WTF Bites
-
https://i.imgur.com/Nk4a53O.png
https://i.imgur.com/CVdS5zx.png
Whenever I power-cycle, the first plug in and unplug of headphones results in this, after which it works normally (like this).
-
Trying to download SQL Server Developer Edition, when suddenly:
Changing it to
http://
naturally solves it, but come on.
-
@dcoder Certificate revoked?
-
Oracle
DBA-Oracle's guide says:
To alter a LONG datatype column into a CLOB datatype you simply enter this DDL:
create table mytable (pk number, blob_column long)
-- add lots of rows
alter table mytable modify (blob_column clob);
[...]
In a traditional database you would need to follow these cumbersome steps to alter a column data type:
1 - Create the new column at the end of the table.
2 - Run an update to populate the new table column
3 - Drop the old table column
4 - Re-name the new column to the original column nameSounds good. Show me what you've got, Oracle
Error starting at line : 1 in command - alter table anonymized_table modify (my_column clob) Error report - SQL Error: ORA-22858: invalid alteration of datatype 22858. 00000 - "invalid alteration of datatype" *Cause: An attempt was made to modify the column type to object, REF, nested table, VARRAY or LOB type. *Action: Create a new column of the desired type and copy the current column data to the new type using the appropriate type constructor.
Womp-wah.
-
@hungrier
But is the WTF Oracle's, or does it belong to the third party blog site that has to exist because Oracle keeps their documentation locked up tighter than the initiates' vault at a nunnery?
-
This post is deleted!
-
@blakeyrat said in WTF Bites:
@dcon The planet Nepture has winds measured at 1,200 MPH.
Wiki is more careful about the wording to avoid pedantic dickweeds like me.
Bah. The solar wind goes about 1,000,000 miles per hour.
-
Trying to download SQL Server Developer Edition, when suddenly:
Changing it to
http://
naturally solves it, but come on.Hmm....I just got similar error going to a NASA page about the solar wind:
NET::ERR_CERT_AUTHORITY_INVALID
Filed Under: Not my Agency
-
@hungrier
But is the WTF Oracle's, or does it belong to the third party blog site that has to exist because Oracle keeps their documentation locked up tighter than the initiates' vault at a nunnery?What do you have against rednecks?
-
@boomzilla just more PROOF that the moon was an inside job!!
-
When you are not really sure what you are dealing with...
string amo= Convert.ToString(Convert.ToInt32(Convert.ToDecimal(HttpContext.Current.Session["payAmount"]) * 100));
-
@boomzilla
I'm gonna hafta claim my whoosh for that oneEdit: oh, just actually clicked TFA link.
-
just more PROOF that the moon was an inside job
That's the moon men. Ordinary astronauts had to stay on the outside for the cameras.
-
How to f*ck with the brains of your co-workers:
First of all, define a selected few colleagues to be able to see a check box on a specific form:
IF (use $ ',a1,a2,a3,') dlg:createCheckbox("chk","Some descriptive text here",.F.)
then, a few hundred lines later, you define what should happen if anyone dares to click that checkbox. BUT! You define DIFFERENT users here than the ones who can actually SEE and CLICK the checkbox (excpet for one user, who can see and click the checkbox)!
IF !(use $ ',a2,a4,a5,') cov := "no" ELSE IF(dlg:chk,cov := "yes",cov := "no") ENDIF
If you have problems understanding the syntax of this programming language, don't worry: it's some weird Pascal dialect and it's not really widely used. In fact, telling you the name of that dialect wouldn't help you much, since there isn't really much to find online about that.
Also, it has been a company standard to only use three letters for variable names, and this is the result of such idiocy. "use" is short for "user", "cov", I don't know, "dlg" is short for "dialog" and "chk" is the variable name for the checkbox that gets created.Anyway, what is happening here is that in the first line of the first snipped, it is asked, if the variable "use" contains the ID of some specific employees (that's another WTF, hardcoding the IDs into the source code...). If that is the case, the checkbox "chk" gets created on the dialog form "dlg". ".F." is short for "false", meaning, the checkbox should not be checked upon creation.
Later on, in the second snippet, we tell the program that only for specific employees the value of the checkbox should be "translated" into text. But they are not the same employees who can actually see the checkbox. So, if you happen to be employee a1 or a3, you can click that box all you want, it doesn't make a difference. The program will override this and say "you didn't click this" anyway. If you happen to be a4 or a5, you could theoretically change the value to "yes", if it wheren't for the fact that you will never see the checkbox and thus cannot click it.
tl;dr: Tease employees by showing them a checkbox that they can click all they want. Just make sure that what they click doesn't matter at all.
-
@hans_mueller said in WTF Bites:
it's some weird Pascal dialect
I'm not sure I believe you. Or my eyes at all.
-
@hans_mueller said in WTF Bites:
it's some weird Pascal dialect
I'm not sure I believe you. Or my eyes at all.
No THEN, end with ENDIF... doesn't look like Pascal to me
-
@timebandit It's not Pascal. It is based on/derived off Pascal, I guess I should have pointed that out more clearly. :)
The idea behind all this was that "people who are not programmers should be able to write their own little tools for their everyday work". Not sure, "people who are not programmers" can really understand what's going on here, though.
-
-
@hans_mueller said in WTF Bites:
The idea behind all this was that "people who are not programmers should be able to write their own little tools for their everyday work".
@blakeyrat's Holy Grail.
@hans_mueller said in WTF Bites:
Not sure, "people who are not programmers" can really understand what's going on here, though.
No, this is an Unholy Abomination.
-
@hungrier But then it would have to be a constant.
-
@hardwaregeek said in WTF Bites:
@hans_mueller said in WTF Bites:
The idea behind all this was that "people who are not programmers should be able to write their own little tools for their everyday work".
@blakeyrat's Holy Grail.
A text-based language? I don't think so.
-
@hardwaregeek said in WTF Bites:
@hans_mueller said in WTF Bites:
The idea behind all this was that "people who are not programmers should be able to write their own little tools for their everyday work".
@blakeyrat's Holy Grail.
A text-based language? I don't think so.
No, not a text-based language, unless perhaps a natural language parser. (Though we know how well those tend to work. Also, I don't want to put words in @blakeyrat's mouth by assuming what he wants. Knowing of his dyslexia, he'd probably prefer something non-textual, but I'd guess he'd consider more intuitive text-based tools a step in the right direction.) Just the goal of non-programmers being able to write their own tools.
-
@hans_mueller I'd classify that as "someone trying to sneak in something they shouldn't" under "schemes to defraud", and file it in the "insider threat" bin.
-
@hans_mueller said in WTF Bites:
The idea behind all this was that "people who are not programmers should be able to write their own little tools for their everyday work". Not sure, "people who are not programmers" can really understand what's going on here, though.
That's been tried many, many, many, many, many (you know the theme) times already and it always failed, usually very spectacularly.
The real issue with people who are not programmers is that their brains stop at elementary building blocks like assignment and for-loop. The syntax is not the obstacle—the semantics is.
-
@boomzilla said in WTF Bites:
Trying to download SQL Server Developer Edition, when suddenly:
Changing it to
http://
naturally solves it, but come on.Hmm....I just got similar error going to a NASA page about the solar wind:
NET::ERR_CERT_AUTHORITY_INVALID
Filed Under: Not my Agency
So somewhere along the line, the government became untrusted.
-
@tsaukpaetra said in WTF Bites:
So somewhere along the line, the government became untrusted.
Does that surprise you?
-
@hardwaregeek said in WTF Bites:
@tsaukpaetra said in WTF Bites:
So somewhere along the line, the government became untrusted.
Does that surprise you?
No? Is that a truck question?
-
-
This morning I got an email from USPS on my phone, it was like "confirm you want access to the informed delivery service". I figured, "oh a confirmation link, sure" so I clicked it and found-- oops, it actually wants me to create an account, including a new password, which I can't do from my phone. So I said "fuck it, I'll do it later from my work PC" and moved on.
Now I'm at my work PC where I can easily generate and copy-and-paste passwords, so I click the registration link again and this time it says "your username <my email> is already in use." Uh... wha? "Do you want to log in instead?" Sure why not.
Click the login link, now I get, "the username <my email> is invalid". Uh? Your other webpage just told me that was my username, idiots. Fine; "forgot password". Now I get: "that username does not exist".
I'm guessing the expensive Oracle consultants, or whoever built this monstrosity of a USPS website, never considered the use-case, "hey what happens if a user clicks the registration link twice?" and now I'm fucked forever.
Oh well, screw it.
-
Trying to download SQL Server Developer Edition, when suddenly:
Changing it to
http://
naturally solves it, but come on.I'm sorry, which is supposed to be TR? The browser doing its job and checking for certificate revocations, or the presumably technically proficient user who saw that and decided to ignore the possibility something phishy was going on?
-
@boomzilla said in WTF Bites:
@blakeyrat said in WTF Bites:
@dcon The planet Nepture has winds measured at 1,200 MPH.
Wiki is more careful about the wording to avoid pedantic dickweeds like me.
Bah. The solar wind goes about 1,000,000 miles per hour.
The source of all knowledge sayeth:
Slow wind (~400 km/s [894,775 mph]) is confined to the equatorial regions, while fast wind (~750 km/s [1,677,700 mph]) is seen over the poles.
-
@blakeyrat said in WTF Bites:
USPS
Yeah, that company is all over the place. It's rather amazing it works even half as well as it does...
-
@hans_mueller said in WTF Bites:
How to f*ck with the brains of your co-workers:
First of all, define a selected few colleagues to be able to see a check box on a specific form:
IF (use $ ',a1,a2,a3,') dlg:createCheckbox("chk","Some descriptive text here",.F.)
then, a few hundred lines later, you define what should happen if anyone dares to click that checkbox. BUT! You define DIFFERENT users here than the ones who can actually SEE and CLICK the checkbox (excpet for one user, who can see and click the checkbox)!
IF !(use $ ',a2,a4,a5,') cov := "no" ELSE IF(dlg:chk,cov := "yes",cov := "no") ENDIF
If you have problems understanding the syntax of this programming language, don't worry: it's some weird Pascal dialect and it's not really widely used. In fact, telling you the name of that dialect wouldn't help you much, since there isn't really much to find online about that.
Also, it has been a company standard to only use three letters for variable names, and this is the result of such idiocy. "use" is short for "user", "cov", I don't know, "dlg" is short for "dialog" and "chk" is the variable name for the checkbox that gets created.Anyway, what is happening here is that in the first line of the first snipped, it is asked, if the variable "use" contains the ID of some specific employees (that's another WTF, hardcoding the IDs into the source code...). If that is the case, the checkbox "chk" gets created on the dialog form "dlg". ".F." is short for "false", meaning, the checkbox should not be checked upon creation.
Later on, in the second snippet, we tell the program that only for specific employees the value of the checkbox should be "translated" into text. But they are not the same employees who can actually see the checkbox. So, if you happen to be employee a1 or a3, you can click that box all you want, it doesn't make a difference. The program will override this and say "you didn't click this" anyway. If you happen to be a4 or a5, you could theoretically change the value to "yes", if it wheren't for the fact that you will never see the checkbox and thus cannot click it.
tl;dr: Tease employees by showing them a checkbox that they can click all they want. Just make sure that what they click doesn't matter at all.
That's actually a sophisticated permissions system:
- Checkbox that works: You, and only you, because you're the awesome sysadmin. (a2)
- No checkbox: All those lesser people.
This group is actually subdivided into two groups:- people for whom it will not change the existing value of
cov
(a4, a5) - people for whom it will always set
cov
to "no" (everyone else)
- people for whom it will not change the existing value of
- Placebo checkbox: Management. (a1, a3)
(it'll always setcov
to "no", even though they do have a checkbox.)
-
inb4 'cov' is short for 'covfefe'
-
@pie_flavor said in WTF Bites:
inb4 'cov' is short for 'covfefe'
-
@tsaukpaetra said in WTF Bites:
@pie_flavor said in WTF Bites:
inb4 'cov' is short for 'covfefe'
Ah, didn't make the connection.
-
@tsaukpaetra said in WTF Bites:
So somewhere along the line, the government became untrusted
Have you been living under a rock for the past 50 years?
-
@tsaukpaetra said in WTF Bites:
So somewhere along the line, the government became untrusted
Have you been living under a rock for the past 50 years?
Sometimes.
-
@tsaukpaetra said in WTF Bites:
So somewhere along the line, the government became untrusted
Have you been living under a rock for the past 50 years?
About a third of the world lives on top of a rock, another third next to one, and the final third under one. The rock in question being the earth.
-
Just What
(I was actually seeing this, it's not just a scroll capture bug)
-
One of these three options is not like the other...
-
@bb36e well, I can't sign in anyways because they made me enter my phone number and told me that "this phone number is already verified". Goodbye, app!
-
I'm sorry, which is supposed to be TR? The browser doing its job and checking for certificate revocations, or the presumably technically proficient user who saw that and decided to ignore the possibility something phishy was going on?
I'm going to say: the message is misleading. In fact, it's an outright lie.
Which is bad for the technically proficient and worse for the others.It should instead say something to the tune of "we can't be sure the other party is who they say they are. Your communication channel is private, but they may be a hacker".
-
One of these three options is not like the other...
Well, you're not wrong. With two of them, you're signing in to a third-party account that already exists, and then it'll sign you up for a Ritual account automatically if you don't already have one (which may require you to provide some information to complete your Ritual account). With the third one, you don't have any account to use to sign in, so the very first thing you have to do is sign up for a Ritual account.
The first two would more correctly be "sign up / sign in" links, as they'll do both, as necessary.
-
It should instead say something to the tune of "we can't be sure the other party is who they say they are. Your communication channel is private, but they may be a hacker".
I think "your connection is secure, but we think the guy you're securely connected to might actually be a hacker" is probably just a bit too nebulous for the average user, who just wants to see grumpy cat.
-
@anotherusername Nothing wrong with erring on the side of caution, I guess.
-
I'm sorry, which is supposed to be TR? The browser doing its job and checking for certificate revocations, or the presumably technically proficient user who saw that and decided to ignore the possibility something phishy was going on?
I'm going to say: the message is misleading. In fact, it's an outright lie.
Which is bad for the technically proficient and worse for the others.It should instead say something to the tune of "we can't be sure the other party is who they say they are. Your communication channel is private, but they may be a hacker".
If the certificate's revoked, it's probably compromised (otherwise it would just be expired), so saying it's not private seems perfectly cromulent (both MITM and eavesdropping are possible).
-
@dreikin Ah, missed that. That makes sense.
-
@kt_ Alphanumeric usernames… whatever. Alphanumeric passwords… that's so far against current recommended practice it isn't funny.
butbutbut
xkcd://936
-
@laoc Use space as your symbol character. ;)