Stop isTrue. Now.



  • Can we just stop with that stupid isTrue stuff?

    Here's the last one, I hope - taken directly from the Tcl manual page of expr:


    Sit back. It won't do you any good.
    Warning.
    The following code is dangerous.
    For your safety and for the protection of those around you,
    Do not. Try this. At home.
    No really, don't.
                  set isTrue [expr {
                      [info exists ::env(SOME_ENV_VAR)] &&
                      [string is true -strict $::env(SOME_ENV_VAR)]
                  }]
    

    Okay, I admit, it isn't quite a function. But it looks like one if you don't know Tcl. Hope that counts.


  • Damn, I broke the code on Firefox, and it was my very own fault.

                  set isTrue [expr {
                      [info exists ::env(SOME_ENV_VAR)] &&
                      [string is true -strict $::env(SOME_ENV_VAR)]
                  }]
    


  • OpBaI, clearly you are not a mathemetician. Let's break this down to simple algebra with the following equation:

    f = I/L

    "f" represents the amount of funny-ness in any particular post, "L" represents the length of the post in words, and "I" is the number of inside jokes made within the post.

    So if you were to make a post that had 30 words, and you made reference to the IsTrue() function and the "Brillant" Paula bean, you would have a funny-ness rating of 2/30 (which you could reduce to 1/15, or 0.06666...repeating, of course). That's a decent amount of funny, and since you'll get approximately 3.4 laughs per 0.01 funny-ness (I'm referencing CalTech studies and documentation), so your post would generate approximately 22.66...repeating laughs.

    How do we get more laughs out of a message post then? You can either increase the number of inside joke references, or decrease the words in your post that don't have anything to do with the aforementioned inside jokes. But I propose a genius new strategy: post the longest message ever known to man, and fill it entirely with inside jokes!! With such a plan, you could easily achieve 0.9 funny-ness or higher!! Laughter would spread across the world to all those poor starving African children who dream of riding ponies and hitting a piñata with a stick. Communist countries would disarm their nuclear weapons, prisoners of war would be set free (if they wish), and the evil reign of Hillary Duff might finally come to an end.

    I hope I've made you understand that it's MORE inside jokes, not less, that will make our world a better place.



  • P.S.- Brillant! "I get paid per line of code"



  • @Manni said:

    P.S.- Brillant! "I get paid per line of code"




    OMG! You just ended world hunger. Brillant!



  • I think the funny-ness equation is only partially correct. I believe this would be more correct:

    f = SI / L, where S is the amount of sarcasm in the message.

    A good example is that your message was very long, with no real inside jokes.  So with the old equation it wasn't that funny.  But I disagree, I find it above average in the funny-ness-itude.  The new algorithm correctly adjusts your low funny-ness to a much more agree-able and accurate funny-ness due to the heavy sarcasm involved.

    This post, by any equation, is not funny.



  •    I propose that we use the following formula to calculate the funnyness of a given poster. The function is partially defined, but is within a epislon neighborhood of the correct (provable) answer.  Iterations and experimentation will tell the full definition of the \gamma and \phi functions used.  Pardon the TeX, heck it's probably wrong anyway ) 

    $ \sum_0^numberOfPosts ( \frac { S * I * \gamma( post ) } { (distance( poster, iAmNotACantalope )+\eps) * L * \phi( post ) } ) + \pi $



    where:

    I = Inside Jokes
    S = scaracsm
    L = length of post
    \gamma = bias function to be determined through exhaustive testing,   approximate with $ \gamma( \psi ) = \frac { \psi } { 1 } for { \psi | 0 < \psi < 1 } $
    \phi = bias function to be determined through exhaustive testing,   approximate with $
    \psi( \psi ) = \frac { \psi } { 1 } for { \psi | 0 < \psi < 1
    } $
    \pi = number of pi symbols in the post.
    \eps = sufficiently small number
    distance( x, y ) = how different x is from y. 

    Note that \gamma and \phi will diverge via the testing.





  • @iAmNotACantalope said:

      
    <Wow, a lot of stuff..>

    I'm afraid I can't agree with that equation at all. For all those dollar signs, I should have a little more bling coming my way, and yet I have none.

    Irregardless, I'm happy to report that my pants have been split as a result of eating several pizza pies, and then laughing like a hyena at your arithmatic skills. Kudos to you sir, kudos.



  • @Manni said:

    @iAmNotACantalope said:

      
    <WOW, stuff.. of lot a>

    I'm afraid I can't agree with that equation at all. For all those dollar signs, I should have a little more bling coming my way, and yet I have none.

    Irregardless, I'm happy to report that my pants have been split as a result of eating several pizza pies, and then laughing like a hyena at your arithmatic skills. Kudos to you sir, kudos.

     

    god, i love it when people use irregardless! :P



  • @iAmNotACantalope said:

      (Big long formula) 

    You forgot to include an IsTrue() function somewhere in there...



  • You can have mine.

    \[
        \mathrm{isTrue} : \mathbb{B} \rightarrow \mathbb{B}; \quad
        \mathrm{isTrue}(x) :=
        \begin{cases}
            \mathrm{true} & \text{if } x = \mathrm{true}\text{,} \\
            \mathrm{false} & \text{otherwise.} \\
        \end{cases}
    \]
    


  • I had hoped someone would notice that as the poster becomes different from me their funnyness goes to zero.   Or was my attempt at saying I'm the funniest not funny?



  • @iAmNotACantalope said:

    I had hoped someone would notice that as
    the poster becomes different from me their funnyness goes to
    zero.   Or was my attempt at saying I'm the funniest not
    funny?




    Hmm, must have been the TeX.



  • @iAmNotACantalope said:

    I had hoped someone would notice that as the poster becomes different from me their funnyness goes to zero.   Or was my attempt at saying I'm the funniest not funny?

    It's like telling a joke in greek for your big speech. The one greek in the room might laugh heartily. To everyone else it's just moon language.



  • @foxyshadis said:

    @iAmNotACantalope said:
    I had hoped
    someone would notice that as the poster becomes different from me their
    funnyness goes to zero.   Or was my attempt at saying I'm the
    funniest not funny?

    It's like telling a joke in greek
    for your big speech. The one greek in the room might laugh heartily. To
    everyone else it's just moon language.




    hahaha!! but if u tell a joke in GEEK then you know ALL here will laugh!!





    What did the CPU say to the Mobo?



    What, you think im a comedian? i have no idea what it said. im just trying miserably to get a laugh!



  • @foxyshadis said:


    It's like telling a joke in greek for your
    big speech. The one greek in the room might laugh heartily. To everyone
    else it's just moon language.




    "It's all Greek to me"




  • @pbounaix said:

    god, i love it when people use irregardless! :P


    True.

    It should be 'irregardlessly'


Log in to reply
 

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