embeds and whatnot, but for actual chat lines and channels? I would think IRC-level functionality would be more than enough for most-of-the-time, and a click-to-enable webview for when it's not.
The messages are HTML so you still need a renderer anyway.
I'm informed it's relatively easy to fall down when tags are unsupported. And that in theory it should be graceful even!
-
@Zerosquare said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
&br; &br; &br; &br; &br; &br;
You should fetch a blanket or you'll catch a cold!
-
@Bulb said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Tsaukpaetra said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Bulb said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Tsaukpaetra said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@LaoC I really do wonder if any older school tinkerers would be able and willing to create a fat client that's not web browser based. How hard could it possibly be?
Impossible. A lot of the content comes from the server as HTML+JS and can be essentially anything. Where anything includes other microsoft apps and third party apps. So it absolutely needs a webview, and then there is little reason not to use it as the UI framework as well.
Sure for the tab pages and embeds and whatnot, but for actual chat lines and channels? I would think IRC-level functionality would be more than enough for most-of-the-time, and a click-to-enable webview for when it's not.
The messages are HTML so you still need a renderer anyway.
But the HTML standard allows you to simply ignore any tags you do not support.
-
@PleegWat which if the answer is “all of them” will just present tag soup.
-
-
-
@Bulb said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@LaoC Actually knowing the origin of Teams it's probably a hybrid of WebDAV and weird not-really-REST API. Because it's actually using sharepoint as the server. Maybe there are some small components on top of it for notifying, or maybe that's implemented in sharepoint.
That’s even more idiotic than my suggestion to run wikipedia from a git repo on gitlab.
-
@DogsB It's Teams. Idiotic goes with the territory.
-
@DogsB Why is it idiotic? It needs to mainly store the chat logs—so that when you connect from another computer, you have the same chat history there—so it stores them in the document storage that was already available, Sharepoint. And on top of that you have live editing in all the office apps, so I would expect them to use the same mechanism for pushing updates.
-
@DogsB said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Bulb said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@LaoC Actually knowing the origin of Teams it's probably a hybrid of WebDAV and weird not-really-REST API. Because it's actually using sharepoint as the server. Maybe there are some small components on top of it for notifying, or maybe that's implemented in sharepoint.
That’s even more idiotic than my suggestion to run wikipedia from a git repo on gitlab.
That’s literally how GitHub project wikis work, they’re Git repos with Markdown files. You can even check them out and commit to them like regular git repos.
-
@Bulb said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
And on top of that you have live editing in all the office apps, so I would expect them to use the same mechanism for pushing updates.
"@Bulb last replied on 1601-01-01. Would you like to review his post?"
-
@Atazhaia said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Bulb said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
And on top of that you have live editing in all the office apps, so I would expect them to use the same mechanism for pushing updates.
"@Bulb last replied on 1601-01-01. Would you like to review his post?"
-
@DogsB
E_NO_REPRO
-
@DogsB said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
more idiotic than my suggestion
In general, that would be a , although this might be an exception.
-
-
-
-
@Atazhaia said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Bulb said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
And on top of that you have live editing in all the office apps, so I would expect them to use the same mechanism for pushing updates.
"@Bulb last replied on 1601-01-01. Would you like to review his post?"
M$-Office is shit and its Cloud components even more so. We know that. But that just means M$ has crappy QA. If they made a new component for Teams, they would most likely be just as shit. Using the shit components they already have still makes more sense than developing new shit components.
-
@dcon said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE THE GENIUS, TOM. YOU FIGURE IT OUT.
(Have to yell. He's hard of hearing.)
-
Seen in a SO answer, but the rest of it isn't relevant. I just thought this phrasing was amusing:
Also note that generating optimal, or even sort-of-optimized, code for the x86 architecture is a lot like breeding elephants: it takes lots of time, lots of noise, lots of effort, lots of bellowing, and there is a real risk of getting crushed underfoot.
-
Some one did a pretty good job at securing the load. But also a very wrong job.
-
@Carnage It's not clear to me whether it would fit otherwise.
-
@Zecc various sources say that there is less than 5 cm between the internal height and width of a standard shipping container so in theory that could be the reason but dimensions would have to be just right.
We don't clearly see the width of the boat but the parts we do see seem to leave way more than 5 cm on the
sidetop/bottom.
-
Of course the dimensions of a shipping container is something you can search the web for. Why didn't I think of that?
-
@Zecc said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Of course the dimensions of a shipping container is something you can search the web for. Why didn't I think of that?
All shipping containers are the same width, but height varies within a range. For completeness, I think length goes in 5' increments but I'm not sure, and only a few lengths are used at sea.
-
@Carnage said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Some one did a pretty good job at securing the load. But also a very wrong job.
To be honest, this could have gone in the css or reminds you of thread.
-
@Zecc said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Of course the dimensions of a shipping container is something you can search the web for. Why didn't I think of that?
-
@PleegWat said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
@Zecc said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
Of course the dimensions of a shipping container is something you can search the web for. Why didn't I think of that?
All shipping containers are the same width, but height varies within a range. For completeness, I think length goes in 5' increments but I'm not sure, and only a few lengths are used at sea.
I shipped one these months. If you don't have a whole lot of them you can basically just choose between 20' and 40' formats.
Edit: this says you can have standard and "high cube", the high cube being 1' higher and even less cube-like with three different dimensions than the regular shape.
-
-
-
-
@boomzilla The mismatch between the perspective view of the building and the Apple logo disturbs me.
-
@HardwareGeek the road isn't parallel to the building, but the logo is painted in a way that makes it look parallel. I can totally see Apple doing that IRL.
-
@HardwareGeek You're viewing it wrong
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@jinpa the JavaScript people do seem to take it a little seriously, don’t they? I’ve seen people claiming to be “Laravel artisans” (which is at least an interesting if not clever pun) but I don’t recall seeing a PHP “messiah”.
But I have seen very many naughty little boys who are definitely not the messiah!
-
@jinpa said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
JavaScript Messiah
He's come to relieve JavaScript of its sins? Sure got his work cut out for him.
-
@jinpa said in The Official Funny Stuff Thread™:
JavaScript Messiah
Now we know who to nail to a (DOM) tree.
-
-