261–270 of 441 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, Therefore, And, Anyway, But, Who, Why, Besides, However. Each in caps 5 times with the same word with a period and space after each word and newline at the end is what I have found so far. Can anyone find others? Edit: added words that work found in other comments, and found more.
Probably the weirdest one I've found is "Dearness." "Although", "Besides", and "Moreover" also trigger the behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, Therefore, And, Anyway, But, Who, Why, Besides, However. Each in caps 5 times with the same word with a period and space after each word and newline at the end is what I have found so far. Can anyone find others? Edit: added words that work found in other comments, and found more.
How about "Whereas", "Insofaras", "Notwithstanding", "Thetruthofthematter", or "Despiteallobjections"? Didn't try them, but these were "reserved words" in Go (actually an easter egg) until 2017 ( https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2489803/notwithstanding-... ).
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/592322/php-expects-t-paa...
fking google.
there are good [as well as technical humurous] comments on the page.
``` TypeError: Cannot read properties of null (reading 'C') at Ccf ( https://docs.google.com/static/document/client/js/157553674-... ) at Bcf ( https://docs.google.com/static/document/client/js/157553674-... ) ``` Has something to do with grammar. The document does not fail when `Show grammar suggestion` is turned off.
Probably just getting triggering excessive backtracking on some regex.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
try /s at the end of "offending" sentence, most people will look at it more kindly.
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…
I read up to this point thinking you’re being overly pedantic about the specific use of a sarc mark and overly dismissive of the benefit of intent-clarifying hints in text. All the while thinking “I’m going to comment about how much I value intent-clarifying hints in text… and then I have to decide whether I want to mention I’m autistic, and prepare for all of the ways I might be misconstrued or dismissed further.”
So here we are, you’ve saved me the trouble of making that decision. I personally very much appreciate when people signal intent when their meaning can be ambiguous. It doesn’t always feel necessary for me, but it’s never once felt like it taken away from something I otherwise understood as obvious.
My take, which is much cooler than it was when I was gathering thoughts leading up to this but still mildly hot is: what harm does it do to you if someone voluntarily makes something more accessible to someone who’s not you? If you already grokked /s from a sarcastic remark, it’s a tiny bit of information you can scroll past. I understand not explicitly recognizing and endorsing how it might benefit autistic readers, but explicitly rejecting it because it might is baffling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ironic, from the authors of RE2. They know the correct way to implement regexes. Though, when I worked on Google's indexing system, some researchers were having machine learning generate regexes to run on every page in the visible web... and mis-implemented the feature to re-compile the regex to DFA (which re2 effectively lazily converts to NFA via memoization) for every single page load. The speed of the indexing sy…
Re2 is also slower, so they might not be using it for high volume stuff. Also I’ve heard that Google automatically fails people who use regex in interviews, so their average engineers probably aren’t the best at it.
Hmm... I don't remember that, and I conducted over 100 interviews back when I was at Google. A blanket failure for using a regex sounds like it's missing some nuance. But, maybe that was before or after my time.
I wouldn't be surprised if they start out with some interview questions that are easy to implement as regexes, but then gradually make the question harder and more general, where a pushdown automaton is necessary for a general correct solution, and fail people who either don't get a correct answer or end up implementing a pushdown automaton by dynamically generating larger and larger regexes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably the weirdest one I've found is "Dearness." "Although", "Besides", and "Moreover" also trigger the behavior.
How did you stumble on Dearness?
Edit: Got unbored. Discovered that "Firstly", "Secondly", "Thirdly", and "Fourthly" trigger the bug, but "Fifthly" and above do not.
Edit 2: The first word can actually be any of the "problem" words -- "Also. And. And. And. And." also has the issue.