181–190 of 215 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A good poet knows when and how to defy grammar.
Except he isn't defying grammar. It's correct to use loose that way.
Here’s my test for whether you’re qualified to post to Hacker News. Pair the following five comments with their corresponding definitions: 1. “Raganwald is a blowhard whose pathetic attempts to score karma reveal him as an insecure dweeb who can’t get over being kicked around in grammar school. He and his mumblings should be should be flushed down the toilet bowl like the turds that they are.” 2. “What, raganwald is…
1E 2C 3D 4A 5B Do I pass?
google "look over there." == 1.5M hits
google "look over their." == 16.2M hits
google "look over they're." == 1.0M hits
Google doesn't support periods, apparently. But, other examples from the article are a little more easy to game:
google "do you know were we are going?" = 8 hits
google "do you know we're we are going?" = 0 hits
google "do you know where we are going?" = 6.1M hits
As is often the case with these "I'm so smart and other people aren't" posts, the author makes what I bet is an unintended mistake. I assume they want each option to have only one solution. The last example ("It is poor form to ____ you temper in a discussion group"), either option (lose or loose) works. The verb form of 'loose' means 'to set free', and temper has come to mean an agitated state of mind. So you can sa…
(Non native english speaker) isn't the verb "to go TO" and the whole sentence: "Do you know where we're going TO?"
"Do you know where we're going?" would be what most UK speakers would say, and "Do you know to where we are going?" would be an archaic variant which implies a location is requested rather than an action. The verb used is "to go"; the answer might be "[we are going] to London" or "[we are going] shopping". There's some potential for confusion in that the verb "to go" can be used for the future imperfect (I think, I w…
Not that that is a place where idiots are likely to venture, but I remember this "captcha" for the Arch Linux forums: What is the output of "date -u +%W$(uname)|sha256sum|sed 's/\W//g'"? ( https://bbs.archlinux.org/register.php )
EDIT: whoops, I interpreted it as 's/\S//g', which I assumed would discard everything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't you think it's ironic then that you misspelled "suitable"?
See Muphry's Law: http://www.editorscanberra.org/muphrys-law/ :) edit : Why can't I use an apostrophe in a URL? HN seems to be stripping it out, so couldn't link to the Wikipedia page without a crufty "%27" showing up...
Interesting. It looks like ASCII character 27 is supposed to be valid within URIs according to both RFC 3986 and RFC 1738 (via [0]). Maybe it's a simple component of a system for preempting SQLi on other sites via links from HN?
[0] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1547899/which-characters-...
Here’s my test for whether you’re qualified to post to Hacker News. Pair the following five comments with their corresponding definitions: 1. “Raganwald is a blowhard whose pathetic attempts to score karma reveal him as an insecure dweeb who can’t get over being kicked around in grammar school. He and his mumblings should be should be flushed down the toilet bowl like the turds that they are.” 2. “What, raganwald is…
>"He and his mumblings should be should be flushed down the toilet bowl //
So arguably you're making the case to ignore his [implied] argument based on, in the antecedent sentence, his character. Sounds ad hominem to me.
Just saying.
Here’s my test for whether you’re qualified to post to Hacker News. Pair the following five comments with their corresponding definitions: 1. “Raganwald is a blowhard whose pathetic attempts to score karma reveal him as an insecure dweeb who can’t get over being kicked around in grammar school. He and his mumblings should be should be flushed down the toilet bowl like the turds that they are.” 2. “What, raganwald is…
Really I think you could just get away with testing to see if the user knows the difference between an Ad Hominem and a standard insult. There is little more annoying than someone who thinks they see logical fallacies where none exist and take the conversation from bad (real arguments intermixed with old fashioned insults) to worse (nothing but an argument from fallacy) "I don't claim to know what an Ad Hominem is."…