« first day (539 days earlier)      last day (2850 days later) » 

12:32 AM
@YannisRizos You gave us a list of questions that you plan on closing/deleting and asked us to try and salvage them. I am making an attempt to salvage some of the questions that I believe contain value, and you are downvoting my attempts. Can you please explain why?
 
@Rachel Hey :) Nothing personal, I just disagree that these particular questions are salvageable.
I'm allowed to disagree, ain't I?
I also honestly disagree that they contain valuable & helpful info. Interesting yes, but not particularly valuable or helpful.
 
You definitely are, but please state so in the comments. Downvoting makes it seem like you are disagreeing with my attempt to salvage questions, not that you disagree with salvaging that particular question
 
@Rachel Mark beat me to an answer at the first one, and I agree with his answer... I was about to write an answer to the second one when you pinged me ;)
 
12:58 AM
Bah you guys are seriously cutting into my league-of-legands time!
 
1:12 AM
@YannisRizos You know, it really bothers me that a yes/no question I ask on meta gets downvoted by you because your answer was No. I won't hold it against you (right now), but I just wanted to let you know
 
@Rachel Why? That's exactly what voting means on Meta...
 
Voting on meta means you agree/disagree with the question. It should not be used to answer the question
 
Voting here works a bit differently from the main site. On Meta, voting is often used to express agreement or disagreement, not to point out a lack of quality or helpfulness. Please don't be concerned if you receive downvotes – members of the community may simply disagree with your bug, feature request, support issue, or the nature of the discussion.
 
user2334
@Rachel I for one appreciate your attempts to salvage questions: it was my hope with the STCI we could get to a place where we take real action on the contentious questions instead of just having them sit around. The work done on the failure question is good stuff
 
@Rachel and I'm cleaning obsolete comments on the burnout question, and already deleted the one "not an answer" answer, trying to get the question in shape, even if I don't see how it will ever fit the site ;)
 
1:17 AM
@MarkTrapp Thanks :) I agree with closing/deleting a large number of those questions, and am glad you're giving us the opportunity to go through them and pick out the ones we think are useful and would like to salvage
On totally unrelated note, I just found my daily WTF, courtesy of some random realestate agent: fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/… :)
 
@Rachel Heh, there's even an answer there that supports my point that the question is off topic, even if we make it constructive... ;P
 
zomg! I love this proposal!
47
Q: Building an archive of deleted questions

Pekka's Reputation BordelloBack when the first discussion about deleted questions came up, I promised to look into building an official unofficial read-only archive for good deleted SE content. I had a plan to build something like this: Each link would point to a 1:1 scraped StackOverflow (or other SE network) deleted ...

 
user2334
1:35 AM
@Rachel It'd ruin the persona I've received as Chairman Mao reincarnate, so don't tell anyone, but I'm a closet inclusionist. If someone has a way to save a question, I'm all for it.
5
 
user2334
@Rachel Looks like Jeff at least is keen to what Programmers.SE is trying to do with the blog: "note that my opinion on this has changed since that quote; the rise of the per-site blog has significantly altered the landscape. – Jeff Atwood♦ Feb 14 at 1:23" My guess is that'll be the officially sanctioned way to archive questions
 
Yay!! :)
 
 
2 hours later…
3:56 AM
I'm thinking I want to start learning Flash programming, to get in to web programming... The trick is, when and how to do it...
 
4:42 AM
@Pearsonartphoto Learn HTML 5 and Javascript. Flash is prevalent now but it's seen as being on the way out by many.
 
 
6 hours later…
10:44 AM
@JoshK So. Python omits curly braces. That seems to make the utterly superfluous and completely useless. I'm not allowed to say "aren't really all that helpful" when I have a fact -- Python doesn't use them. How is Python not using curly braces anything less than a fact? I'm puzzled why you keep insisting that Python not using curly braces is not a simple, bare fact. Why?
@JoshK So. Facts involving dumb people are not facts? Really. That makes it largely impossible to have a conversation about your heavy-handed edits demanding facts. I have to somehow pre-filter the facts to eliminate the "dumb person" factor? Is that your new standard? It must both be factual and not involve dumb people. Okay. How do I do that? Can you list specific ways to determine if the question involved a dumb person?
@JoshK I object to having the "extra curly braces aren't really all that helpful" because there are actual facts that indicate the curly braces are not necessary. Python and PHP mean that they are not necessary. I used helpful as a synonym for necessary specifically because -- in many languages -- they clearly do not "help" anyone do better indentation. If you want proof, debug someone's C code where they indented correctly and omitted the '}'. I have actually done this. It's a fact.
@JoshK You're simply denying my factual experience with curly braces. Is that it? My experience is of no value. Your claim is that my experience did not exist and is not factual? Is that your claim? I'm making up the hours spent getting C programs to compile?
 
 
2 hours later…
12:54 PM
Any recommendations as to how I might go about learning HTML 5? I've done a bit of java script some time ago, so...
 
 
1 hour later…
2:14 PM
@JoshK @SLott What question are you guys talking about? I'm curious... :)
 
@Rachel JoshK didn't like my answer because it was somehow fact-free. JoshK then made a couple of very heavy-handed edits that did not introduce any actual facts. I remain shocked at the edits, since they did not actually add facts to the answer.
 
So roll it back?
 
@Rachel Since the question was closed, that's academic. What's more important -- to me -- is JoshK's claim that my facts were merely opinions. I remain shocked that my factually-based answer would be edited and then my facts repeatedly disputed. I'm quite disappointed and want to know what -- specifically -- is required to prevent that kind of heavy-handed editing in the future.
 
Well from my point of view, a lot of what he erased is opinions, even if it is educated opinions that are likely true. We're a subjective site covering subjective material, and I have no problem with educated opinions. I'd say just roll it back
I can see questions/answers getting heavily edited if the question was flagged for closure/deletion and edits are required to make it more on target, however that question is already closed and I don't really see it being saved, so why waste moderator time on it
 
@Rachel Can you be specific on what was opinion? JoshK edits seemed to dispute two facts claiming they were opinion. Which ones are you disputing?
 
2:30 PM
"A lost cause"
"It's a silly personal bias against obvious indentation and toward hard-to-see punctuation marks"
"This doesn't make much sense"
"people often make mistakes with curly braces"

These all seem like opinions too me. Educated opinions, but opinions none the less. I'd still prefer the answer in its original form though
This site is subjective, and a lot of answers are opinions. I'd rather see the answer from the point of view of one opinion that is standard to programmers, then an attempt to make it factual when there is no factual answer
 
@Rachel "A lost cause" is a conclusion. ""It's a silly personal bias a..." comes from the question. Seems indisputable to me. "This doesn't make much sense" is my actual response; if you're going to dispute my personal state of mind with me, that's rude. "people often make mistakes with curly braces" is factual.
@Rachel I see your point on my conclusion only. The rest is simply puzzling to me.
 
People are entitled to different opinions. Just roll back the edits and leave a note that you don't agree with them. If he re-instates the edits, then you can raise hell
He's only editing to try and make the answer better from his point of view
 
@Rachel "People are entitled to different opinions". Good to know. But. That's not what JoshK said, however. JoshK disputed my facts. Rolling back the edit on a closed question is certainly possible. That doesn't explain the heavy-handed editing based on a claim (i.e., "no facts") that isn't sensible.
 
He was only doing what he thought was best for the site. He's not infallible though, and if you disagree with something he did then bring it to his attention nicely. Tell him you don't agree and would like to roll it back.
To be fair, often you come off as very aggressive, and it automatically puts people on defensive and they sometimes miss the point you're trying to make
 
@Rachel "bring it to his attention nicely" So. Taking it to chat is not that? There's yet another channel for communication? Okay then. I guess I'll search around for that.
@Rachel "they sometimes miss the point you're trying to make". It seemed to go much further than that. It seemed like a "I don't like your answer, and I'm changing it making a claim that it lacks a factual basis." I'm not asking for infallibility. I'm asking JohnK why a common Stack Overflow question on missing punctuation isn't factual enough.
 
2:46 PM
I'm just saying, I probably would have gotten all defensive and stubborn if you had talked to me the same way you did to Josh.
And I don't think that was Josh's intention. He was trying to remove what he saw as subjective parts of your answer in an attempt to keep answers on our site more fact-oriented instead of opinion-oriented. Problem is, we're a subjective site
 
@Rachel "what he saw as subjective parts of your answer". Agreed. Well within the role of moderator. No dispute on that. When I provided factual evidence, JohnK went on to dispute the factual support. That's a bit heavy-handed in my opinion.
 
And in my opinion you're very aggressive and its hard to agree with someone you feel you're being attacked by. Perhaps it's best to just agree to disagree, and roll back your answer. He'll probably think twice before editing the same way, and if you continue to notice a habit of it you can post on meta and call him out for it
 
"its hard to agree with someone you feel you're being attacked by. " You didn't see JoshK's requests for facts in the comments (and the dispute of the facts in the comments) which preceded the dispute of the facts here. Providing facts when requested can certainly be seen as an attack. I totally get it. Answering requests for clarification is a form of stubborn attack. Thanks for clarifying that. It's becoming clearer now.
 
It's possible to provide aggressive answers, and I've seen you do it in the past. You might not even realize you're doing it. I've seen plenty of good opinions (and facts) come from you, but I've also seen ones that made me instantly want to go the opposite direction, even though they were right
 
3:20 PM
Hi, I was wondering if this question on SO would be relevant/wanted on Programmers before I vote to close
 
@CharlesSprayberry It probably wouldn't be helpful because we refuse to do someone's homework for them
 
@Rachel Ok, as I expected. Just wanted to make sure as there was already a vote for it to be migrated. Thanks.
 
Perhaps if it was significantly edited so the user was asking for his own benefit rather than for a canned answer he could use in his homework project it might be welcome
But as it stands now, no
@CharlesSprayberry Thanks for checking :)
 
@Rachel Yea, it looks like it has potential but I agree with you
No problem. I've learned a lot more from Programmers than SO really. I'd like to keep it cleaned up
 
3:46 PM
@Rachel "It's possible to provide aggressive answers". Irrelevant. JoshK was challenging the facts; not having an emotional response. At least. That's what all the comments said. If it was an emotional response, then it would be more appropriate to say that it was an emotional response rather that disputing the facts. Calling questions that point out real-world syntax problems "dumb" -- specifically -- doesn't sound like an emotional response.
 
 
2 hours later…
user2334
5:24 PM
57
Q: Upcoming Reputation History Changes

Nick CraverBehind the scenes we've been hard at work making some changes to how we track reputation. Here are some of the issues we're aiming to address with these changes: Reputation Skew (your actual reputation doesn't match what's shown) Up/Down votes oddities (mostly with the daily rep cap, the magic...

 
6:24 PM
Awwww I'm sad. I know I'm going to lose a ton of rep and haven't respeced for that purpose :)
 
6:42 PM
@SLott I don't see how I can explain it any better. Python (as a language) does not conclusively prove that curly braces are “That seems to make the utterly superfluous and completely useless”.
It proves that there is a different way to delimitate blocks other then curly braces. I could take the opposite side and say braces make whitespace completely irrelevant and superfluous and the compiler should ignore it.
@SLott I said that your offering these questions up as “fact” is a nonsense argument. This isn't “fact” programmers have issues with curly braces. Would you like me to list all the questions that have proper punctuation and syntax? Guaranteed mine will outnumber yours.
@SLott I'm not disregarding your experience, I'm saying that putting that experience forward as fact, obviously disproven by the many people who have grasped the concept of using braces and other punctuation in code, is wrong and misleading.
 
psr
@JoshK - I've never seen SLott change his mind. I think it's pretty apparent this isn't going to be such a time. Your positions are both clear and you don't agree. I'd suggest you both let it go.
 
7:06 PM
@JoshK The point is this. Programmers do -- all the time -- confuse punctuation. That's the fact. Are you going to dispute that? If so, we're done. If not, then, I can use that fact to conclude that {}'s will get confused. That's what I said in my answer. That's the factual part of it. Programmers will get {}'s confused. That seems to be sufficient evidence that it's factual.
@JoshK Python (as a language) does not use {}'s. That's a fact. Are you going to dispute that? If so, we're done. If not, that indicates that -- for at least one language -- curly braces are utterly superfluous and completely useless. It seems be factual. For Python. I'm not sure what more evidence can be provided.
@JoshK I'm providing facts. Programmers confuse punctuation. Python does not use curly braces. Are you disputing those two facts? If so, we're done. If not, we can then look at the answer to the question. Programmers do confuse punctuation; curly braces may be popular, but they're not mandatory.
@JoshK "Python (as a language) does not conclusively prove that curly braces are “That seems to make the utterly superfluous and completely useless”." The only thing I can guess is that you're assuming (for private reasons) that I'm making an utterly blanket statement about all possible programming languages. The question was about Python. Why assume I'm saying all punctuation is bad? Is that your objection? Not factual, but some implication?
 
@psr I couldn't agree more :)
 
@psr I'd like to know what part of my facts are not factual. That's the question. JoshK keeps repeating a complaint that {}'s -- not used in Python -- are somehow still necessary -- in Python. And. JoshK seems to be saying that examples of programmers messing up punctuation is not actually factual enough. I'm shocked by it.
@psr As @Rachel said; it's largely personal anyway. It's not this specific question and the factual nature of two of the points in my answer that were edited. It's me.
@psr Sadly. When i do change my mind, I delete all my comments. So, there's no record of me being wrong. Perhaps I should leave them there so that everyone can count the number of times I've been corrected.
 
=O You change your mind?!
 
@Rachel no he doesn't he uses a changemind Monad so it only looks that way to the outside
 
There's nothing wrong with being wrong providing you're willing to learn from it and admit your mistakes. In fact, I think a stronger person is one who can admit their mistakes and learn from them
 
7:18 PM
@Rachel Hence my question to JoshK about what it takes to make my facts suitably factual. I thought SO questions with bad punctuation would be enough. It's not. I thought Python syntax would be enough. It's not. Then you pointed out that it was actually personal. Clearly, that's the explanation. Appreciate it.
 
psr
@WorldEngineer - The sure sign an internet conversation has degenerated beyond repair is the inevitable moment when someone starts throwing monads around.
 
@SLott I think you're misquoting me a bit. To set the record straight, I do agree with Josh that you were stating options, not facts, but I also believe you're allowed to state opinions and your answer was fine the way it was in the first place. I also said that the way you phrase things makes you come off as very aggressive, and it can make people want to fight you on a topic instead of trying to understand what you're trying to say.
I believe the heart of this problem is you two don't see eye-to-eye, and need to both accept that and drop it. It's ok to agree to disagree, and simply find a solution to the immediate problem instead of trying to beat each other into submission. Just give it up already :)
@psr I'll admit, I had to google what a monad was :)
 
psr
@Rachel - It doesn't help! Haskel is the only language I've ever encountered where the explanations just seem like gibberish. It seems like a potentially really nice language but somehow incompatible with English.
@Rachel - And I think LISP is intuitive.
@WorldEngineer - If you ever want to a blog "Haskel, in English, for Mortals" that explains some basics of Haskel without jargon (don't make us google "point free", for example), then I at least would love it. Unless that really is like explaining calculus without mentioning any algebra.
 
8:18 PM
@psr Haskell is the only language I've encountered where your programs are essentially bullet proof
if it compiles, it will be okay
the trick is compilation
the things that get people (and me) are monads (and their various variants) and the Type system which is...flexible
most languages get all all hot and bothered about state
Haskell just kind of sits and giggles at it
then giggles at you for thinking you could program in it
@MarkTrapp I don't think of you as Chairman Mao, I think of you as Thomas Hobbes
@CharlesSprayberry SO is like a sugar cookie, you want more but at the end you'd really like a full meal. I think Programmers should be the Chocolate Torte, sweet but complex and fully satisfying.
@psr the trick I think for Haskell is to divorce yourself entirely from the Van Neumann architecture
 
user2334
@WorldEngineer I much prefer Rousseau's social contract, but I'll take it
 
@MarkTrapp I'm a Nietzschean radical optimist so there
Nietzsche essentially comes to this idea of the Ubermensh which to Europeans looks a bit odd but if you look at the idea of a "Bodhisattva" it makes perfect sense.
 
psr
@WorldEngineer - Divorce from the Van Neumann architecture? I don't actually know what you mean. I don't think specifically about it when I'm programming pretty much ever. Come to think of it, I'm pretty sure you can get a Haskell program to compile then behave incorrectly if you work at it. For example, you could print "Hello worm".
 
@psr no loops, no real concern about number types in a machine sense, basically take C and defenestrate it.
@MarkTrapp you might get a kick out of this christwire.org/2012/02/…
 
8:34 PM
@psr I'm more then happy to stop, I just don't want @SLott to feel I'm ignoring him.
 
psr
@WorldEngineer - I'm fine with that. I'm fine with LISP, for example. Or F#. But monads and the type system - I feel sure I'm capable of understanding them but all explanations seem to veer into gobbledegook. I'm that way though - good at math but need natural language explanations of it first.
 
@SLott Yeah, I'm going to dispute that. This is assuming “programmer” doesn't include the copy paste programmer examples you listed as example questions.
 
psr
@WorldEngineer - Thus a proper blog would do wonders for me, I think. Hopefully someday I'll find a blog that makes sense to me.
 
@psr the problem is that Haskell attracts mathematicians and once they get involved you get "gobbledity gammaed"
 
@SLott For Python, sure. Your statements appeared to suggest that because Python didn't use braces, braces were proved to be useless in any other language. Python can do whatever it pleases.
 
user2334
8:36 PM
@WorldEngineer I'm pretty sure a mod adopting the persona of the Ubermensch would be very upsetting to all the last men out there. Amor fati does not mesh well with the idea of a site-wide cleanup
 
user2334
@WorldEngineer That article is very hard to read. I can't tell what the news is amongst all that snark
 
@MarkTrapp there isn't any, it's satire
JK Rowling is writing another book is the news
 
user2334
Oh. It's a joke. I get jokes!
 
@psr this you?
 
psr
@WorldEngineer - Yes! I need an explanation that doesn't sound the generic math explanation of everything, "Let Y$^ be a @ over a `~ of => given by the transitive closure of |. Then using a point free projection of the monad space archived by [H(* :) )] over the field of a degenerate reimann interval Q, goto LISP7".
@WorldEngineer - No, I am a curmudgeon who hates "plz". I hope no kittens were harmed in the creation of that monad joke.
 
8:46 PM
Note to self: Add Haskell to the off topic list...
 
@YannisRizos it already is for the most part, programming questions for it are SO
 
8:59 PM
@JoshK So the "appeared to suggest" was the problem. Not the facts? Please be more clear in the future. It helps to be clear. You claimed to be disputing facts. You actually were bothered by an "appeared to suggest". That's good to know. I wish you had said that at first.
@JoshK In which case, you're eliminating my facts and my experience. Thanks for clarifying. I knew those hours spend debugging C were a waste of my life. I guess the only consolation is that they were billable. The programmers -- I guess -- were dumb. And. Perhaps by extension, I was dumb for not finding the matching bracket instantaneously. I bow to your superior syntax-reading skills.
 
@SLott you're such a drama queen :)
(I mean that in the nicest possible way)
 
9:34 PM
Posted by Jeff Atwood on February 24th, 2012

We have a lot of Q&A sites in the Stack Exchange network now. 84 at the current moment. That’s … a lot of Q&A sites. But most people* don’t find us by browsing the site directory; they find us by encountering a Stack Exchange page in their web search results.

So that may lead you to wonder: what are the most freqently found questions on a given Stack Exchange Q&A site? In other words, the “Greatest Hits” of that particular topic.

(Trivia: did you know that the Eagles’ Greatest Hits doesn’t include their most famous song?) …

 
9:58 PM
@Rachel I have no clue how to respond. JoshK has simply flat-own denied the experience of all of the "dumb" users who have problems with {}'s in code. What other response is there? Denial of facts is such a shocking thing to me. Since everyone is telling me that it's just a failure to see eye-to-eye, it must be me. My experience is invalid. How else can I respond except to acknowledge that I am clearly an inferior coder?
 
psr
10:19 PM
@SLott - I would have responded that I'm flattered but I'm not in the same league as drama queens - how about drama king? But obviously that's just me.
 
 
1 hour later…
11:21 PM
@psr Drama Duke?
 
psr
11:53 PM
@WorldEngineer - If you think I'm lousy at drama you can just come right out and say so!
@WorldEngineer - Just practicing
 
@psr it's fine, I've run WoW guilds
the worst drama here is nothing next to that
we once had a woman start to give birth during a raid
 
@WorldEngineer Wow. I remember drama when I played WoW but nothing like that
 
@CharlesSprayberry EVE has the heaviest drama though
since it runs on the 4chan style of moderation for the most part
 

« first day (539 days earlier)      last day (2850 days later) »