this doesn't belong on SO either

@rak1507 It's very underspecified, "needs details or clarity" works

because it's "write code for me" which is off-topic there

@hyper-neutrino yes, our thoughts and prayers will be with that challenge when it's closed :)

it's not really underspecified

seems pretty clear to me

it tags code-golf but doesn't mention the win con, tags python but doesn't say it's actually language-specific, it is only defined by an example and doesn't formally define what the criteria is

fair enough

It's one of those challenges that is clear "on the surface", but falls apart when you begin asking more questions

what more questions make it fall apart?

an easy one is what do you do for input ["A", "A"]

that would be an invalid input

The entire "dummy function" section. What defines a "dummy" function? Is it a black box function? What are the specifications on the black box function?

@rak1507 that's already making assumptions

@rak1507 why

@cairdcoinheringaahing pretty clearly a black box function

@UnrelatedString sure

but it's a reasonable assumption to make

not really

@rak1507 Even if it, a challenge needs to be well-specified

Its a reasonable assumption to make based on the single test case, which is not enough to well specify a challenge

@user could be edited to clear things up rather than closed but it doesn't really matter

again, what do you think the point of closing a question is?

@rak1507 Eh, I don't know if there's any value in doing that. The challenge author's probably gone anyway

I'd rather this be reposted if it's not a dupe anyway. and the blackbox function bit is totally unnecessary

dbr is active on SO but not on CGCC anymore

You're welcome to edit it, I'll happily retract my close vote if you clarify it, and I'll vote to reopen if it gets closed first. But until that happens, I'll vote to close any challenge I think is underspecified, off-topic or is a duplicate

fair enough

the function thing is entirely gratuitous, but removing it would make it a different challenge

from the answers it already has, this question itself is best left as a sterile relic of the past

agreed

agreed. i'm not gonna bother checking if the new answer is valid even, the challenge is also way too unclear in acceptable I/O

yeah

If you want, you could post a polished, spicier version

the new answer inputs and outputs by variable which is typically banned but the challenge specifically mentions the items are in items and the output should be as menu which would imply it's valid? but not really... another reason it's unclear

yeah it would be good to have a new and well specified convert list of paths to hierarchy challenge

just not this one

Interestingly, its possible to close a question like this, then repost it for massive rep gains :P

yea, it would be nice if there was a close reason that was basically 'closed for historical reasons'

"Closed as 'what in the frick were they thinking in 2012?'"

lmao, exactly

new answer could be invalid because it does the lowercasing itself instead of taking a "dummy function"

but that's not actually clear

nothing is clear

lol, the OP has 1000x the rep on SO, looks like they went on to become a productive member of the community. They're going to be very surprised when they get the notification about some 9-year old question being closed :D

lmao

i feel like this was perfectly fine by the standards of code golf questions posted to SO nine years ago, tbf

It was a simpler time

yea, when it was less competitive I think it seems people cared less about total accuracy

also io formats only started to matter when people started to try taking input in the form of the file name, their wifi password, and the middle names of their first born child

tbh I wouldn't mind CGCC going back to that kind of leniency. The only problem would be the low-quality posts

that kind of leniency would only come up in the case of lower quality posts

there is literally nothing to gain

I'm totally fine with stricter rules because questions that demand more leniency can be evaluated with exceptions and special considerations. Looser rules mean closing or deleting low quality posts and answers seems arbitrary.

It's easier for me to exempt something from a rule because it has good reason to do so than arbitrarily say "this is bad but I don't have a policy to point to, I'm just closing it because I feel like it"

Exhibit A: this post we're talking about :P

^

It's clearly not a good fit for the site, but we had to discuss what close reason to use

and those cases don't even come up often; most challenges are perfectly fine to be posted under these rules and all it does it clear up confusion and define expectations clearly

it saves a ton of hassle down the road

my most recently closed/deleted question was my 13th most recent, lol (self-deleted since it would probably be a dupe so i just removed it). that was... almost two years ago

wow i don't post many challenges

Fair enough

Why does user -10 exist?

> Fairly lame approach, I will try to golf the mapping at least. NVM I got rekt by another answer. >_>

MRW Jonathan/Unrelated/xigoi answer the challenge I just FGITWed :p

@user what on earth

Also, it looks like the New Posts feed is the user with the lowest id

@rak1507 And that pfp

It's the Nursery bot

oh, all bots have negative ids?

User -12 is named Dilbert

that makes it significantly less interesting

user -1/12 just reposts what every other user on the site does :P

negative IDs are for feeds; if you look at any of the feeds anywhere they have a negative ID lol

ours are -487, -355, and -594

@user Maybe on chat.stackoverflow. On chat.stackexchange, we have New meta Posts with -1160 as the lowest

Anyone with <2k rep willing to help me test something?

@cairdcoinheringaahing Oh, interesting

@cairdcoinheringaahing I have a sock with about 30 rep

That works, I just need to test an edit bug

What is it?

Could you try suggesting an edit on this, removing the featured tag? It shouldn't let you, but apparently it does

> Suggested edits are not allowed on non-tag-wiki posts on meta sites :(

It doesn't let me suggest an edit at all. Perhaps I need more rep?

That's... not even the error I was expecting :P

Wait, so is the Suggested Edits meta queue only for tag wiki edits? O.o

Looks like it, although it's not clear from the review queue page

History only shows tag edits

@cairdcoinheringaahing btw what made you suspect that's possible?

It's been done, but on MM

And the response was "Don't worry about it"

MSE's status as a non-meta site is so weird

Should I test if this has been fixed yet on MSE?

You can, but I'm more hesitant to encourage bug testing on MM than I am here

Mmm, I guess there would've been a post talking about it if it'd been fixed, so I'll play it safe and avoid pissing off the Meta folks

CMC: Given an integer n, output the first n squares. You may not use any builtins to either square an integer or determine if an integer is square

is x*x a built-in

Just to make it slightly more interesting, I'll say yes, x*x is a builtin and banned :P

RḤ’Ä

Nice. I had +)’Ä

oh not even using the double built-in. :p

Imagine needing a double builtin :P

I'm guessing ) instead of € because laziness? :P

your solution has more ASCII so I'd say you win

i was considering Ḥ) but that's the same ASCII amount

€ doesn't work because of chaining

lol i'm stupid

idk why i thought it would

+’)Ä works too :D

Yeah, but how else would I use the cross-eyed emoticon +) :P

true

tiebreak is first by ascii then emoticons :p

Yeah, standard golf rules, duh :P

What is an emoticon defined as?

Asking because I have plans to steal this idea for a challenge on main

CMQ: Does "100 rounds of round-robin matches" make sense?

I think so?

@cairdcoinheringaahing Husk, 3 bytes: ↑İ□ cackles evilly

i feel like that is very close to being a square builtin

as in it is a square builtin

just not necessarily a builtin to square an integer

caird didn't ban builtins that give you an infinite list of squares, just builtins to square stuff and builtins to check if something's a square.

Rule lawyering is fun when it's someone else you're messing with

@cairdcoinheringaahing {+/i/⍤0⊢i←⍳⍵}

uses replicate

@cairdcoinheringaahing APL: {1 1⍉∘.×⍨⍳⍵} if multiplication isn't banned

@cairdcoinheringaahing Charcoal, 10 bytes: ＩＥＮΣＥ⊕ι⊕⊗λ

@user that's multiplying a number by itself which is banned I think

x*x was banned, yeah

Oh, that's too bad

+/⍤⍴⍨¨⍳

Ooh, that's smart

it's basically what I was doing before apart from using ⍴ not /

I should've read that more closely :)

using / was stupid