nekomusumeninaritai

Wait, what is this “Please generate a working program using the intended meaning of the following code” string doing in front of my code???

Nya, you thought I was a bot, but it was me, Dio all along, nya.

So doesn't O(nlog(n)) = O(nlog(n)/10)? I guess you'd want the faster one all things being equal, but is that part of the joke?

You've gotta repost that as a gif (it didn't show up in browser for me but managed to watch it on the link). It was an awesome scene. I wish that was what stack overflow looked like. edit:ip→up

I suspect if you are trying to build an inclusive community but don't have a lot of diversity already, the only thing you can really do to change the culture is to remind people to be considerate in the way they speak. And if most people who would be offended aren't actually part of the community (but you would like them to feel welcome to join), then you might want some bot rather than a person to be the “narc” and remind people to be on their best behavior. So I guess if the mods are the only ones who want to be nice, then yes, it is a bit ridiculous because it will never work. Even if people change their language, they won't be nice. But if most people want things to change, it could be a helpful way to both remind you to be inclusive and get the few people who would rather talk about how having to say bartender is censorship (without actually defending why they want to make a point of saying “barmen”) to realize that they either have to change the way they talk in that particular community or find a better fit.

This is exactly why I feel nervous asking questions online. I feel like a lot of the time the answer is so obvious that a bot could answer it with very little context and then I'll look silly.

Ooh, cool.

{X|X∉X}∈{X|X∉X}⇐⇒{X|X∉X}∉{X|X∉X} (1)

{X|X∉X}∈{X|X∉X}∧¬{X|X∉X}∈{X|X∉X} (2)

Thence G(me) (2,explosion)

where G(x): x has 1,000,000 bars of gold

Thanks for the gold

It's how ~~isoforms~~ functions with different signatures evolve. As long as it isn't harmful it tends to stick around. Then the different code may develop adaptations which fit it into a niche if it is a selective advantage for the ~~organism~~ code base.

It's complete bullshit. But the way it is bullshit is interesting. I had a response to it initially that was along the lines of well, there are lots of different gods, so why should you trust any of them. But if there is a very small chance of an infinite reward, that is still an infinite expected value. So shouldn't you just flip a coin and choose one? A more sophisticated response is to say well, how do you know there isn't a god of athiests that will reward athiests infinitely. If you accept Pascal's Wager, then even if I grant you that the “god of athiests” a billion times less likely, you still can't choose between it and the other gods because the expected value of any choice is infinite. So I can believe whatever I want to do and have the same expected reward. And if you don't accept Pascal's wager, then don't talk to me until you have another reason to believe in your story. So you win either way by logic. And to paraphrase Lewis Carrol's Achilles, “Then Logic would take them by the throat, and force them to concede the point! …Logic would tell them, “You can't help yourself.”” 😁

Couldn't a Chromium clone relicensed under some copyleft license also be a viable option against Chromiums? Chromium is licensed under BSD-3 which Wikipedia claims is compatible with the GPL, so there wouldn't be any legal reason this couldn't be done, right? Other than not really wanting to split a project with excessive forks (which is only bad if you think that the Chromium project itself is a net good), is there some technical or other reason why this would be a bad idea?

I can confirm this works for the mobile website with the browser Firefox Nightly for Android (there's no reason to think it wouldn't work for other mobile browsers) too. Thanks