Wat?





  • ... I can has context? A link to a page with just a video I can't play isn't all that entertaining...



  • @TwelveBaud said:

    ... I can has context? A link to a page with just a video I can't play isn't all that entertaining...
    I could play it, but the download speed started out slow, and got slower.  Seems like it's only like a minute long, but was going to take close to an hour to download.



  • Played fine for me.  But you're not missing anything.  Just 3 minutes of a guy making fun of Ruby and Javascript, ending with a really lame Batman joke.

     



  • @El_Heffe said:

    Played fine for me.  But you're not missing anything.  Just 3 minutes of a guy making fun of Ruby and Javascript, ending with a really lame Batman joke.

     

     

    Fuck. I was hoping for 3 minutes of a guy making fun of Batman, ending with a really lame Ruby/Javascript joke.

    [i]

    What a ineffective superhero! I swear, Arkham Asylum's got more leaks than Javascript's garbage collector!

    [/i]

     



  • Interesting video, but I am curious to know where he get jsc from



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    What a ineffective superhero! I swear, Arkham Asylum's got more leaks than Javascript's garbage collector!
     

    You demonstrate being more qualified to produce this hypothetical video.



  • He asks if someone knows what "WAT" is. Someone in the audience replies, but you can't hear what they say. The speaker never bothers to tell us what "WAT" is. It goes downhill from there.

    But there are funny LOLpics you've seen 50,000 times before!

    Edit: Actually I think when he says "WAT" he's referring to the meme where you type what with no punctuation. But I've never heard of that referred to "WAT". It's always written as:

    what

    Or possibly:

    what is this i dont even



  • @blakeyrat said:

    He asks if someone knows what "WAT" is.

    He's on second.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @emurphy said:

    https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat

     

    Is there a transcript of the video that takes 1/12th of the time to read than watching the video on a PC that doesn't have speakers?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    He asks if someone knows what "WAT" is. Someone in the audience replies, but you can't hear what they say. The speaker never bothers to tell us what "WAT" is. It goes downhill from there.

    But there are funny LOLpics you've seen 50,000 times before!

    Edit: Actually I think when he says "WAT" he's referring to the meme where you type what with no punctuation. But I've never heard of that referred to "WAT". It's always written as:

    what

    Or possibly:

    what is this i dont even

    I thnk he's referring to this:   http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wat

     



  •  He got da codez from da interwebz. You want them too? Ask your government, they seem to have them all.



  • @El_Heffe said:

    I thnk he's referring to this:   http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wat

    That appears to be the same name, but I've never seen it spelled "WAT." Definitely not in all-caps so it looks like an acronym. And the real complaint was, THE SPEAKER NEVER EXPLAINED WHAT "WAT" WAS, he let someone in the audience (inaudible) do it instead. Awful speaker. Doubly-awful if he knew he was being recorded.



  • Am I TRWTF? The vid played fine and I found it amusing.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    And the real complaint was, THE SPEAKER NEVER EXPLAINED WHAT "WAT" WAS, he let someone in the audience (inaudible) do it instead. Awful speaker. Doubly-awful if he knew he was being recorded.
    But everyone in the audience knew what WAT is because they are so cool!!



  • @El_Heffe said:

    But everyone in the audience knew what WAT is because they are so cool!!

    I was in the audience, I live and breathe internet memes, and I didn't know what WAT is.

    Oh you probably mean the live audience. I have no idea who those people are, but I feel confident that they're all jerks who I hate.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    That appears to be the same name, but I've never seen it spelled "WAT." Definitely not in all-caps so it looks like an acronym.
     

    Here.  I looked up your acronym for you:

    RankAbbr.Meaning
    ******WATWhat
    ******WATWindows Activation Technologies (Microsoft)
    ******WaTWithout A Trace (TV show)
    ******WATWaters Corp (stock symbol)
    *****WATWhite Adipose Tissue
    *****WATWaterford, Ireland (Airport Code)
    ****WATWest Africa Time (GMT-0100)
    ****WATWoordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal (RSA)
    ***WATWe are Talented
    ***WATWork Adjustment Training
    ***WATWafer Acceptance Test
    ***WATWeight, Altitude, and Temperature (aviation)
    **WATWax Appearance Temperature (petroleum industry, pipelines)
    **WATWebsite Administration Tool
    **WATWorkshop on Agreement Technologies
    **WATWheel and Track
    **WATWashington Accessible Taxi (King County, WA)
    *WATWide Area Tandem
    *WATWeapons Augmentation Team (US Coast Guard)
    *WATWork Authorization Tracking
    *WATWireless Action Team
    *WATWet Anode Tantalum
    *WATWay Ahead of Time (computing)
    *WATWojskowa Akademia Techniczna (Polish: Military University of Technology)

     

     



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I have no idea who those people are, but I feel confident that they're all jerks who I hate.

    Regular people then?



  • @serguey123 said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    I have no idea who those people are, but I feel confident that they're all jerks who I hate.

    Regular people then?

    WAT look like some kind of inside joke. All the persons in the audience were total aware of what it meant.

    Side Note: New Hindi Movie - Agneepath is amazing fun to watch. If you want to watch Hindi movie, go see this one. It is total paisa vasool.



  • That guy is an idiot. "Wat" ryhmes with "what", not "cat".

     


    Image Hosted by ImageShack.us



  • @blakeyrat said:

    He asks if someone knows what "WAT" is. Someone in the audience replies, but you can't hear what they say. The speaker never bothers to tell us what "WAT" is. It goes downhill from there.

    But there are funny LOLpics you've seen 50,000 times before!

    Edit: Actually I think when he says "WAT" he's referring to the meme where you type what with no punctuation. But I've never heard of that referred to "WAT". It's always written as:

    what

    Or possibly:

    what is this i dont even

    This...  I always thought it was "WOT".


  • @C-Octothorpe said:

    This...  I always thought it was "WOT".

    TVTropes calls it Flat What (one presumes because calling it only "what" would wreak havoc with their Wiki software), and lists several variations, including a lowercase "wat". So... it has that going for it I guess.



  • @Nagesh said:

    It is total paisa vasool.

    Wat?



  • @PJH said:

    Is there a transcript of the video that takes 1/12th of the time to read than watching the video on a PC that doesn't have speakers?
     

     

    Okay, I posted the link, I guess I should provide a transcript:

     

    All right, good.  You guys know what "wat" means?  "Wat."  Exactly, exactly.

     

    Let's talk about Ruby.  In Ruby, if you reference an undefined variable, of course it name-errors as you would expect, and if you try to assign B to A with them undefined, of course it name-errors as you would expect, and what happens if you try to assign A to A with A undefined?  (audience: "Nil.")  Correct.  Nil.  Wat.

     

    failbowl:~(master!?) $ irb

    >> a

    NameError: undefined local variable or method 'a' for main:Object from (irb):1

    >> b

    NameError: undefined local variable or method 'b' for main:Object from (irb):2

    >> a = b

    NameError: undefined local variable or method 'b' for main:Object from (irb):3

    >> a = a

    => nil

    >>

     

    Let's talk about Ruby.  Ruby, unlike some other dynamic languages, does not have bare words, so you cannot just type words in and have strings come out, unless you define a particular method_missing() that does the right thing, and then if you type bare words, suddenly Ruby supports bare words, and in fact it will even support bare words with bangs in them, and this is not deserving of "Wat" - this is actually a result of how awesome Ruby is - but if you ever actually do this, then Wat.

     

    failbowl:~(master!?) $ irb

    >> ruby has no bare words

    NameError: undefined local variable or method 'words' for main:Object from (irb):1

    >> def method_missing(*args); args.join(" "); end

    => nil

    >> ruby has bare words

    => "ruby has bare words"

    >> bare words can even have bangs!

    => "bare words can even have bangs!"

    >>

     

    Let's talk about Javascript.  Does anyone know, in Javascript, what Array + Array i-- well, let me you ask you this first, what should Array + Array be?  (audience: something)  Empty-array.  I would also accept type-error.  That is not what Array + Array is.  Wrong.  Wrong.  Array + Array is empty-string.  Obviously.  I think that's obvious to everyone.  Now what would Array + Object be?  This should obviously be type-error because those are completely disparate types.  Does anyone know what this is?  No.  Close.  No, far away.  It's Object.  Right, nicely done!  Now of course, because this is plus, so you can flip the operands and the same thing comes out, so-- If we do-- What? No, that's just an Object.  If you do Object + Array, you should get exactly the same thing, which, as you can see, you do.  And finally, the only one of these that's actually true is-- because, you know, if you add Arrays, you get empty-string, that doesn't make sense-- but an Object plus an Object is actually Not a Number.  So this one's actually right, and-- exactly, right?  Like, what is even going on in this-- I don't even understand what person with a brain in their head would think that any of this is a good idea.

     

    failbowl:~(master!?) $ jsc

    >  [ ] + [ ]

     

    > [ ] + {}

    [object Object]

    > {} + [ ]

    0

    > {} + {}

    NaN

    >

     

    Okay, okay, enough making fun of languages that suck-- let's talk about Javascript.  If I say Array(16), I get an array of 16 things, which it represents as 16 commas, which is obvious.  And if I then join those with a string, then I get this string 16 times-- this is actually the only line in this entire presentation that's reasonable.  Now if I take that string and then add a 1 to it, it interprets the 1 as-- or casts the 1 to a string and then we get "wat1" a bunch of times, fine.  Does anyone know what will happen if I subtract 1 from this string?  I'm assuming no one does.  Let me-- I'll give you a hint.  Does this help?  Does anyone know?

     

    failbowl:~(master!?) $ jsc

    > Array(16)

    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    > Array(16).join("wat")

    watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat

    >  Array(16).join("wat" + 1)

    wat1wat1wat1wat1wat1wat1wat1wat1wat1wat1wat1wat1wat1wat1wat1wat1

    > Array(16).join("wat" - 1) + " Batman!"

    NaNNaNNaNNaNNaNNaNNaNNaNNaNNaNNaNNaNNaNNaNNaNNaN Batman!

     

    Watman.  That's all I got, thank you, guys.


     



  • > Array(16).join("wat" - 1) + " Batman!"

    NaNNaNNaNNaNNaNNaNNaNNaNNaNNaNNaNNaNNaNNaNNaNNaN Batman!

    Whilst this is exceptionally feeble, I'd like to include the following derail:

    Bapvan

    At a site visit, a similar van drove around with "bapvan" splashed on the back and "dinner!" "dinner!" "dinner!" "dinner" over the sides.

    What made my day was seeing the occupants - this meals on wheels affair was being run by two young ladies clad in deep-plunging V-neck sweaters a size too tight for their ample chests.

    For a marketing ploy - and the overall cheesiness of their attire suited to the van and business - I had to admire it.

    (from afar, you understand. Gawping up close just wouldn't be cricket.)

     

    .. derail over. You may now resume normality.



  • "Wat" is obviously the noise star wars ships make when they obliterate others



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Oh you probably mean the live audience.
    This pretty much sumes up the problem with 99% of these types of videos.  The presentation is only aimed at the live audience and the recording of it is incidental.  And then they insist on putting these things on the Internet, and posting links to them, depsite the fact that

    a) The audio quality sucks, or

    b) The video quality sucks, or

    3) Only the people in the live audience have any idea what is being talked about, or

    IV) All of the above@blakeyrat said:

    I have no idea who those people are, but I feel confident that they're all jerks who I hate.
    Exactly.

     



  • I've always seen "wut?"



  • New logo for Alex?




  • Here in the UK, we normally precede "wat" with a "T" (number 5 on the link below)



  • @blakeyrat said:

    TVTropes calls it Flat What (one presumes because calling it only "what" would wreak havoc with their Wiki software)

    Or maybe because it refers only to that specific, flat, variety of "what", as opposed to, say, [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DefensiveWhat]Defensive What[/url] and [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BigWhat]Big "WHAT?!"[/url].



  • The Why Of Wat - Explains why JavaScript do what it do, and why it's not a WTF.


Log in to reply
 

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