It’s interesting that mapping random noise to characters via OCR generally produces valid perl… but I always hated how they phrased the title of this experiment since it’s obviously bullshit. Essentially, a good interesting experiment made less interesting by a sensationalist title.
Perl programs are, by definition, text. So “paint splatters are valid Perl” implies that there’s a mapping from paint splatters to text.
Do you have a suggested mapping of paint splatters to text that would be more “accurate” than OCR? And do you really think it would result in fewer valid Perl programs?
“Feeding garbage to OCR” is a really boring way of generating text. I was assuming it would be something more interesting, like creating a symbolic representation of the splatters and generating text from that. Using OCR is basically piping /dev/urandom to perl and seeing what happens. The fact that they’re valid perl programs is worth a laugh but the generation method is totally uninteresting.
I agree that a symbolic representation of the splatters would probably be more interesting. The whole point is that random character sequences are often valid Perl, though, so changing the generation method wouldn’t change that aspect.
The whole point is that random character sequences are often valid Perl
When I read the headline I also assumed “valid Perl program” meant it did something interesting. I was expecting to read an article about an interesting image to text conversion process that produced non-trivial Perl programs.
The secret to a healthy career in IT is to let things break just a little every once in a while. Nothing so bad as to cause serious problems. But just enough to remind people that you exist and their world would come crumbling down without you.
I get really fucking tired of justifying work. Like, I have delivered every single project I’ve ever been given ahead of schedule. But every time a new project comes up, higher level managers want all these update meetings to check up on the status, discuss risk factors that might prevent it from being delivered, and a bunch of other bullshit. You’re the risk factor, motherfucker, you and your meetings. Get the fuck out of my way and I’ll deliver it ahead of schedule just like literally every other project I’ve ever been in charge of. Quit feeling that you need to be involved! You don’t. You’re a road block that provides no value. Ugh!
If you’re ignoring all the risk factors, got no contingency plans or measurements against projected time and budget you have delivered everything on time and budget by luck.
If you already have those, those meetings should absolutely be a 30 min weekend meeting to check on status and what else you may need to keep delivering.
I know they should be 30 minutes per week. But they’re not, and that’s the frustration. A weekend meeting though? I have a feeling that we may perceive work-life balance differently.
Weekly report that says XXXX attempted/failed attacks of X type, of y type, etc. and the ability to produce the 70m scroll and generally talk about the stuff on request.
They’re a user around here that has the username onlinepersona [And something else I think], they’ve been doing the same thing since…before the reddit exodus I think, so that’s probably who you picked it up from
Now that I think about it I don’t think I’ve seen him in awhile now
They’re a user around here that has the username onlinepersona [And something else I think], they’ve been doing the same thing since…before the reddit exodus I think, so that’s probably who you picked it up from
Now that I think about it I don’t think I’ve seen him in awhile now
There’s always a few people who feel the need to inform me how futile it is, that I’m stupid for trying, telling me to stop, or whatever else people come up with. But for every one of those, I feel like there are more who are genuinely curious and some are even understanding, maybe even supportive!
Just block the negative people and move on 🤷 The license text ain’t hurting nobody and anybody triggered enough to insult or mock you about it ain’t worth reading anyway.
Just block the negative people and move on 🤷 The license text ain’t hurting nobody and anybody triggered enough to insult or mock you about it ain’t worth reading anyway.
I agree, but I’ve been told they’re very obnoxious, and I’m a fool to believe in them, and get a lot of harsh language and arguments about using it.
I keep having to remind people it’s just a link in a comment, but it really triggers some people for some reason.
They’re really not that obnoxious. The folks getting their panties in wads about it are either fools, or astroturfers. You do you chief, and I for one support this. Folks get overly triggered about all sorts of stupid little shit, don’t let them get you down. Someday soon a bunch of us will probably wish we did something like what you’re doing.
They’re really not that obnoxious. The folks getting their panties in wads about it are either fools, or astroturfers. You do you chief, and I for one support this. Folks get overly triggered about all sorts of stupid little shit, don’t let them get you down. Someday soon a bunch of us will probably wish we did something like what you’re doing.
Appreciate the kind words.
Yeah I’m still calming down from having to do battle with this Lemmy user, but I plan on keep adding the license to my comments, as at this point it just feels like the right thing to do.
I might change the wording though to how you worded it, seems more intuitive for people to understand, than listing the actual Creative Commons license code/name.
TL;DR: it displays fine on the web client, so get the devs to fix your app, or use the web client.
Edit: Added a second link that has an actual example of both regular, super, and subscript fonts being used, as well as a link to Lemmy World’s help page on formatting comments.
I strongly hesitated saying anything at all b/c there are so very many different rules governing the behavior of every single kind of symbol. Though one jumping off point is the use of the parenthesis, without slashes prior to them and them meaning alternatives within a grouping context rather than merely “remembering”, for the sake of e.g. replacement or copying, so e.g. in the Unix CLI “grep” command this would not work even with the -e parameter (I am not so sure about perl-style though, or rather, this would work within pure perl, but perl-style regexps from within grep is another matter, plus that option itself is not universal across all forms of Unix).
In any case, I hoped that the YoMama joke would be universally understood and appreciated regardless, across all of the many & varied language barriers 😜.
True, but see, all these build up on the theoretical regex. The theoretical regex indeed has only 3 operators: dot for concatenation, pipe for alteration and the ‘kleene star’ [re: Sipser’s]. These 3 operators can express a finite state automata. You don’t really need all that other operators. Read this: swtch.com/~rsc/regexp/regexp1.html Algorithms like Thompson construction can translate a regex to a non-deterministic automata quite quickly, and then from there you can make a DFA or just simulate the NFA.
I would not call PCRE ‘regular expression’ really. If you read the article I gave you it explains why they are mostly a practical utility than a theoretical groundwork. The regex in use today is far from the regex one learns about in books.
I think regex is abused. People use it to parse context-free grammars. Extremely intricate and feature-rich patterns cause people to make mistakes, and end up with security holes!
That being said, I really enjoy NeoVim’s regex. I also like Perl’s. But I would not rely on them for parsing, or even lexing.
What should we talk about then, glob patterns (which are NOT regular expressions, for the love of all that is holy and unholy, stop calling glob patterns RE!)
programmer_humor
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.