The Nineteenth Byte

TheDoctor

01:30

0

This challenge was inspired by this StackOverflow Meta post. In it, @hakre says: I've seen a project really written by Stackoverflow (a noob copies together from SO here and SO there), attribution normally never is done which results in rights termination under CC. (sic) Your mission is to...

m.buettner

That sounds really interesting, but I think the question would immensely benefit from limiting the scope to a particular task.

That would allow the concept to be reused later for a different kind of challenge.

This way it's a one-timer.

Should I suggest that?

TheDoctor

Sure!

m.buettner

done

TheDoctor

Perhaps we could crate a tag for such a question...

m.buettner

that was my first thought

but (see my second comment) I'm afraid this would just create code-trolling 2.0

we need to figure out first how to deal with new types of questions in a more manageable way

I think I need to sleep on whether I'd like to see this as a tag or not...

which I'll do now

see you

TheDoctor

01:37

Night

m.buettner

oh oh, you did it :D

TheDoctor

03:03

171

A: What is the best comment in source code you have ever encountered?

on js code: // hack for ie browser (assuming that ie is a browser)

Quincunx

06:49

0

Q: What exactly is the [tips] tag?

After reading Re-evaluating [tips] and tip-like questions and the tips questions, I determined that we currently use tips for two things: code-golfing questions, and language creation questions. Regarding non code-golfing tip questions, wouldn't it be better to drop the tips tag because tips see...

discussion tags

Quincunx

07:29

3

Q: Bounty-like feature on metas

Sometimes on a site's meta, I want to draw more attention to a question that has been sitting in the dark. Usually when this happens, I am even willing to offer my reputation as a bounty. But metas don't allow for bounties. On main sites, we have a bounty feature to allow users to draw extra att...

feature-request bounty per-site-meta

Quincunx

07:44

@Quincunx I just discovered that we can make recursive chat posts

@Quincunx And the mouseover for the little arrow says: "this is a reply to an earlier message". Let's prove that wrong.

@Quincunx Let's reply to this message

@undergroundmonorail I would love to use an editor in which it was easy to type a carriage return or a line feed. Carriage returns move the "write head" back to the beginning of the line, and line feeds advance the paper one line. So I want an electronic text editor that supports this. Then, I can overlap lines (via carriage returns) or make lines break but not move back.

The history of all these characters is deep, think back to typewriters.

@durron597 I'm not too impressed. It's just simple printing. However, I will be really impressed when someone 3D prints a processor.

Actually, that could be a good challenge here. Take an input of a 3D printer design file and output the 3D printed shape. Don't know how to display that though.

mniip

08:45

@mniip huh?

@mniip yay recursion

m.buettner

09:56

Is anyone interested in discussing this? codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/26778/… How do we want to handle to challenge types? I'm a bit ambivalent about this. On one hand I really want this question closed as too broad. It would be more interesting with a limited scope and as it stands it does cannibalise on future similar question. On the other hand, if this was limited to leave room for more similar questions, I fear the next CT-like surge of bad questions.

mniip

I bet there exists a SO post for every perl construct ever existed

m.buettner

The question is, does it exist in its own snippet. ;)

mniip

10:13

stackoverflow.com/a/1109098 I can iterate over keys now :D

Doorknob

12:37

in The Great Code Trolling Purge of 2014, 5 mins ago, by m.buettner

@Doorknob, what do you think about the duct-tape thingy? (feel free to respond in the nineteenth byte as I tried to start the discussion over there)

Not sure. Probably that it should be posted on meta to see what we think about it.

m.buettner

Yeah I was considering that, but I couldn't be bothered to write up a meta post... mostly because I wasn't sure what exactly to ask. Although my post here from 3 hours ago would probably be a good starting point.

(feel free to use it if you do want to write a meta post)

Doorknob

I'll have to go to school soon so I can't right now

m.buettner

okay, fair enough

TheDoctor

12:56

yo

Rusher

Yo Yo Yo Yo

mniip

But why

Rusher

@mniip ?

TheDoctor

13:27

0

Q: Tips for golfing in Processing

Does anyone have any code-golf tips for golfing in Processing? It is a graphical extension of java, and is somewhat difficult to golf.

tips

TheDoctor

13:49

^^ Votes-pls

mniip

>not cw

TheDoctor

Does it have to be?

Rusher

@durron597 Question for you about your challenge

Do the outputs have to be on one line?

Would this be alright?
2^1
5^2

m.buettner

@TheDoctor currently that's the consensus I think. Doorknob disputed this on meta, but he never got a real reaction I think.

9

Q: Re-evaluating [tips] and tip-like questions

Currently, all tips questions on the main site are Community Wiki. Furthermore, there are not many other non-challenge questions on the main site. These types of questions are generally supressed on PPCG. This should change. The first point I'm going to attack is the fact that tips questions ar...

discussion new-genre

TheDoctor

I couldn't think of a better way to get 15 rep

I mean 20

m.buettner

14:00

what do you mean?

TheDoctor

I'm making a chatbot and i need rep to talk in chat

m.buettner

ahhhh, I see

do you keep your rep when it's turned into CW?

TheDoctor

IDK. I can't seem to find the CW checkbox in edit ^_-

Rusher

You have to ask a mod to CW it for you. And likewise, you have to ask them to unwiki it too.

Unless you are posting a new question

Or unless you gain that privilege at a rep higher than I am that I don't know about yet

TheDoctor

Congrats, you've gained the privilege – create wiki posts – learn more

ohhh ^^

I will CW it if i get 20 rep

I still can't find the checkbox...

m.buettner

14:11

I think there is none

38

A: What can we do to make Community Wiki better?

Important Change - Status completed Users can not mark questions wiki anymore, across the network. I have an easy idea for a fix. Disable the option to mark questions community wiki by the question author. (allow them to become CW naturally if thats what GxD wants, or allow moderators to) ...

TheDoctor

Weird

durron597

@Rusher Honestly I already pissed one person off about the whitespace rules to that question... so no, you have to conform to the given format

Rusher

@durron597 Is a newline whitespace?

Waits for durron to type a "Yes but..." answer

durron597

one guy had his output be like ` 79^2` and i told him that was not okay

Rusher

Simple question - is a newline considered a single whitespace?

durron597

14:22

so, it has to exactly match the format provided. a newline is a single whitespace, but it's not a "space"

a space is a space

Rusher

It only costs me a character anyway. print('blah'),

That extra comma at the end apparently separates it by a single space instead of a newline

It just irks me that your definition of space is so narrow

TheDoctor

! more upvote!

(That was a capital 1)

Rusher

upvote for what?

m.buettner

14:37

the processing golfing tips

so that the chat bot gets enough rep to do something it has to do

chat probably

TheDoctor

And it got a down\vote :(

m.buettner

who downvotes a tips question o.O

TheDoctor

IKR

14mRh4X0r

@TheDoctor Here, have more upvote.

TheDoctor

Thx\

Rusher

14:58

My experiment on SO - stackoverflow.com/q/23545333/3224483

mniip

wow

TheDoctor

Testing...

mniip

there's some code-golfing going on on lua-l

m.buettner

lol @Rusher what was the purpose of that experiment? ^^

Peter Taylor

@m.buettner Maybe someone objected to such a blatant abuse of the system.

Rusher

15:02

@m.buettner I don't know what the purpose was. I'm just trying to understand Doorknob. He and I disagree about where tips questions go, but instead of saying that "It belongs on main." as an opinion, he is claiming his words as a simply truth. He literally said " This is not an opinion."

m.buettner

Well judging by the wording he's trying to make a point that something like the code-golfing tips questions would have no place on SO.

Okay, I guessed right. :D

Peter Taylor

@Rusher, the definition of meta sites on StackExchange is that they're for discussing the main site.

Rusher

You're right though, it didn't translate well

So how do you disagree with someone who claims that what they say is not an opinion?

m.buettner

I'm with Doorknob and Peter Taylor here. Meta is for discussing PPCG.SE, not for discussing golfing.

4

Rusher

Oh, well in that case, I am beaten

Peter Taylor

15:04

There's no point disagreeing with someone who's stating objective fact.

Whether or not tips have a place on main is a matter of opinion.

That they don't belong on meta is a matter of fact.

Rusher

Oh, my opinion is now a triple falsehood

Pie is tasty. That's a fact.

Pretty sure Peter is just pushing buttons, as usual

If nobody here is capable of having an actual discussion, I'll drop it. I thought it was only Doorknob who was claiming his statements as truths, but apparently it's everyone.

m.buettner

I'm really not sure what could be a matter of opinion when it comes to posting golfing content on meta. codegolf.stackexchange.com/help/whats-meta

We don't make the rules here :D

Rusher

@m.buettner There is apparently a fine line between "questions about golfing" and "golfing questions"

m.buettner

I'd say there is none. But there is a clear line between "questions about golfing" and "questions about codegolf.stackexchange.com".

3

Rusher

Where would you place the following question, "I think [blah] would be an awesome new type of challenge. What do you think?"

Peter Taylor

15:10

@Rusher I neither regularly aim to push buttons nor am doing so now.

Geobits

@Rusher meta, because you're basically asking if it's appropriate for the site.

Hence, it's about PPCG.

Rusher

It's also about programming puzzles

In fact, it introduces a new breed of puzzles

Geobits

If your question is "Does this type of challenge sound fun?", then it isn't appropriate in either. If your question is "Should we start posting this new type of challenge?", then it's a meta question.

Rusher

Here's another: "I think language [X] would be a good language to golf with. What do you think?"

I think we can settle this with lots of examples of what does and doesnlt belong

m.buettner

main site

Geobits

15:12

That one's just bad anywhere.

m.buettner

or what geobits said

Rusher

@Geobits not the point

Geobits

How is an answer of "it belongs on neither" not acceptable?

Rusher

Keeping the questions simple so that we can discuss the theory behind where they go

Peter Taylor

@Rusher Chat is the only place for that one

m.buettner

15:14

haha, lateral thinking there! :)

Rusher

So I have gathered that discussing TAGS belongs on Meta, TOOLS belong in chat, and HOW TO USE THOSE TOOLS BETTER belongs on main

Is that correct?

Geobits

No....

What do you mean by TOOLS, actually?

m.buettner

@Rusher what your examples have in common is that they try to mix the "opinionated" component of meta with the "codegolf related" of the main site. there is no place on SE for questions like that (except the chat), because meta is for questions about the main site (which may be opinionated) and nothing else and the main site is for golfing (but not for opinions)

Rusher

A tool is something that you can use to solve a challenge. A golf club for golfing.

Geobits

Give me an example of a tool, then. A language is a "tool", I assume?

Rusher

15:16

A language is a tool, yes.

Geobits

The basic thing is, tips questions are about "how to golf". Not "how to golf on PPCG". There's a difference, and if you have a site-specific question, it should go on meta.

Rusher

I was honestly trying to regurgitate what you guys just said in simpler words. If I overgeneralized to include something that shouldn't be included, then be specific. Don't just respond with "no"

Geobits

Think about it in SO terms. PPCG : golfing :: SO : programming. If you have a question about how to program better, it goes on SO, not meta.

Rusher

I am still confused as to which of the three components I mentioned you are trying to negate

TAGS => Meta, TOOLS => chat, and HOW TO USE THOSE TOOLS BETTER => main

Geobits

I don't understand the "tools belong in chat" bit at all. The only reason that example question was labelled "chat only" is because it's horrible for QA format.

Rusher

15:20

I think Java is a great language to golf with. What do you think Geobits?

Did that belong here in the chat?

If it isn't spam, I think the answer is yes

Geobits

Sure, that's fine in chat. The reason it's not appropriate on main/meta is because it's not objective at all, not because it's about Java.

Rusher

Can you wait for me to disagree before you start arguing with me?

You are making it sound like I disagreed with Peter, you, and m.buttner about where it belongs

Geobits

You said TOOLS -> chat. I'm saying I disagree with why you think it goes there.

The fact that it's about a tool has nothing to do with it.

Rusher

It goes there because it doesn't belong on main or meta

That's what I gathered anyway

Geobits

Right, but if it was actually an objective question about Java (within golfing/puzzling scope), it would be fine on main IMO.

Chris Jester-Young

15:24

@hichris123 It looks like that person's post got nuked, and they haven't done anything since. If they show up again, I'll take action then.

Rusher

Let me make this easier for you - TAGS belongs on Meta, StuffThatDoesntBelongElsewhere belongs in chat, and HOW TO USE TOOLS BETTER belongs on main

I lost where I was going with that because of your diversion

Geobits

Screw your condescension. I'm done with this.

Chris Jester-Young

@Geobits++

@Rusher That was a bit harsh.

Rusher

@ChrisJester-Young He does this every single day though. Nitpicks whatever I say until I get it exactly right, and then walks away before I can make whatever point I was trying to make.

He and Peter Taylor exist to sidetrack me with pointless argument.

Chris Jester-Young

@Rusher That sounds like a conspiracy theory.

4

Rusher

15:28

m.buettner makes logical statements that are always directed at solving the problem being discussed. I guess I just mesh with some people and have friction with others.

I don't always agree with him, but he works towards a goal like people should

Peter Taylor argues like "You said something last month that conflicts with the second to last verb phrase in your statement." You don't even know how tedious it is to be derailed that often. However, when he tries to derail me, I generally know that I am on to something.

Chris Jester-Young

@Rusher Well, are you contradicting yourself? That seems to be my interpretation of your last message.

Rusher

@ChrisJester-Young Are you asking if I am contradicting myself in a hypothetical situation that I created?

The answer is, hypothetically, no.

Chris Jester-Young

@Rusher Well, if you're putting words in Peter Taylor's mouth, surely that's not hypothetical?

Peter Taylor

@Rusher I had the impression it was the other way round.

TheDoctor

!!/random

Chris Jester-Young

15:38

@Rusher I haven't observed conversations between you two, so I make no claims at all.

TheDoctor

darn

m.buettner

@Rusher well I take that as a compliment... regarding your categorisation though. it seems fine to me (if a bit simplified). Discussions about tags are specific to the site (and potentially opinionated), so they do go on meta (among other things). Asking for advice about golfing goes on the main site if it can be answered objectively. Anything else that's not spam may well be appropriate in the chat, yes.

Rusher

See? That wasn't so hard

Chris Jester-Young

@m.buettner Really, it's all down to: 1. Is it about golfing (or other code challenges that have objective criteria)? Then main site. 2. Is it about the site itself? Then meta. 3. Anything can go into chat, except obviously abusive stuff, like you say.

2

Rusher

I think the problem is the site is about golfing

Chris Jester-Young

15:41

@Rusher That's not a "problem", that's this site's raison d'etre.

Rusher

So you have to separate the "abouts" into "golfing" "about golfing" "about about golfing" and draw lines where appropriate

m.buettner

@ChrisJester-Young Yeah that's what I've been trying to say, thanks for putting it more concisely. ;)

@Rusher well the only difference to other sites is that we also (in fact mainly) perform the activity here that this site is about

Chris Jester-Young

@m.buettner That.

Rusher

The word "about" is the crux of this entire discussion in my opinion, and I asked for specific examples to determine what it meant. Everyone else acted as if their definition was fact.

If I wasn't challenged every step of the way, I might not have gotten so heated

m.buettner

I think the crux is the word/phrase after "about".

Rusher

15:44

The site is about golfing, so I think it all ends with about golfing

Maybe the crux is the word "site" then

Someone please impress your "fact" upon me about what a site question is

Chris Jester-Young

@Rusher area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/4570?phase=definition

m.buettner

Okay, I'm starting to lose my grip on what we're actually discussing here. If we're trying to make hard and fast rules for what goes where while simultaneously trying to come up with borderline cases, that's pointless - use your best judgement if there ever really is a borderline case. If we're looking for general guidelines, see Chris's starred post. If we want to find out where golfing tips go - they are not about PPCG.SE in particular, so they don't go on meta.

Rusher

I wasn't attempting to come up with borderline cases until someone else told me that their word was fact. Who needs judgement when we have people like Doorknob and Peter Taylor who know only truths?

m.buettner

That does not answer the question if golfing tips do go on the main site, and I'm happy to have an opinionated discussion about that, but I fail to see why they shouldn't.

Chris Jester-Young

@Rusher Actually, I feel that most of the people here are just trying to distil community consensus, not "only truths".

@m.buettner Well, I'm happy enough with our current community consensus to have them on the main site but with CW.

Rusher

15:49

@ChrisJester-Young You missed the part where they explicitly stated that their statements were fact.

Chris Jester-Young

@Rusher Well, I don't follow all the discussions here (or elsewhere), so I can only work with what's in front of me.

Rusher

@ChrisJester-Young That's why I put it in front of you.

Chris Jester-Young

@Rusher You did no such thing. Where did they "explicitly state their statements as fact"?

m.buettner

@ChrisJester-Young Yeah that's fine by me, although I think we should "enforce" (read "encourage") using either only a single answer with all tips or using only a single tip per answer. The former seems more like CW and the latter is useful for sorting by votes, but arbitrary grouping (like the Mathematica tips have) seems pointless.

Rusher

@ChrisJester-Young Here and here

That's what I have been dealing with. High rep users who think their opinion is law.

Chris Jester-Young

15:55

@m.buettner CW doesn't invalidate sorting by votes, it just doesn't generate rep for the posters.

So I actually do like the one-tip-per-answer style.

m.buettner

Yeah that's totally fine. I'm just arguing against anything in between the two extremes.

Chris Jester-Young

@Rusher Those two comments are correct and are not a matter of opinion.

Malachi

just figured I would say hi

m.buettner

@Malachi not a good time :D

(jk)

Malachi

oh

don't make me send my minions @m.buettner

Chris Jester-Young

15:57

Lol.

Malachi

lol jk

Back to work

Rusher

@ChrisJester-Young Well, I think you're wrong. I guess we'll just have to leave it at that, because the discussion that follows has been said once already.

Peter Taylor

@Rusher I claim that. I may be a pedant (and I hope I am: pedantry is an important skill in things like writing specs), but I don't think I'm a grammar Nazi; and while you seem to think that I take information out of context I am under the impression that many of the times you've accused me of misinterpreting you it's been because I took your statements or questions to relate to the context in which you made them, not because I removed them from that context.

Chris Jester-Young

@Rusher I say that as a long-time Stack Exchange user. The scope of meta is very clearly spelled out.

Rusher

@ChrisJester-Young The scope of meta clearly spells out "tips questions do not belong on meta"? I wasn't aware that it was so well written!

Chris Jester-Young

16:01

@Rusher Lol. Meta is for questions about the site.

It works the same way the Wikipedia: namespace does in Wikipedia.

Rusher

Main is for Programming Puzzles and Code Golf Challenges

Meta is for Questions about the site, which is about Programming Puzzles and Code Golf Challenges

We therefore have this awkward middle area for questions about Programming Puzzles and Code Golf Challenges

New tag proposals apparently fall on one side of it. Tips questions fall on the other side.

Tags are a method of grouping puzzles. Tips are a method of solving puzzles.

m.buettner

@Rusher no I don't think we do. because Main of cooking is for questions about cooking. It's the other way round. The only thing that's special here is that we also do post and solve challenges here - that is the thing that would be up for discussion when we want to adhere 100% to the generic scope of SE sites.

Rusher

I understand that, but you can't cook on cooking sites, so the translation of what belongs where is obviously different here

m.buettner

but I don't see why - just because we can do code golfing here instead of just asking about - that calls into question whether questions about code golfing don't belong Main any more.

Rusher

The challenges themselves are also about Code Golfing

So perhaps about is not a good way of separating what goes where

I saw this problem, and tried to ask specific examples to see if I could just dissect what makes people put things in certain places.

m.buettner

16:10

well now you're just saying that challenges are about code golfing; and earlier you argued that tips are about golfing; hence they belong on the same site.

main

Rusher

Earlier I was being derailed left and right

Now, as I just said, "So perhaps about is not a good way of separating what goes where"

Chris Jester-Young

@Rusher Under the Stack Exchange model, that's as good as you're going to get.

m.buettner

@Rusher but why not? it seems to work quite well as a criterion, no?

Chris Jester-Young

And nobody claims that SE is an ideal model for golfing. The limitations are many, and we just work around them as well as we can.

Rusher

It doesn't work because the site, the challenges, the tips, and tags, and everything here is about code golfing and puzzles

Chris Jester-Young

16:13

But regardless, this site serves its #1 purpose, which is to keep golfing questions off of SO.

where they have no chance to survive make their time.

m.buettner

@Rusher but "about golfing" is absolutely not the same as "about a site which is about golfing". that's literally what "meta" means.

Chris Jester-Young

@m.buettner That what meta means in the SE universe. It's not necessarily the dictionary definition of meta. :-)

Rusher

I absolutely agree, but determining what something is about is fact to some and subjective to me.

typo lol.

Chris Jester-Young

@Rusher In the SE universe, meta is for questions about the site. Not about the subject matter of the site.

m.buettner

@ChrisJester-Young well, in most circumstances it classifies something as being one level up the abstraction hierarchy.

Rusher

16:16

@ChrisJester-Young Oh really? So Anything about the site belongs on meta?

Chris Jester-Young

@Rusher In general. I'm not going to apply that with a thick brush, because I don't want to leave space for someone to "follow the letter of the law but abuse its spirit".

m.buettner

everyone hold tight, borderline case coming in ^^

Chris Jester-Young

@m.buettner Hopefully I guarded against that sufficiently. We'll see. :-D

Rusher

Site is about puzzles. A Strategy for solving a specific puzzle is simply a "strategy". A strategy for solving all puzzles would be a "meta-strategy".

If the site were about languages then a tips question would suddenly become main and not meta.

m.buettner

would it?

Rusher

16:19

Site is about languages. A strategy for that language would be a "strategy". A strategy for all languages would be a "meta-strategy".

See how it got bumped down one level?

m.buettner

@Rusher you're not suggesting that everything that has the word "meta" in it belongs on meta, are you? ;)

Chris Jester-Young

@Rusher I told you before, and I'll tell you again. In the SE universe, meta is for stuff about the site, not about the subject matter. You can dispute the dictionary definition of meta all you want, but in SE, there is a specific definition of meta.

Rusher

And I claim that there is a misconception of what the site is about

It depends on whether you say "languages" or "puzzles"

Chris Jester-Young

@Rusher Why don't you bring up your quarrel on meta.stackexchange.com, and see how far you get.

3

Rusher

or both

m.buettner

16:21

@Rusher I don't see how that changes anything, because none of your examples is about the site in question.

Rusher

Ok why don't YOU define what "about the site" means

Since I am getting nowhere

You are blatantly ignoring that part repeatedly

Geobits

> Meta Programming Puzzles & Code Golf Stack Exchange is the part of the site where users discuss the workings and policies of Code Golf Stack Exchange rather than discussing programming puzzle or code golf itself.

3

m.buettner

I literally don't see what needs to be defined in "about the site". If it's specific to codegolf.stackexchange.com it's "about the site". How do we want to tag things? About the site. Is this on topic here? About the site. Should tips be CW? About the site.

Geobits

Taken from the very first sentence of What is Meta.

Emphasis mine.

m.buettner

Tips about golfing could equally well be posted in some blog or anywhere else on the internet that decides it wants content about code golfing (without changing that content). So it's not about the site.

Rusher

16:25

Define "the workings and policies" now.

Chris Jester-Young

@Rusher No. We are not going to play language lawyering here.

Geobits

No, a dictionary will do that.

Either way you cut it, I can't see how "tips" can possibly be construed as "workings or policies" of the site.

Rusher

You don't have an argument at all CJY. You just tell me I'm wrong and say "No" when I ask why or try to define it myself. You can Doorknob have fun manipulating opinion as fact.

Chris Jester-Young

@Rusher But I can tell you one thing. Golfing tips definitely do not qualify as "workings and policies of Code Golf Stack Exchange".

@Geobits Jinx! :-D

Rusher

Then I claim that new challenge creations equally do not qualify, such as "Let's introduce this new tag"

Geobits

16:28

Why? Tagging is inherently site-specific.

Chris Jester-Young

@Rusher Tags are definitely part of the workings of the site.

Also, what challenges qualify are part of the policies.

m.buettner

@Rusher I can actually agree with suggesting new types of questions on the main site, if it's about devising the type of challenge and not about creating a tag. Discussing if they are on topic is something that goes on meta though.

Rusher

See? At least one person thinks it's subjective.

m.buettner

The problem is however, that I doubt such a post can be made objective.

Hence it goes nowhere but in chat.

Geobits

@m.buettner I think it could qualify as:

> Unlike normal Stack Exchange sites, Meta invites the community to discuss, debate and propose changes to the way the community itself behaves, as well as how the software itself works.

m.buettner

16:30

So if you want to come up with a new type of challenge (which is likely to create discussion about how to best design the challenge) put it in the chat. If your type of challenge is ready, all that is left is figuring out if it belongs on the site and what to tag it with -> ask that on meta.

Geobits

Ah, that makes it clearer. Agreed

Chris Jester-Young

@m.buettner I actually proposed creating a third site, sandbox.codegolf.stackexchange.com, for discussion of new problems.

m.buettner

I was thinking more "types of challenges" than "specific challenges" but that would probably fall into a similar category. Your idea might work, but seems overkill.

I'm not sure if you were here yesterday when we talked about creating another sandbox chat room to iron out new challenges.

Chris Jester-Young

@m.buettner It's not overkill if you've all the entries in our sandbox so far. It's totally unmanageable.

Golf/Puzzle Lab

A place to discuss new problems before they go live

m.buettner

Yeah I don't think the current sandbox is a good model either. I just don't think a sandbox.codegolf.stackexchange.com would be less of a hack.

Chris Jester-Young

16:32

^ You mean this one?

m.buettner

haha

yes that would work

Chris Jester-Young

(I created that room a long time ago. That's why I know it exists. :-P)

Now use it before it gets frozen again. ;-)

m.buettner

Well if I make a challenge, I will :P

that room should be publicised on meta I think.

Chris Jester-Young

Yeah, but probably not by me, that might be too biased. ;-)

m.buettner

Dr Rebmu did suggest this recently but I was the only one who upvoted ^^

Chris Jester-Young

16:39

@m.buettner Yeah, usually I don't see new answers to old threads. ;-)

and I guess many people experience the same thing.

m.buettner

yes, same for me on SO. here I tend to sort by activity (mostly because the activity is more manageable)

Doorknob

17:16

reads transcript

Well, that escalated quickly. O_o

3

Rusher

17:31

I formalized what I have been trying to say. Feel free to go there and impose your facts upon my opinions.

Off to lunch

TheDoctor

hi

Golf/Puzzle Lab

Transcript for