Hobbit code. Hidden bonus content: "pour encourager les autres"



  • ... or as it is subtitled, "There and Back again"

    C-code discovered today:

    const struct sockaddr_in* ip;
    if((ip = (const struct sockaddr_in*)function_to_get_server_ip()) && ip->sin_addr.s_addr)
    {
    	char ip_as_string[INET_ADDRSTRLEN];
    	memset(ip_as_string, 0, INET_ADDRSTRLEN);
    	strncpy(ip_as_string, convert_ip_to_string(ip->sin_addr.s_addr), INET_ADDRSTRLEN);
    	serveraddr.sin_addr.s_addr = inet_addr(ip_as_string);
    }
    
    1. Call a function to get a (possibly changing over time) IP address
    2. If it's a valid IP address
    3. Set a char array to zero. Using memset(), because assigning zero to a local auto variable isn't enough. Done in case strncpy() fails to add that zero if what is being copied is shorter than the buffer.
    4. Call a function that converts an IP to a temporary string and
    5. Copy that temporary into the char array
    6. Then covert that string into an IP address to store into a global variable

    What it needs to be replaced with (or at least something akin to it):

    serveraddr = *SAFE_SOCKADDR(function_to_get_server_ip());
    

     


    In other news, I've been visiting Monster recently and found, with salary range, what I am 100% sure is an advert for a job in my department. (We do have a vacancy, postcode is near, the technology mentioned, other specifics.)

    I've made a few people aware of said advert.

    They weren't impressed. (Neither was I actually, but then again, I was already on the site.)



  • @PJH said:

    In other news, I've been visiting Monster recently and found, with salary range, what I am 100% sure is an advert for a job in my department.

    Why is it so shocking that you've found a job listing when you know you have a vacancy? Am I missing something?


  • BINNED

    @PJH said:

    serveraddr = *SAFE_SOCKADDR(function_to_get_server_ip());

    I buttume that includes the only useful thing that this abomination actually does: checks that the IP address is actually valid?



  • I'm guessing it's implied that there's no vacancy and they're sacking someone?



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    I'm guessing it's implied that there's no vacancy

    No, the OP wrote:
    @PJH said:
    We do have a vacancy



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Am I missing something?

    Yup - but you did quote it:

    @PJH said:

    with salary range

    The implication being that the salary range mentioned doesn't seem too meld too closely to the salary already being paid to existing members of the team, either at the same level or higher:

    Basically everyone already here seems to be being significantly underpaid. Not really a surprise I suppose, but the point is rarely made quite that blatantly, and is instead usually based upon rumours.


    @Onyx said:

    I buttume that includes the only useful thing that this abomination actually does: checks that the IP address is actually valid?

    Nope - the initial function essentially returns a uint32_t. 0 (or 0.0.0.0 as a string) and (uint32_t)-1 (255.255.255.255 as a string) are 'valid' for the purposes of the functions being called. There is no (extra) validity checking going on here.


    @Maciejasjmj said:

    I'm guessing it's implied that there's no vacancy and they're sacking someone?

    No, but they may be posting a few more of them soon...



  • @PJH said:

    uint32_t.

    @PJH said:

    -1

    Huh.



  • @Maciejasjmj said:

    Huh.

    Corrected. All-bits-one in a 32-bit integer.



  • @PJH said:

    The implication being that the salary range mentioned doesn't seem too meld too closely to the salary already being paid to existing members of the team, either at the same level or higher

    I'd love to hear an explanation of how I was supposed to know that.

    @PJH said:

    Basically everyone already here seems to be being significantly underpaid. Not really a surprise I suppose, but the point is rarely made quite that blatantly, and is instead usually based upon rumours.

    Apply to your own company. Get the new position, if it pays better.


  • SockDev

    @blakeyrat said:

    I'd love to hear an explanation of how I was supposed to know that.

    By using the lump of grey mush between your ears?



  • @RaceProUK said:

    By using the lump of grey mush between your ears?

    Oh an insult! Yay!


  • SockDev

    @blakeyrat said:

    Oh an insult! Yay!

    It's insulting to refer to the human brain by using a semi-accurate description now?



  • Oh yay! insult me again! Again and again! I love it!

    Look, there's nothing in the sentence AFAICT that implies, "OH AND BTW THE SALARY RANGE IS HIGHER THAN THE ONE ME AND MY CO-WORKERS ARE IN" and I'd really be interested, honestly, in how PJH thought I should have picked-up on that.

    You people bitch if I don't understand your posts, but when I ask what I miss, you just talk about grey mush. Figure out what the fuck you want. But don't piss on me coming and going.


  • SockDev

    @blakeyrat said:

    Oh yay! insult me again! Again and again! I love it!

    The human brain is grey and mushy; taking that as an insult is like being insulted if I called you Blakeyrat



  • I wasn't able to divine "OH AND BTW THE SALARY RANGE IS HIGHER THAN THE ONE ME AND MY CO-WORKERS ARE IN" either. Maybe it's a UK-only thing?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I'd love to hear an explanation of how I was supposed to know that.

    No.

    I refuse to be goaded into an argument regarding your repeatedly confected, and clearly deliberate, inability to comprehend English, with vocal and provocative statements, especially after being provided with polite explanatory notes.



  • Ok; then don't bitch when I fail to understand your unspoken assumptions I was magically supposed to have inserted into my head via fairies. If you think it's deliberate, so be it I guess-- who am I to challenge the fairies?

    At least I wasn't the only one confused.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Ok; then don't bitch

    I didn't - you're the only one doing that.



  • Whenever I see C code, I want to go on a rampage and kill people. It's goddamn 2015 - if this isn't some legacy code, someone should be reminded about putting this abomination of a language to rest, and using something not full of garbage constructs and awful patterns. Programmers deserve languages which know the notion of memory ownership, boundaries and generic programming without throwing away type safety.



  • Now where did that voice clip of GLaDOS saying "He says what we're all thinking!" go to.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Ok; then don't bitch when I fail to understand your unspoken assumptions I was magically supposed to have inserted into my head via fairies. If you think it's deliberate, so be it I guess-- who am I to challenge the fairies?

    Look. @PJH said that the ad included salary range. This information isn't referred to anywhere else in the post. There are two possibilities - either there's an implicit reference somewhere in his post, for example where he says fellow devs weren't amused, or that he's an utter idiot who either forgot to write the rest of post or written much more than was necessary to get point across.

    So what you have effectively done in this topic was call @PJH an utter idiot and then complained about @RaceProUK insulting you by implying you have a brain.



  • Every ad contains a salary range. Duh.

    The relevant information which wasn't provided was that the salary range was higher than what existing employees were making.

    I was somehow supposed to infer that second idea from "contains a salary range" when literally every job ad contains a salary range. What I'm asking is how I was expected to perform that miracle.

    PJH won't tell me because apparently he thinks I can perform the miracle but for some reason I don't do it on purpose.


  • kills Dumbledore

    @TwelveBaud said:

    I wasn't able to divine "OH AND BTW THE SALARY RANGE IS HIGHER THAN THE ONE ME AND MY CO-WORKERS ARE IN" either. Maybe it's a UK-only thing?

    I'm in the UK and didn't pick up on it until I realised I was a bit confused and thought "maybe the salary is higher than he's getting? Dunno".

    It wasn't massively clear, but once it was explained that was it as far as I was concerned. No need to shout at @pjh once he's explained the unclear part



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Every ad contains a salary range. Duh.

    @blakeyrat said:

    when literally every job ad contains a salary range

    No. They don't.



  • Ok? Lets argue that only 10% of ads in the UK include a salary range...

    How is that a clue to the range being higher than what you were making? What is the clue I didn't pick up on?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Every ad contains a salary range. Duh.

    Then the info was even more useless!

    But actually, no, not every ad has it. In Poland at least. TBH, I don't think I've ever seen salary range on a job ad in my life (except for obvious scams).

    @blakeyrat said:

    The relevant information which wasn't provided was that the salary range was higher than what existing employees were making.

    That's exactly what I said - there wasn't any information relevant to the salary range. In other words, salary range was irrelevant.

    @blakeyrat said:

    What I'm asking is how I was expected to perform that miracle.

    For starters, you might try not assume the worst of people.

    @blakeyrat said:

    PJH won't tell me because apparently he thinks I can perform the miracle but for some reason I don't do it on purpose.

    I did this "miracle". @RaceProUK did this "miracle". @Jaloopa (kinda, sorta, almost, close enough) did it too. Does it make us the Holy Trinity?



  • @PJH said:

    The implication being that the salary range mentioned doesn't seem too meld too closely to the salary already being paid to existing members of the team, either at the same level or higher:

    Basically everyone already here seems to be being significantly underpaid. Not really a surprise I suppose, but the point is rarely made quite that blatantly, and is instead usually based upon rumours.

    I honestly took this as re-confirmation that you all are underpaid, and that they're working on finding people to pay even less than you.



  • @PJH said:

    In other news, I've been visiting Monster recently and found, with salary range, what I am 100% sure is an advert for a job in my department. (We do have a vacancy, postcode is near, the technology mentioned, other specifics.)

    Why does the ad not mention the business name?



  • @xaade said:

    Why does the ad not mention the business name?

    Maybe it's via recruitment agency?



  • Oh yes, and they hide the name because they won't get the bonus if you circumvent them.

    ...

    I hate recruiters.



  • @xaade said:

    Why does the ad not mention the business name?

    It mentions the recruitment agency which has clearly been tasked with/has taken it upon themselves to find the lucky applicant.

    In fact most of the jobs I've looked at have been posted by agencies, and not by the businesses themselves.



  • @PJH said:

    posted by agencies, and not by the businesses themselves

    Then those businesses won't get people who are actually skilled.

    But then again, those businesses can't afford people who are actually skilled.

    If you aren't willing to post for yourself, then you aren't willing to put your name out there, meh, no need to do business with you.



  • Guess so.

    Now how did you perform the miracle? Instead of jus repeatedly telling me what an idiot I (apparently) am, how about educating me?


  • kills Dumbledore

    @Gaska said:

    Maybe it's via recruitment agency?

    Pretty common IME. MY fiancee just found a job vacancy she liked the look of, but it was through the same agency who got her her current job less than 6 months ago, so she didn't want to go straight back to them (probably lose their commission when people jump ship that quickly). She pretty quickly worked out the company through sector, location and the fact they said in the ad the year they were founded



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Now how did you perform the miracle? Instead of jus repeatedly telling me what an idiot I (apparently) am, how about educating me?

    Reading comprehension is what you must learn by yourself.



  • RE: salary ranges...

    Wife once responded to an ad that included a salary range... which we assumed was "the range of salary values they may give you if they hire you" ...

    Hmm... that high value's not great, but maybe OK, given 80% time, location, interesting work... yea, an OK number.

    Nope. You got hired at low number whether you were a noob or completely qualified with years of experience.
    The high number was the max you were ever going to get, ever.


    Filed under: oh, yes, they wanted to hire her. No, they didn't. Job's been open... <counting> ...five years now.



  • A.K.A. You have no fucking idea. Gotcha.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Ok? Lets argue that only 10% of ads in the UK include a salary range...

    How is that a clue to the range being higher than what you were making? What is the clue I didn't pick up on?

    I find it to be utterly irrelevant.

    Because, at least in most places, the cultural rule is that you don't tell co-workers what you are making.

    By placing an ad with the salary range, you've effectively placed a mean value on the salary and a min and max. This enables any employee, who finds it and figures out it is for his place, to determine practically what his co-workers are making.

    You can then infer that it is likely that the OP is being paid on the bottom end of the range or under it, because no one would mention the range unless there was a reason.... Which still fits with what you said, every ad has a range.

    @Gaska said:

    For starters, you might try not assume the worst of people.

    He doesn't. His persona does.

    [spoiler]
    I posted a personal topic about my concerns and he was very polite and supportive.
    [/spoiler]

    @Gaska said:

    Reading comprehension is what you must learn by yourself.

    No. The flip side of this coin, is that the implied concept was poorly conveyed. Blakey is right in that regard.

    I can deduce the meaning, but the deduction is wildly speculative.

    So the sarcasm fails.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    A.K.A. You have no fucking idea. Gotcha.

    You're saying that I have no fucking idea how I came at the conclusion @PJH is underpaid. That makes so much fucking sense.

    @xaade said:

    He doesn't. His persona does.

    Part of my persona is thinking he's serious.



  • @Gaska said:

    Part of my persona is thinking he's serious.

    @xaade said:

    the implied concept was poorly conveyed

    For emphasis.



  • @xaade said:

    No. The flip side of this coin, is that the implied concept was poorly conveyed. Blakey is right in that regard.

    But he still sucks at reading comprehension because neither me, @RaceProUK nor @Jaloopa have called him an idiot, much less did so repeatedly.



  • @Jaloopa said:

    It wasn't massively clear, but once it was explained that was it as far as I was concerned.

    Yeah, i wondered a bit about it, but that seemed like the only thing that made much sense. I'm not surprised that it tickled someone's anger fetish.



  • @Gaska said:

    have called him an idiot, much less did so repeatedly.

    To be fair, you did start it.

    You gave him a false dilemma where one of the outcomes was claiming that he's calling PJH an idiot.

    There is an alternative possibility where Blakey is asking people to not criticize him for assuming the post was mistakenly incomplete, which doesn't involve anyone being called an idiot.

    And

    they weren't impressed

    Does not convey, they were unhappy because the range indicated anything.

    I could say the same when I see an old company I worked for hasn't adjusted their starting salary in 10 years.



  • @xaade said:

    No. The flip side of this coin, is that the implied concept was poorly conveyed.

    Agreed, but it was then politely expounded upon.

    Then the needling started, which I refused to join in on.

    Then I got accused of bitching in the polite explanation (LOLWUT) which I refuted.

    Finally I got landed with a verifiable falsehood, and when called upon it, more needling started.

    Yes - I was unclear in my first post, which is why I corrected it with a followup explanation.

    It's his apparent need to incessantly gnaw upon such initial unclarity, instead of accepting the followup explanations at face value that's tiring, off-topic, and had he started the topic and someone else was doing what he's doing instead, he'd be complaining.



  • Could you stop write new things in your posts just after I've finished reading and am ready to reply? I mean, there's nothing wrong with adding extra stuff if you forgot to write something, but its very tiresome to write something and throw it away because now I'm not replying to what I was previously replying to and have to start over and I would like very much if you stopped this... that is, if you're okay with it. Please? :squee:



  • @xaade said:

    To be fair, you did start it.

    You gave him a false dilemma where one of the outcomes was claiming that he's calling PJH an idiot.

    There is an alternative possibility where Blakey is asking people to not criticize him for assuming the post was mistakenly incomplete, which doesn't involve anyone being called an idiot.


    Yet none of this is directly claiming that @blakeyrat is idiot. So him claiming that we all called him an idiot over and over again is wrong regardless of what the OP was.



  • @PJH said:

    Then I got accused of bitching in the polite explanation (LOLWUT) which I refuted.

    @PJH said:

    I refuse to be goaded into an argument regarding your repeatedly confected, and clearly deliberate, inability to comprehend English

    Um....
    You honestly expected that statement to go out without any rebuttal.

    I mean you practically said.

    You fail at English, idiot, and I refuse to explain why the implicit point about the salary range makes sense to me.

    That ^, is the bitching he is talking about.

    I mean, if you just admitted that the implication was obtuse, how can you then claim that he is deliberately refusing to comprehend English?

    Yeah he bitched, but you're being inconsistent.



  • @Gaska said:

    So him claiming that we all called him an idiot over and over again is wrong regardless of what the OP was.

    But why are you surprised that he's upset?

    I'm not saying Blakey wasn't Blakey here.

    Simply saying that, other people are being just as Blakey as Blakey is.



  • @PJH said:

    at face value

    Liar, your avatar is two blue balls, not your face!



  • @PJH said:

    I was unclear in my first post

    So after all this, now you just admit to it?

    Christ, man. If you're gonna be all "it was obvious!" you gotta at least stick it out.

    Blakeyrat chalks up another win.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.