Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Including “And. And. And. And. And.” in a Google doc causes it to crash

support.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 441 posts

Re: Including “And. And. And. And. And.” in a Google doc causes it to crash

#221

Post by usrn »

mgdlbp wrote: post #172
Jap2-0 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rewritten for clarity (and because I now actually know what's happening): If you look at the XML (change .docx to .zip) in styles.xml you see the declaration of the style "BodyText3": The first line ("paragraph") has its style set to "BodyText3", but also has formatting on that section of text itself, overriding it. Once the lines are joined into one paragraph, the paragraph formatting appears in the second part beca…

Steps to reproduce: 1. Create a Word document (most likely using the Blank document template, Normal.dotm) 2. Type text of first line; press Enter; type text of second line (technically Word calls these 'paragraphs'--Shift+Enter inserts a newline within the same paragraph) 3. Place cursor on first paragraph 4. Click a Paragraph Style from the Styles ribbon section to apply it (e.g., the second one, No Spacing) 5. Rig…

This is why I prefer just writing html/markdown and letting pandoc generate docx. Fiddling with the Word GUI when I know what I want and how to type it is just frustrating.

Re: Including “And. And. And. And. And.” in a Google doc causes it to crash

#222

Post by c1ccccc1 »

TMWNN wrote: post #150
kappuchino wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

try /s at the end of "offending" sentence, most people will look at it more kindly.

Quoted post unavailable.

Not many people know this, but similar to image alt text, the tag was originally introduced for accessibility reasons, so that people with autism and similar conditions can experience the web in the same way as more neuro-typical folks do. The tags should be invisible in the average browser, unless you've got sarcasm highlighting turned on. Unfortunately, the feature hasn't really caught on, and it remains unsupported by most software.

Re: Including “And. And. And. And. And.” in a Google doc causes it to crash

#223

Post by [deleted] »

Icathian wrote: post #215
a-dub wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

having spent time on both sides of the fence, i've noticed that there can be a rivalry of sorts between software engineers and ml/ds/researcher types. researcher types often get to work on problems that swe types find interesting, so some swes get grumbly. researcher types also tend to write pretty horrific code which adds salt to the wounds. but there also can be a sort of envy that emanates from the research side.…

It's funny you should say that, I definitely was the DS who wanted to be an SWE. I switched hats and am just thrilled, but I do run into a lot of my new peers who wish to go the other direction. Finding some perfect compromise for those groups would probably be a superpower for whichever org pulled it off, I agree.

[deleted]

Re: Including “And. And. And. And. And.” in a Google doc causes it to crash

#224

Post by KMag »

a-dub wrote: post #217
KMag wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> maybe a little training on why customizing a programming language with macros is bad Both the author and the reviewer had passed C++ style certification. They knew why it was bad. They just got a little lazy and wanted to write their code in a way that felt familiar to them, and figured it was harmless. I got a bit grumpy at having to drop what I was doing right away to fix their mistake due to their laziness.

also, just to be clear. the macro only included open and close curlies? if so that's silly, as it is literally 2x the work to type. if they also included some sort of state that had to be managed, then it starts to verge towards reasonable.

I think that maybe the author felt like finding the end of a loop stood out much better that way, instead of trying to distinguish the ends of conditional blocks from the ends of loops. If you're used to poorly formatted code in an ML PhD program, it does make some sense. I've worked with a bit of academic Fortran code for my mechanical engineering degree and can sympathize. Also, D and O are shorter reaches on the keyboard than { and }.

Yes, "OD" was definitely just "}". DO might have been ") {" to allow

  while (a

Re: Including “And. And. And. And. And.” in a Google doc causes it to crash

#225

Post by bee_rider »

Diesel555 wrote: post #134
eyelidlessness wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read it as a joke, but I started with an assumption of good intent.

Following the guidelines I see > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith

Is there a stronger plausible interpretation than:

It is a joke, poking fun at our overly aggressive cyber crimes laws.

?

Re: Including “And. And. And. And. And.” in a Google doc causes it to crash

#227

Post by bee_rider »

u2077 wrote: post #210
ManBlanket wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure you're great. Nothing against you, but please don't do that. Just write what you mean if you can't handle some people misinterpreting a sarcastic remark. Let's think about this for a second. What's the point of sarcasm? If you have to tell people you're being sarcastic, are you still being sarcastic? Not sure what territory, "/s" blunders into, but I'm confident it's not sarcasm. It's something else that see…

Just as a side note, I thought /s meant serious. I think I’ve might’ve have seen it used in both contexts.

I've never seen that interpretation, but I have to say -- as someone who is not a fan of the /s, I find the fact that it could be interpreted as the exact opposite of the standard meaning pretty funny. In fact I think I will start using it this way, to sow discord among the /s fans. /s

Re: Including “And. And. And. And. And.” in a Google doc causes it to crash

#228

Post by c1ccccc1 »

u2077 wrote: post #210
ManBlanket wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure you're great. Nothing against you, but please don't do that. Just write what you mean if you can't handle some people misinterpreting a sarcastic remark. Let's think about this for a second. What's the point of sarcasm? If you have to tell people you're being sarcastic, are you still being sarcastic? Not sure what territory, "/s" blunders into, but I'm confident it's not sarcasm. It's something else that see…

Just as a side note, I thought /s meant serious. I think I’ve might’ve have seen it used in both contexts.

As the "end of sarcasm" marker, it means both:

"{sarcasm here} /s {seriousness here}"

Re: Including “And. And. And. And. And.” in a Google doc causes it to crash

#229

Post by mgdlbp »

munk-a wrote: post #167
JasonFruit wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I've found gender to be generally irrelevant to most of my social interactions. I'm, personally, in a committed relationship and not picky genderwise anyways so, as a habit, I've been trying to remove any and all gendered pronouns[1] from my speech. I find it pretty silly that gender plays so central a role in grammar. It, IMO, elevates it above how we should conceive of it - just one of many attributes a person has…

I've contemplated a sort of 'minimally offensive' register of language where you do remove any and all pronouns (that is, the ones someone might object to, along with all other language that might be objected to) while being as natural as possible so that no one notices your lack of usage of any bit of language (though someone analysing the corpus of your writing certainly would). Seems like a technique a corporation seeking to avoid controversy would employ, though I suppose by its very nature I wouldn't notice if one were successful in doing so!

I always find it interesting to consider other languages when discussing things like this. It's generally easy to eliminate arbitrary words from your personal dialect, but grammatical gender can't be so simply ignored in most Indo-European languages, nor can it be eliminated, the status quo of gender agreement (e.g., of adjectives and the nouns they modify) being a crucial part of the evolved flow of information in each natural language.

However, I still think there's an 'elegant' resolution, which is to consider grammatical gender as 'yet another noun class system'. You can then, in a language-neutral way, move all people (optionally also animals, etc.) to one grammatical gender (now we argue over whether the 'one gender' should be the existing masculine or feminine--not all languages have the neuter!). All other words would retain current their grammatical genders (and m/f/n might be renamed to something like class 1/2/3). Words for people (e.g., man/woman) could also be moved, but don't have to, since their noun classes would now be entirely orthogonal to people's gender.

This is still too large of a change to convince people to actually adopt, but it's certainly more reasonable than the drastic alternative and more elegant IMO than the other proposals I've seen. Plus, it was never the case that grammatical genders could be always be made to agree (take, for example, two nouns of differing gender in apposition or coreference), and there's already a case like this in the German 'Mädchen' ("girl"). As a diminutive, it's grammatically neuter, so words modifying it also take the neuter. Distant anaphors formally also do, but colloquially they're often feminine.

Re: Including “And. And. And. And. And.” in a Google doc causes it to crash

#230

Post by [deleted] »

AccountAccount1 wrote: post #125

I find it very poetic that this crash was triggered by a poem, here's the poem: > Duration and the body: I thought about something I had read a while ago which said that a body, the body, is defined by duration. That a body in the present is inseparable from its previous state, that a body is linked in a continuous strand… and so on and so on… I thought about my body. It’s past. It’s present… Which made me think abou…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN