Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Pete Svarrior

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 275  Next >
1
...and after umpteen pages, I refer you back to Tom's assertion, similar to yours and TL's, which he made at Reply #6, and to my response to his at #8.
You can "refer" me to anything you want. It doesn't particularly change the fact that you're just airing your cluelessness here. Especially when the response you "referred" me to is just you repeatedly expressing your outrage.

Outrage is not a substitute for a counter-argument. You are welcome to be angry with those who point out your lack of understanding, but your anger does not affect the merit of your position (or at least does not affect it positively).

So: if you show yourself to be clueless, it will probably be pointed out. If you ask why being clueless is significant, it will probably be explained to you. If your only response to that is "OHMIGOSH SHAAAAAME ON YOU", then you might as well not say anything.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 06, 2020, 04:38:02 PM »
Fair.  But ya gotta admit, Eagle, sitting on top of a cirlcle with your national symbol on it.  Kiiiinnnddaaa makes ya wonder.
Does it, though? I mean, does it really, Dave?

American symbolism is eagles all over the place. Eagle hiding behind a shield holding some arrows and fresh herbs (Great Seal). Eagle on a ball (Marines). Eagle holding a key (NSA). Eagle holding some arrows, but this time no fresh herbs (DoD). Eagle holding a shield while tripping balls in front of a vapourwave globe (Cyber Command). Eagle sitting on top of an American flag emblem (Central Command).

The abuse of the poor eagle long predates the Nazi regime, too. This is a terrible take.

3
Even if you're right about this, so what?
Well, it would be a good idea to figure out how it works before declaring it to not be working. Your strategy of just rapid-firing criticisms and hoping that some of them won't be completely ludicrous is not a persuasive one.

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Doubt in Universal Acceleration
« on: July 04, 2020, 10:46:35 PM »
We don't need to use the stars
No, no, let's not change your claims. Let's simply correct the errors within. You were provided with a list. Get on with it.

And no, your core failure continues to become more pronounced every time you post. You assume that the only source of Doppler shitfts in light is UA/gravity, or that you can somehow isolate it within an Earth-bound observation. It isn't, and you can't.

5
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Unread Posts not working
« on: July 03, 2020, 03:35:18 PM »
The button currently displays "Recent Posts" since your last visit, whatever that means. Probably something like "if you've read a post with a higher ID, we won't show you this one anymore". Whatever it actually is, I suspect that the definition of "recent" is the issue here.
I am now confident that this is the source of the issue.

SMF keeps track of what the highest post ID was at the time of your "last visit", counting re-visits within a 5-hour window to be part of the same "visit". It, uh, actually does something more complicated and less sensical than that (it's basically impossible to define what "recent" is), but this is close enough.

If there are unread posts which are older than what was available during your "last visit", they will never be listed in "Recent Unread Topics". Even if you haven't read the thread. Even if you actively *marked it as unread* by yourself. It does not fall within the definition of "recent" as decided by SMF.

So, we have several options:
  • We can argue that a button that says "Unread Posts" should display ALL unread posts in a category. This is easily done by redirecting the button to already existing functionality. There will be some initial inconvenience since some users no doubt have thousands of old unread threads which will suddenly appear in that list. However, once they've cleaned it up once, it will then continue to work in a way anyone would experience.
  • We can redefine what "recent" means. Instead of saying "Show me posts which are unread, which also fall within a timeframe which is not intuitively predictable, due to its reliance on the creation time of the post you last saw, but only if that happened more than 5 hours ago. So, y'know, maybe hours, maybe days, could be months if you haven't logged in in a while, who knows my dude" we could say "Show me posts which are unread and less than a month old". This has the benefit of not displaying truly ancient stuff, and should feasibly capture anything that a regular user might still want to read.
  • We can conclude that the function works as intended. It does display recent unread posts, even if a normal human won't be able to pinpoint exactly when "recent" is.
In scenarios b and c, I would also advocate for more clearly signposting that "Unread Posts" means "Recent Unread Posts". Probably just throw in a "Recent" there.

6
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Unread Posts not working
« on: July 03, 2020, 01:23:19 PM »
Hmm, no, that might be part of it, but it's not quite the cause. It actually looks like there are two ways to display "Recent Posts".

The button currently displays "Recent Posts" since your last visit, whatever that means. Probably something like "if you've read a post with a higher ID, we won't show you this one anymore". Whatever it actually is, I suspect that the definition of "recent" is the issue here.

There is a secondary function which displays all unread in a category (FE boards in this case) which appears to show a much more complete listing.

It might be an idea to use that one by default. The first time around it will probably spam people with ancient unread topics, but you have an easy way of marking them all as read. The downside is that if you don't always mark everything as read, old threads you don't care about will clutter your view. The upside is that you'll never miss a post.

7
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Unread Posts not working
« on: July 03, 2020, 01:03:07 PM »
Yes, an early investigation on my end also suggests that it's impossible for this to be a recent breakage.

I have a hunch as to what might be going on, but this is mostly untested and unsubstantiated for now, so take it with a massive grain of salt:

The code that generates these "Recent Posts" tries to keep database queries small in size by only checking the most recent few hundred posts. If the unread post you couldn't see was relatively old (say, there were a few hundred posts made in-between), it would never be found by it. For example: if I mark a recent thread as unread, it starts showing up in the "Recent Posts" for the right category, but if I go a few pages down and mark a thread in there, this won't be reflected in "Recent Posts" at all.

I am not yet sure if the significant factor here is the ID of the OP, or the ID of the most recent post in that thread. I suspect it might be the former - when I marked robinofoxley's thread (the one you pointed to) as unread, it did not show up in "Recent Posts", possibly because the thread itself is "old".

As I said before, this is a behemoth of a function, and reading it while sober makes me ache, so I can't confirm this with any confidence just yet, but it seems like a very likely explanation for what's going on.

I had a similar disagreement with SMF's devs back in 2015. The "Status Notices" list in the sidebar of our homepage wouldn't work, because their code would only check the last ~175 posts on the entire forum, and we usually had more than 175 posts between notices being posted. I suggested removing the restriction, but in short I was told that:
  • The problems we're encountering will never happen on a big forum.
  • The project leader runs multiple forums and has never had a problem, therefore the problem doesn't exist.
  • Lifting these restrictions would KILL YOUR SERVER!!1!! because of VERY LARGE DB QUERIES!!!!!!
  • It is rude and presumptuous of me to point out that SMF routinely performs large db queries, and that it's the DBMS's job to handle those correctly

In other words, it is unlikely that SMF will be fixing it soon, but we should either lift or greatly slacken these limits to see if it helps.

8
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Unread Posts not working
« on: July 02, 2020, 08:31:41 PM »
This is a recent development.  As recently as last week it worked fine.
This is useful information. We did make a bunch of changes recently, none of which I would immediately think might be related, but it gives us something to look through.

9
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Unread Posts not working
« on: July 02, 2020, 08:04:17 PM »
So, the function that generates these is an amazing 900-liner featuring awe-inspiring comments from the original authors like "// Sanity... where have you gone?"

I hope to set an expectation here. I'm not sure what's going wrong, but I can confirm that the results "seem wrong" from my point of view too. However, figuring out wtf is going on may turn out to be trivial, or it may turn out to be impossible.

10
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Profile post ordering
« on: June 30, 2020, 03:35:10 PM »
Getting rid of the numbers might be the best solution. Alternatively, we can generate a random integer for each post. Or select a random emoji.

11
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Profile post ordering
« on: June 30, 2020, 02:53:46 PM »
That is what it sounds like to me, too, but Parsifal seems to have interpreted it the other way, and I can completely see why he would.

In either case this is easy to implement and could be provided as a user-facing option. Though I'm not sure how beneficial this would be - those numbers don't mean anything anyway. The number of posts that can be shown depends on your level of access (we can see deleted posts, you can't, and guest can't see most of your posts because they're in CN/AR) and will pretty much never match the supposed post count listed in your profile (those are super inaccurate, and they're not actually tied to the number of posts you've made).

Basically, the post count is a variable that goes up when you post and down when you remove a post. Except not always, because SMF. The value is never cross-checked against how many posts you've actually made, unless this is triggered manually by the admin. Parsifal can also set my post count to -69, and it'll just carry on incrementing/decrementing from there.

12
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Allow markdown for post formatting
« on: June 30, 2020, 02:25:30 PM »
To me, this sounds like an attempt to add complexity to an already overly complex system. I can't envision it going well. My vote would be firmly against.

If the concern is that you might have to wrap your posts in a tag, you could give youself an option to perform this wrapping automatically.

13
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Profile post ordering
« on: June 30, 2020, 11:18:54 AM »
Your post can be interpreted in two ways, or at least it's not immediately clear to me.

Are you saying that, when viewing someone's posts, you'd like to see their oldest posts on page 1? Or are you saying that you'd still like to see most recent posts on the first page, but you'd like to see them numbered differently?

14
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Allow markdown for post formatting
« on: June 30, 2020, 11:17:17 AM »
I'm unconvinced that there would be much of an uptake of for this, but in principle it can't hurt if implemented correctly. If implemented incorrectly, it'd just make life harder while providing very little benefit.

The only way I can see this being feasible without an extreme overhaul is to introduce a [markdown] block BBCode. Maybe something like [md] if you'd like it shorter. You can then thwack anything within the block through a markdown parser. This also has the added benefit of not mangling previous posts, and of not impacting those who'd like to use an asterisk as a simple symbol instead of a Turing machine.

15
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Library not on https
« on: June 26, 2020, 05:58:30 PM »
I don't mean to speak out of line, but I tend to agree with Parsifal (or whatever the hell he calls himself now), if it's just downloads, what are you going to gain by encrypting the link?
We're all in agreement that any benefits would be minimal. However, there are scenarios in which it could be beneficial.

The hypothetical risk here isn't that a third party will see what you're seeing (they can do that anyway in this case, as you pointed out), but that you can't technically be sure that the file you received was served by us. If I wanted to download something from the library over HTTP, I have to trust that my ISP or another malicious actor doesn't MitM me and force-feed me a file different from what I requested. The whole point is that if you request something via HTTPS, you have some reassurance that what you're receiving is what the sender intended.

The current state of the library illustrates that quite well, actually. You CAN fetch files from the library via HTTPS, but the certificate being served does not match the domain you've requested. This should trigger a security warning from your browser, and ideally block the file transfer until you've manually OK'd it.

https://library.tfes.org/library/Flat_Earth_Society_Newsletter_-_1977_July.pdf

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 23, 2020, 08:43:31 PM »
It's a giant tax break for the wealthy, or maybe they do have a genuine heart - I don't want to be the judge of that. It's def a tax break though.
That's the thing, though. He's not donating his salary to charity. He's simply not taking it.

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: June 23, 2020, 08:22:30 PM »
If this is true, and I doubt it is, regardless whether or not he gave up any money, he's still filthy rich.
Interestingly enough, a common argument among his detractors is that he's not rich at all. They'd tell you that he has relatively little wealth, and that most businesses he's ever held went bankrupt.

The fact that he gives up his salary as president is evidence of that. If he can give away $500,000/year, chances are he makes substantially more than that.
Then again, there aren't many rich people who would donate $500k to the US government. Indeed, most of them would happily take the extra dosh. What gives?

19
I've reviewed the warning. Thork, your post blatantly falls outside of the standards of the upper fora. It wasn't "related to the thread's opening topic or a natural progression thereof". The "person you engaged in debate" responded by pointing out that you completely missed his point. In other words, the response you're so proud of was literally pointing out that you're veering off topic.

Posting basically nothing other than a meme (two old memes in rapid succession, if we count the text) is not how you PR&S. If you want to say "haha cool story bro", do what literally everyone else does - start a thread in CN/AR with your super edgy response.

No one cares if you're the OP, the rules still apply to you.

Furthermore, your posts here are completely out of whack, too. You're doing the standard "boo hoo, Thork didn't get his way" routine. I'm asking you to stop. Alternatively, if you're so unhappy with how cowardly SMF's codebase is and how terrible it is that you can't just spam the forum with shitposts whenever you feel like it, you can find a place that suits your needs better.

As far as I can tell, Junker's only fault here was to continue engaging with you after it became obvious that you're just trolling. This thread has run its course, so I'll be locking it. If you want to escalate this, bother Parsifal directly.

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Black Lives Matter
« on: June 21, 2020, 10:49:26 AM »
I'm gonna take the lazy route. I don't really want to go watching through a bunch of The Young Turks to pick out specific examples.

I think you're right when you say it's employed more often by the right. Looking at Ad Fontes Media's media bias chart, there are obviously more unreliable media on the right, and it includes big names like Fox News. Meanwhile, the left-hand-side is full of "literally who?"



That said, I think it's also overly reductive to describe it as a problem that's exclusive to the right. I'd be quicker to describe it as a uniquely American problem, but then other Anglo countries are now starting to follow suit.

I suspect part of our disagreement might be in that we're exposed to different media. I see a lot of Occupy Democrats and the Daily Kos in my social circles, despite the fact that they're relatively small. I'm actually not sure why that is, but it certainly skews my view. My more passionate friends end up reposting shit that combines a photo of Trump with a Hitler quote while decrying right-wingers for being idiots who fall for fake news.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 275  Next >