Um ... I don't think that does what you think it does ...



  • In a recently discovered .bash_history:

    cvs update && cvs update



  • If at first you don't succeed.... give up?



  • If your WTFs are this cryptic, please explain them to us. Thanks.



  • @SilentRunner said:

    If your WTFs are this cryptic, please explain them to us. Thanks.

    I'll take a stab at this: what do you imagine is going to happen when you try to update any repository AFTER you've already updated it?

    Hint #1: Assume for a second that no error occurred the first time. How many updates could potentially occur in the nanoseconds between runs?

    Hint #2: Assume then that an error did occur the first time. What would make someone assume that a second try, immediately after the first - i.e., with no intervention, would work?

    Edit: my question to the OP is how many times does that nefarious line occur in the .bash_history? If more than once, then that is definitely a WTF for sure. If only once, maybe the person was distracted and accidentally typed the same thing twice. If only once, maybe the person was distracted and accidentally typed the same thing twice. I know I've done this before.



  • @SilentRunner said:

    If your WTFs are this cryptic, please explain them to us. Thanks.

    [xxxxx]# echo "this returns success" && echo "this returns success"
    this returns success
    this returns success
    [xxxxx]# ls /fail && ls /fail
    ls: /fail: No such file or directory
    [xxxxx]#

    vs what was probably intended:

    [xxxxx]# echo "this returns success" || echo "this returns success"
    this returns success
    [xxxxx]# ls /tryagain || ls /tryagain
    ls: /tryagain: No such file or directory
    ls: /tryagain: No such file or directory
    [xxxxx]#
    


  • @dohpaz42 said:

    @SilentRunner said:
    If your WTFs are this cryptic, please explain them to us. Thanks.

    I'll take a stab at this: what do you imagine is going to happen when you try to update any repository AFTER you've already updated it?

    Of course you know what CLI environment this is in, and that && means "run one after the other" because of your psychic powers and ESP. COMMUNICATE, people, COMMUNICATE!


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    && is short-circuit AND. It's fairly prevalent. If the first command does not succeed (ie evaluates to false) then there's no point executing the second command because the end result of the operation is going to be false regardless. So it's used as a poor man's if( ) statement.

    || is short-circuit OR, and, similarly, it only executes the second command if the first value is false. So it is a facsimile for if(! ).



  • @joe.edwards said:

    && is short-circuit AND. It's fairly prevalent. If the first command does not succeed (ie evaluates to false) then there's no point executing the second command because the end result of the operation is going to be false regardless. So it's used as a poor man's if( ) statement.

    || is short-circuit OR, and, similarly, it only executes the second command if the first value is false. So it is a facsimile for if(! ).

    I get that, especially with PHJ's example, but the point is when someone asks for clarification, the ONE piece of clarification they need first (context) was the LAST this forum gave. (In fact, it still hasn't. I'm still just assuming it's some kind of Linux CLI environment, but fuck, for all I know that was typed into the JavaScript Console in Firebug. Or a ghost typed it into a IBM Selectric in a hotel room in France in 1987.)

    Context FIRST. Then worry about whether people know what the symbol && means. (That also was not obvious; I managed a Linux server for 8 years, using CVS, and never once came across that. Maybe it's not in bash? No it says its in bash. I guess I never came across it.) Don't assume we're psychic, or that we can see over your shoulder. Or that we know what .bash_history is (although I just now pieced together what that is while editing this post, woo me.) We need context.

    End of rant.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Of course you know what CLI environment this is in, and that && means "run one after the other" because of your psychic powers and ESP.

    Which shell do you know where this doesn't work?

    If this were some obscure stuff, I'd easily agree with you. But it really is not.

    You claim to read Raymond Chen's blog (iirc). One of his ground rules goes something like: I assume you know the stuff I'm writing about, because if I have to explain every little detail I can never write about anything advanced.
    Transfer that to TDWTF: If you're a programmer you should have some basic knowledge of a command line. If you don't you are certainly competent enough to find out yourself (i.e. STFW).

     

    EDIT: I admit that context IS important. But some things are more or less obvious, like that it's not "typed into the JavaScript Console in Firebug".



  • @topspin said:

    Which shell do you know where this doesn't work?

    I've never seen that in any shell.

    @topspin said:

    If this were some obscure stuff, I'd easily agree with you. But it really is not.

    I beg to differ.

    @topspin said:

    You claim to read Raymond Chen's blog (iirc).

    Yeah, I do.

    @topspin said:

    One of his ground rules goes something like: I assume you know the stuff I'm writing about, because if I have to explain every little detail I can never write about anything advanced.

    Ok...

    @topspin said:

    Transfer that to TDWTF:

    How does that follow? Raymond Chen's blog is Raymond Chen's blog; TheDailyWTF is a completely different forum with completely different guidelines.

    To quote Raymond Chen, "I can believe I had to write that."

    @topspin said:

    If you're a programmer you should have some basic knowledge of a command line. If you don't you are certainly competent enough to find out yourself (i.e. STFW).

    How? Here, let's try: .bash_history &&... nope. How about: cvs update && cvs update... nada. what's WTFy about cvs update && cvs update?... zilch.

    @topspin said:

    But some things are more or less obvious, like that it's not "typed into the JavaScript Console in Firebug".

    It wasn't obvious to me at all, demonstrably.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @topspin said:
    If you're a programmer you should have some basic knowledge of a command line. If you don't you are certainly competent enough to find out yourself (i.e. STFW).

    How? Here, let's try: .bash_history &&... nope. How about: cvs update && cvs update... nada. what's WTFy about cvs update && cvs update?... zilch.

    Um, what?



  • I now want CVS implemented as a JavaScript in such way that it can be run from the JavaScript console in Firebug.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Of course you know what CLI environment this is in, and that && means "run one after the other" because of your psychic powers and ESP. COMMUNICATE, people, COMMUNICATE!

    Seriously, because .bash_history is likely to apply to any of a zillion different shells!



  • @derula said:

    I now want CVS implemented as a JavaScript in such way that it can be run from the JavaScript console in Firebug.

    @derula said:

    Filed under: probably already exists

    Sigh. It apparently does.



  • @dohpaz42 said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    @topspin said:
    If you're a programmer you should have some basic knowledge of a command line. If you don't you are certainly competent enough to find out yourself (i.e. STFW).

    How? Here, let's try: .bash_history &&... nope. How about: cvs update && cvs update... nada. what's WTFy about cvs update && cvs update?... zilch.

    Um, what?

    I only know to search "bash comparison operators" if I already know:

    1) .bash_history indicates the WTF was a command typed into bash

    2) && is a comparison operator

    In my case, I originally knew neither of those things.



  • @dohpaz42 said:

    Sigh. It apparently does.

    HOLY SHIT IS THAT A SLIDE SHOW REALIZED WITH JAVASCRIPT AND HTML?? THE HORROR!



  • @blakeyrat said:

    How? Here, let's try: .bash_history &&... nope. How about: cvs update && cvs update... nada. what's WTFy about cvs update && cvs update?... zilch.

    @topspin said:

    But some things are more or less obvious, like that it's not "typed into the JavaScript Console in Firebug".

    It wasn't obvious to me at all, demonstrably.

     

    Jesus frigging $DEITY... now you're just wilfully stringing together nonsensical fragments. You DO know how to use Google, right? Even Bing could probably find that for you, given proper queries.

    Also, someone who's apparently administered Linux servers for 8 years and has never come across the && operator ONCE is either grossly incompetent, or lying. Or both. And even IF that were true, it means pretty much the same in about every modern programming language I can think of off the top of my head. And probably in most ancient ones too, not counting Intercal. (The Basic dialects used to use AND, of course. Not sure about VB.net, I tend to avoid it like the plague.)

    Just get over the damn fact already that there's also people around here that ARE able to abstrahate beyong their specific field of knowledge and laugh about stuff without the OP having to explain the joke in detail (which is generally bad for its effectiveness). Hell, I laugh at C# crapfests too, it's not like I use THAT.

    But I know what, whenever I have a spare moment sometime soon (early 2050 by my current schedule, but it's gonna be worth it) I'll write you a browser plugin that links source code for most know languages automatically to its online documentation so we'll never have these needless conversations again. Deal?

    </rant>

     



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @dohpaz42 said:
    @blakeyrat said:
    @topspin said:
    If you're a programmer you should have some basic knowledge of a command line. If you don't you are certainly competent enough to find out yourself (i.e. STFW).
    How? Here, let's try: .bash_history &&... nope. How about: cvs update && cvs update... nada. what's WTFy about cvs update && cvs update?... zilch.
    Um, what?
    I only know to search "bash comparison operators" if I already know:
    1) .bash_history indicates the WTF was a command typed into bash
    2) && is a comparison operator

    In my case, I originally knew neither of those things.

    Ok, maybe, maybe you did not know 1 but 2?

    Major street creed lost here



  • @serguey123 said:

    Ok, maybe, maybe you did not know 1 but 2?

    I know it's AND in C#, C++, JavaScript, probably a bunch of other language. I did not know it was one in bash. (Not that I initially knew the WTF related to bash at all, mind you...)

    I don't give a shit about street cred. You guys already know I'm not the prototypical geek who worships Richard Stallman, and masturbates over a bash CLI in Linux all day, or at least you should. That doesn't make me a worse engineer; in fact, I'd argue it makes me a better engineer. I'm not going to apologize for being outside the groupthink.

    You're welcome to think I'm dumb for not instantly assuming that bash has the same logic operators as C++, or for not instantly making the connection between something called ".bash_history" and the Linux bash shell.

    But that doesn't change the fact that I was confused by the OP.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I know it's AND in C#, C++, JavaScript, probably a bunch of other language. I did not know it was one in bash. (Not that I initially knew the WTF related to bash at all, mind you...)

    I did not know that either although I use Linux on my home desktop (obviously, I don't do too much in bash, but still, I have used it a few times (or was it &?) and didn't know). I agree with blakeyrat that some people should explain their WTFs better. I also agree that it applies to this topic. I wouldn't have used his tone to say that, but then, I troll people with math lectures, so obviously I'm insane.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Not that I initially knew the WTF related to bash at all, mind you...
    You obviously do know that bash is a shell and what CVS is.

    It's therefore not too far fetched that the cvs command was rather typed into a command line shell than into firebug, notepad or photoshop. And .bash_history just might tip you off which one it was.

     



  • @blakeyrat said:

    You're welcome to think I'm dumb for not instantly assuming that bash has the same logic operators as C++, or for not instantly making the connection between something called ".bash_history" and the Linux bash shell.

    That's not why we think you're dumb. That operator also works in cmd.exe and powershell, BTW, when running commands. Also, bash doesn't mean Linux.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Also, bash doesn't mean Linux.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I know it's AND in C#, C++, JavaScript, probably a bunch of other language. I did not know it was one in bash.

    Okay, humour me: what DID you think it might mean?

    @blakeyrat said:

    I'm not going to apologize for being outside the groupthink.

    Seeing && and complaining you don't know what it means has nothing to do with group think, it's either about not thinking at all or being a pedantic dickweed (or possibly, both at the same time). If this had been some esoteric language where && had meant "subtract by three, but only if it's a full moon and Elvis is playing on the radio" I'd have agreed the OP should have explained it. Since he did not, assuming it means the frigging same thing as in virtually every other language seems a pretty safe bet.

    @blakeyrat said:

    You're welcome to think I'm dumb for not instantly assuming that bash has the same logic operators as C++, or for not instantly making the connection between something called ".bash_history" and the Linux bash shell.

    Again, humour me: what DID you think .bash_history might be for? Especially seeing as you've - by your own claims - administered Linux servers for multiple years. Or did you really think it was safe to assume it contained a list of parties thrown in honour of the little-known History language? Where, incidentally, the && operator subtracts by 3, but only if it's a full moon AND Elvis is playing on the radio.

    This is like complaining someone posts "hahahaha I saw this in /var/log/apache/..."  that you had absolutely NO idea this was about the Apache web server (which you've never seen in the 68 years you've administered Linux servers) but that's okay, you know, you think outside of the box and aren't a typical geek but still feel confident enough to come here and slag everyone off even though you obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about.

    @blakeyrat said:

    But that doesn't change the fact that I was confused by the OP.
     

    You wilfully let that happen as an excuse to throw a rant, whereas all the rest of us either a) didn't care about this because we don't know what it's about and thus did not find it funny, b) know bash and did find it funny, or c) did not know but cared enough to spend 3 seconds Googling instead of being a total ass.

    I'm still not sure if you're conciously playing the clown here, or are really clueless. I used to think the former, but I'm moving more and more towards the latter.

     



  • @topspin said:

    It's therefore not too far fetched that the cvs command was rather typed into a command line shell than into firebug,

    For all I know, it was just sitting in a text file. To know it was typed into a CLI first requires knowledge of what .bash_history is. ... people on this board are having issues with this, I really don't know why.

    @topspin said:

    And .bash_history just might tip you off which one it was.

    It might have, but it didn't. I didn't make the connection until I'd already replied a couple times.

    @Monomelodies said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    I know it's AND in C#, C++, JavaScript, probably a bunch of other language. I did not know it was one in bash.

    Okay, humour me: what DID you think it might mean?

    Outside of any context? No fucking clue.

    Knowing it was in bash? I might have assumed it was AND, but: 1) I've used bash for decades and never come across it before, and 2) I hate assuming things. So I probably would still have asked for confirmation.

    @Monomelodies said:

    Since he did not, assuming it means the frigging same thing as in virtually every other language seems a pretty safe bet.

    Assumptions are always shit. If you're writing software based on assumptions, you're writing shitty, buggy software. No engineer should ever rely on an "assumption" for anything. Even a post in a forum.

    "Assumptions" are how you get Java software that just assumes Windows has a single home folder. Or the shitty program that assumes Program Files is always on the C: drive. Or the program that assumes it'll never be run in a network environment, and stores important stuff in the non-roaming appdata folder (or alternatively stores tons of worthless data in the roaming appdata folder.) Fuck assumptions.

    @Monomelodies said:

    Again, humour me: what DID you think .bash_history might be for?

    Outside of context? No fucking clue. If I didn't know the convention that names starting with a period are hidden files in Linux, I wouldn't even know it was a filename.

    @Monomelodies said:

    you think outside of the box and aren't a typical geek but still feel confident enough to come here and slag everyone off even though you obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about.

    One of the reasons I'm not a typical geek is that I think people who haven't spent 5 years immersed in Linux CLIs should still be able to understand and use computers. Gasp! No "high priesthood!?" I know, shocking, right?

    So yes, "not having a clue what I'm talking about" is the fucking point of the complaint. Good job sussing that out.

    @Monomelodies said:

    c) did not know but cared enough to spend 3 seconds Googling instead of being a total ass.

    Googling doesn't help. I already posted about that.

    @Monomelodies said:

    I'm still not sure if you're conciously playing the clown here, or are really clueless.

    Not clown, more "devil's advocate". I now understand the WTF. I still want people who post here to actually make a fucking effort to communicate effectively, and to provide context.



  • Uhm, you guys remember the days when the people spouting bat-shit insane rants here* were simultaneously those who were fucking knowledgable about everything and pretty insightful from time to time, too?

    Like that assufield guy... But then, he left because he couldn't stand Mandatory Fun Day, so he must indeed have been crazy.

     

    (*Not saying this is one, but we've had that before)



  • @blakeyrat said:

    For all I know, it was just sitting in a text file. To know it was typed into a CLI first requires knowledge of what .bash_history is. ... people on this board are having issues with this, I really don't know why.

    The entire point of this discussion: find out before you rant.

    @blakeyrat said:

    It might have, but it didn't. I didn't make the connection until I'd already replied a couple times.

    QED.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Outside of any context? No fucking clue.

    Seriously? I mean, really? Not even an inkling? (Of course, the problem here is mostly that you were too lazy to establish your own context, namely the Bash shell which was thoroughly indicated by the mention of .bash_history where said command was found. But whatever.)

    @blakeyrat said:

    Knowing it was in bash? I might have assumed it was AND, but: 1) I've used bash for decades and never come across it before

    TRWTF right here.

    @blakeyrat said:

    and 2) I hate assuming things. So I probably would still have asked for confirmation.

    That's healthy, but generally "oh, is this bash?" works better than "HEY FUCKFACE CLARIFY ALREADY WHY DON'T YA". Just saying.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Assumptions are always shit. If you're writing software based on assumptions, you're writing shitty, buggy software. No engineer should ever rely on an "assumption" for anything. Even a post in a forum.

    "Assumptions" are how you get Java software that just assumes Windows has a single home folder. Or the shitty program that assumes Program Files is always on the C: drive. Or the program that assumes it'll never be run in a network environment, and stores important stuff in the non-roaming appdata folder (or alternatively stores tons of worthless data in the roaming appdata folder.) Fuck assumptions.

    I don't know what a "C: drive" is. Or a what a "non-roaming appdata folder" is. And what is this "Windows" and "Program Files" you speak of? Please clarify?

    @blakeyrat said:

    One of the reasons I'm not a typical geek is that I think people who haven't spent 5 years immersed in Linux CLIs should still be able to understand and use computers. Gasp! No "high priesthood!?" I know, shocking, right?

    I never said that. I just expect IT professionals to be able to abstrahate to languages they don't deal with on a daily basis. Hell, I do that on a... daily basis.

    @blakeyrat said:

    So yes, "not having a clue what I'm talking about" is the fucking point of the complaint. Good job sussing that out.

    Cool, we agree at least on SOMETHING.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Not clown, more "devil's advocate". I now understand the WTF. I still want people who post here to actually make a fucking effort to communicate effectively, and to provide context.
     

    Fair enough. I'll be sure to do the same to you whenever you post about something that isn't in my direct area of interest. We'll see who lasts longer.

     



  • @Monomelodies said:

    [Fair enough. I'll be sure to do the same to you whenever you post about something that isn't in my direct area of interest. We'll see who lasts longer.

    I'm starting a pooling bet, minimum bet is 10 bitcoins

    @blakeyrat said:

    I don't give a shit about street cred.

    You did not read my tag, did you?



  • @serguey123 said:

    I'm starting a pooling bet, minimum bet is 10 bitcoins

    That's ALL I'm worth to you??? Jeez ;)

     



  • @The Court Jester said:

    @dohpaz42 said:
    @SilentRunner said:
    If your WTFs are this cryptic, please explain them to us. Thanks.

    I'll take a stab at this: what do you imagine is going to happen when you try to update any repository AFTER you've already updated it?

    Of course you know what CLI environment this is in
    Well, yes. Wasn't the 'bash' in '.bash_history' in the OP enough? Blakey, if you're going to troll, at least give the /impression/ of trying, instead of being 'simply trying.'

    This effort along, with your chocolate covered toddlers doing obscene things with bananas, is well below your usual standard.


    F-


  • @Monomelodies said:

    @serguey123 said:
    I'm starting a pooling bet, minimum bet is 10 bitcoins

    That's ALL I'm worth to you??? Jeez ;)

     

    OK.  One Trillion Quatloos.

     

    Better?

     



  • @El_Heffe said:

    OK.  One Trillion Quatloos. Better?

    Yes, but give me an Internetz and I'll be over the moon.

     



  • @Monomelodies said:

    I'm still not sure if you're conciously playing the clown here, or are really clueless. I used to think the former, but I'm moving more and more towards the latter.

    Even if he is consciously playing the clown, the fact that he has spent *so* much time doing it here would say that he's really clueless, a moron of the first caliber.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @Monomelodies said:
    c) did not know but cared enough to spend 3 seconds Googling instead of being a total ass.

    Googling doesn't help. I already posted about that.

    If I type .bash_history in Google, the first two results offer plenty of evidence to link .bash_history to the bash shell. A follow-on search for bash && turns up this page explaining all the operators as well as the bash reference manual. Of course, it takes a few seconds to use your browser's search feature to find the relevant section of the document, and then maybe half a minute to read and absorb the information. Maybe that's asking too much of you.

    As an aside, if I copy the link address directly from Google, why does it turn up as http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=bash%20%26%26&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftldp.org%2FLDP%2Fabs%2Fhtml%2Fops.html&ei=-6-nTsD-GsPKtAb1q9DMDQ&usg=AFQjCNFBQ-qNp-oAYeit4wrYdueA0pZbSA?



  • @PJH said:

    This effort along, with your chocolate covered toddlers doing obscene things with bananas, is well below your usual standard.

    Hey, anyone can have an off day, especially when they usually turn out top shelf material.
    The important thing is to get right back on that bicycle.
    Come on Blakey, we know you can do it...



  • @blakeyrat said:

    One of the reasons I'm not a typical geek is that I think people who haven't spent 5 years immersed in Linux CLIs should still be able to understand and use computers. Gasp! No "high priesthood!?" I know, shocking, right?
    Oh, come on, enough of that hyperbole. I'll have you know that, in my entire career in IT (as well as those parts of my private live that I spent tinkering with computers), I've maybe come into touch with a Unix/Linux environment about a dozen times at the most, and never even used the 'bash' shell during those times. And yet somehow, it still was pretty much obvious to me immediately what this was all about. So, either I must be a super computer genius (neither claiming that, nor believing it, so no need to go there) or you're still playing dumb on purpose to have something to become agitated about.



  • @dohpaz42 said:

    @derula said:
    I now want CVS implemented as a JavaScript in such way that it can be run from the JavaScript console in Firebug.

    @derula said:

    Filed under: probably already exists

    Sigh. It apparently does.

     

    sometimes i suspect terrorists from future are stalking tdwtf forums, picking the most insane shit and travelling back in time to implement it



  • @Anonymouse said:

    or you're still playing dumb on purpose to have something to become agitated about.
    And what exactly surprises you in this scenario ? blakey blakeying ?



  • @tdb said:

    As an aside, if I copy the link address directly from Google, why does it turn up as http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=bash %26%26&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftldp.org%2FLDP%2Fabs%2Fhtml%2Fops.html&ei=-6-nTsD-GsPKtAb1q9DMDQ&usg=AFQjCNFBQ-qNp-oAYeit4wrYdueA0pZbSA?

    How else would they know which linked you clicked, and what search got you that link?



  • @dohpaz42 said:

    @tdb said:

    As an aside, if I copy the link address directly from Google, why does it turn up as http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=bash %26%26&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftldp.org%2FLDP%2Fabs%2Fhtml%2Fops.html&ei=-6-nTsD-GsPKtAb1q9DMDQ&usg=AFQjCNFBQ-qNp-oAYeit4wrYdueA0pZbSA?

    How else would they know which linked you clicked, and what search got you that link?

     

    They could have just asked. And my answer would be [url="http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/9310"]GoogleMonkeyR[/url]



  • @Anonymouse said:

    I'll have you know that, in my entire career in IT (as well as those parts of my private live that I spent tinkering with computers), I've maybe come into touch with a Unix/Linux environment about a dozen times at the most, and never even used the 'bash' shell during those times. And yet somehow, it still was pretty much obvious to me immediately what this was all about.

    Ok?

    Here's another "I can't believe I had to type that": I'm not you. Nor your clone.

    @Anonymouse said:

    So, either I must be a super computer genius (neither claiming that, nor believing it, so no need to go there) or you're still playing dumb on purpose to have something to become agitated about.

    It's impossible I'm telling the truth about not understanding the OP. UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    It's impossible I'm telling the truth about not understanding the OP. UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE.

    I call bullshit. You're a reasonably intelligent person who is a developer (of some sort). So to say that you did not know what the && was, and how you claim to not have the reasoning skills to figure out that .bash_history related to the bash shell and yet you have the reasoning skills to do the type of work that you do... yeah, like I said, bullshit.



  • @dohpaz42 said:

    You're a reasonably intelligent person who is a developer (of some sort).

    Thank you.

    @dohpaz42 said:

    So to say that you did not know what the && was,

    I didn't know what && meant in bash. I already knew what it meant in JavaScript, C#, C++, etc... re-read the thread. Also, initially I didn't know the WTF was in bash.

    @dohpaz42 said:

    and how you claim to not have the reasoning skills to figure out that .bash_history related to the bash shell

    Re-read the thread. I did figure that out, just not right away. It took me a few minutes.

    @dohpaz42 said:

    and yet you have the reasoning skills to do the type of work that you do... yeah, like I said, bullshit.

    You're welcome to think whatever you like. But I have been telling the truth in this thread. Thanks for not just calling me "dumb", like so many other people have done.

    It's possible for someone to think differently than you do. It's possible for them to be just as intelligent, just as effective a developer, just as human, without being your exact clone. Geeks have this horrible, horrible tendency to forget this, to form a "groupthink" where everybody has to share the same ideas, the same way of thinking, and to exclude anybody outside the groupthink.

    It seems like this entire forum wants to do nothing but send insult after insult my way because I'm outside the groupthink. And it's not just me, look how you treat Nagesh simply because he's from India and English is his second language. Hell, look at that poor guy, SpectateSwamp, who writes a search app for his own use, you poke and prod and make fun of like he was a circus freak. All you're going to accomplish is to chase off anybody with an original thought, leaving an intellectual wasteland behind. It'll turn into Slashdot.

    If that's what you want, if that's what you're after fine-- but at least be open about it so I can leave now and save my sanity, because there's no point in me posting here if the only reason anybody wants to hear my ideas is so they can mock them.

    In the meantime, I'm not going to apologize for not initially understanding this WTF, nor am I going to lie about it. So stop asking.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    It seems like this entire forum wants to do nothing but send insult after insult my way because I'm outside the groupthink.

    Aww really, me too? I thought I was trying to agree with you where I did, and accept your view where I didn't. If anything I thought I could have argued with you more instead of just giving in sometimes.



    If you ask me, people are trying to talk to you like you talk to them. You don't hesitate to insult someone if you think they're wrong and stupidly stubborn, do you? It's clearly a dumb, antiquated "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" way from their side, but you'll have to expect nothing more from people, I mean, they're still only people, no fucking Jesuses, right?



  • [quote user="blakeyrat"]It seems like this entire forum wants to do nothing but send insult after insult my way because I'm outside the groupthink.[/quote]
    It's got nothing to do with groupthink. It's because you treat everyone badly and complain about reading comprehension when that is what you were lacking in this case. If you made you comments more in the lines of "I don't get it" instead of complaining that everyone writes badly, things probably would have gone differently. Although, from reading your comments, I think you like hurting people and that's your goal.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Here's another "I can't believe I had to type that": I'm not you. Nor your clone.
    Oh, THANK GOD for that!!!!

    @blakeyrat said:

    It's impossible I'm telling the truth about not understanding the OP.
    But seriously, like dohpaz4 already said: you're smart (I think that much is clear from your contributions to this forum, since your posts are coherent, often insightful and well-written, attitude problems aside :P) and you're a developer, so you must have some ability of abstract thinking and logical reasoning. It's just kind of difficult to imagine that someone matching that type of profile would have such a hard time connecting the dots between the ".bash_history" and the "bash" CLI.

    Using myself as an example was just to illustrate (yes, I know, anecdotal evidence and all that, but bear with me) that it does not necessarily take several years of total immersion in a vat full of liquid Unixium to be able to make that mental leap, as you seem to imply.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Thank you.

    You're welcome.

    @blakeyrat said:

    I didn't know what && meant in bash. I already knew what it meant in JavaScript, C#, C++, etc... re-read the thread. Also, initially I didn't know the WTF was in bash.

    There is something called a "reasonable assumption"; it's something that we do all of the time (whether we realize it or not). In this case, it is reasonable to assume that && might potentially mean the same thing in bash as it does in programming languages.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Re-read the thread. I did figure that out, just not right away. It took me a few minutes.

    Shoot first, ask questions later. You tend to do this frequently. I'm not suggesting that this is bad, but it can make someone look foolish. $diety knows, I do this from time to time (I used to do it all of the time). I speculate that this is a common by-product for a person whose mind "runs a million miles per hour" (i.e., ADD types).

    @blakeyrat said:

    You're welcome to think whatever you like. But I have been telling the truth in this thread. Thanks for not just calling me "dumb", like so many other people have done.

    People who sometimes do dumb things are not always dumb. If anything, I'm just trying to point out that you have a habit of going off on rants possibly because you react first and think later. Now don't get me wrong, some of your rants are justified - I may not agree with the way you go about handling certain things, but I cannot disagree with the intent of some of your arguments. Like you said, people think differently.

    @blakeyrat said:

    It's possible for someone to think differently than you do. It's possible for them to be just as intelligent, just as effective a developer, just as human, without being your exact clone. Geeks have this horrible, horrible tendency to forget this, to form a "groupthink" where everybody has to share the same ideas, the same way of thinking, and to exclude anybody outside the groupthink.

    I love the contradiction in this statement, because I thoroughly enjoyed 1984. Now I don't explicitly remember the use of "groupthink", but I at least get the reference and can assume its meaning. However, if there are people on this board - which it is reasonable to assume that there are - that have not read 1984, they may be scratching their heads wondering what the in hell "groupthink" is. Can you see the contradiction here?

    @blakeyrat said:

    It seems like this entire forum wants to do nothing but send insult after insult my way because I'm outside the groupthink.

    Eh, this forum is a tough audience. I expect nothing less from this bunch. But when you burst in with your guns blazing, you can also expect an equal reaction from the forum members. There is a law about that somewhere.

    @blakeyrat said:

    And it's not just me, look how you treat Nagesh simply because he's from India and English is his second language.

    I personally have never treated Nagesh any such way. I don't honestly know if he's real, the product of someone's imagination (and boredom), or both. As such, I take it with a grain of salt. But, yes, I have picked on you from time to time - btw, it's all meant to be in good humor and fun, and not a personal attack against you as a human bean; you troll, expect to occassionally get trolled (I would never get offended if someone deliberately trolled me). In other words, you get what you give.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Hell, look at that poor guy, SpectateSwamp, who writes a search app for his own use, you poke and prod and make fun of like he was a circus freak. All you're going to accomplish is to chase off anybody with an original thought, leaving an intellectual wasteland behind. It'll turn into Slashdot.

    There is that contradiction again. Now I used my reasoning skills to search the forums for that whole SpectateSwamp stuff, and read maybe one or two pages of it (honestly that is a LONG discussion that would take me weeks to read all of, and wasn't worth that much investment of time), but other people may not be that savvy or have enough common-sense to figure out. This is why "reasonable assumptions" are to be expected, especially on a board such as this one.

    @blakeyrat said:

    If that's what you want, if that's what you're after fine-- but at least be open about it so I can leave now and save my sanity, because there's no point in me posting here if the only reason anybody wants to hear my ideas is so they can mock them.

    Sanity is over rated anyway. Besides, you've been here long enough (longer than me), and I would venture a guess that this type of behavior is not new, nor exclusive to just you. It goes with the territory. Besides, if the people here didn't have respect for you, or dare I say like you, then they probably wouldn't spend as much effort to pick on you. You are the pig-tailed schoolgirl to the bully boy pushing her down on the proverbial playground. In other words, we like you dude, and picking on you is our way of saying that we think you're cute. ;)



  • @Anonymouse said:

    Using myself as an example was just to illustrate (yes, I know, anecdotal evidence and all that, but bear with me) that it does not necessarily take several years of total immersion in a vat full of liquid Unixium to be able to make that mental leap, as you seem to imply.

    It's really just his knee-jerk reaction to anything CLI.

    OBBlakeyDisclaimer: A knee-jerk reaction is when you react to something without thinking about it, similar to when a doctor taps your knee with the mallet to test your reflexes.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Hell, look at that poor guy, SpectateSwamp, who writes a search app for his own use, you poke and prod and make fun of like he was a circus freak. All you're going to accomplish is to chase off anybody with an original thought, leaving an intellectual wasteland behind. It'll turn into Slashdot.

    This has to be one of the most (deliberately?) misleading things posted around here. Spectate is our resident troll and kook. If anything is chasing anybody, it's the blakeyrants that attempt to drown out opposing views (yes, yes, you're an admitted hypocrite, whatever).

    Also, whatever you think about slashdot, practically no one can agree with anything anyone else says.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    I have to agree that it's your general attitude that invites vitriol against you. You have a general reputation of being sharp but a bit of a douchebag, no offense intended. The way you characterize the common developer (and particularly open-source developers) as an "austism-spectrum" antisocial elitist is quite abrasive, and the attitude you take, even in bug reports, is often insulting and brash. The "pedantic dickweeds" often enough I think are looking to jab back after seeing themselves ridiculed disproportionately for simply not providing enough detail for your exacting standards. It really is possible to ask for clarification without wondering aloud why so many programmers have problems with poor communication. This is akin to walking into a McDonalds and asking loudly why so many Americans have obesity problems: it's not likely to be well received, nor is it likely to remedy the problem. It's a matter of tact. You're treated as you're seen to treat others.


Log in to reply
 

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