CONLOQVIVM

« first day (133 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (3154 days later) »

Nathaniel

00:06

@JoelDerfner We seriously need to get you some Latin Stack Exchange swag... you'd be a walking advertisement among our target audience if you happened to be willing. Unfortunately I think we'd have to make our own since I believe we could only get our hands on generic "Stack Exchange" hats/shirts right now...

Cerberus

Wowie!

Let me test it.

I've executed that in my address bar.

Let't see.

What happens.

If I.

Is it working?

I don't think so.

Hmm again.

Perhaps it is some addon.

I have protected my browser very well.

Firefox.

Could it be Noscript?

I have Javascript enabled of course.

OK.

I've executed it.

In the console.

What happens now.

Let's see.

Working.

Hmm it seems to be.

Wowie.

Pretty impressive!

Multum placet.

Nathaniel

Now there's no chance of anyone taking Cerberus's spot as top chatter :)

Cerberus

Faster, even?

Yay!

I do see a few errors in the console now.

It even works for edit!

Yes.

Oh, okay.

So why do you think it might increase the pile-on rate?

Oh, so why does it get 409? I don't know what that code means.

So far, it seems to be behaving well enough.

I don't mind waiting for a few seconds, as long as I don't have to move my hands away from the keyboard.

Oh, SE is sending 409 to my browser?

By the way, does the script retry the lines in the correct order, if there is more than one?

And they display the Timeout line at the same time?

The first one it sees in the DOM, or something?

Ah OK, got it.

I'm already enjoying it.

Perfect.

I'm amazed at how fast you managed to script this and it actually works.

That could be a nice 1.1.

Very nice.

I don't notice any CPU spikes or anything.

No chance it will increase memory usage?

Ah OK.

But I don't see anything, so it must be tiny?

Actually, the way it works now has a big advantage: when I see a "retry", I can wait until it disappears, then continue.

No possible memory leak either?

OK. And I believe the Javascript will not happen when the tab doesn't have focus?

Usually, Javascript seems to stop working when I switch to a different tab.

But the way it works now has this big advantage I mentioned, and if the CPU overhead is insignificant anyway...

Hmm.

Ah OK.

Well, that is a minor case.

Would it be hard to turn that into a userscript?

Is that really all?

Great.

I'll make the userscript now...

Yes.

Let's see.

It works!

The userscript, I mean.

You've made me a happy dog.

By the way, I've been looking to create a userscript that that automatically click buttons on sites.

But those that I tried didn't seem to work.

Hmm.

If I can style the button using CSS selectors, could I find it through a userscript?

Ah OK.

Consider this button:

tweakers.net

The blue button saying "Ja, ...".

Caused by the stupid European cookie law.

Oh, really?

Joel Derfner

00:38

@Nathaniel I feel that I'll have plenty of opportunity to tell people about it. Actually, another benefit, I realize, is that most of these folks are high-school Latin teachers—which means that they can tell their STUDENTS about us too.

Cerberus

@JoelDerfner Let the plague spread!

Nathaniel

@JoelDerfner That's fantastic.

Cerberus

@QPaysTaxes Annoying.

Joel Derfner

I kind of love that I don't understand a word of the exchanges for the last several however.

Cerberus

@QPaysTaxes Sure, but I'll be happy enough if I can copy the code and adapt it for a different site.

@JoelDerfner It is about automatically pressing buttons on web pages such as this one.

@QPaysTaxes Yes, exactly.

@QPaysTaxes Not for me.

Finding the CSS selector takes me a few minutes.

Creating that line of code there would take me an infinity.

Because I don't know Javascript.

Nor HTML.

I can only alter and combine other people's snippets with trial, error, and pain.

Oh, it depends on the site whether it has Jquery?

@QPaysTaxes But I mean that literally. I couldn't write a single line.

OK.

It would be better to have a universal script that I just have to change the selector in, right?

So would document.findElementsByName("decision")[0].click() alone work? If I put the CSS selector in the quotes.

Oh OK.

Oh, OK.

Oh, there I see it.

Hmm.

And is there no way to allow me to copy-paste a CSS selector into the userscript somehow?

To find the thingy the same way userstyles do?

But I think CSS selectors would work in most cases?

Yeah OK, but the Retry button is less prominent.

Ohhh.

Let me test that...

Interesting, and "element" is the right term for the kinds of things CSS finds?

OK.

Let me try that...

Hmm.

> [].forEach.call(document.querySelectorAll(prompt(".fancyButton")), function(e) { e.click(); })

I have this, but it doesn't seem to work.

The page begins to loads and displays correctly, but the "loading" icon never stops spinning.

Oh, I don't see a box.

I probably have pop-ups blocked?

No box.

Nothing happens.

Okay, but why wouldn't I want to edit code? That's very quick.

Firefox.

But, again, with lots of protection.

By the way, how would the box store the selector that I typed in?

Exactly.

Safe.

And what if I reloaded the page?

Cleared cookied and cache?

Where would the CSS selector be stored?

Right.

I suspected as much.

Yeah.

So I'd rather just edit the code.

Creating a new script is fine.

Haha.

Or I could add lines to a single script that all try to click their individual buttons.

And have the script active on those sites that need it.

[].forEach.call(document.querySelectorAll(prompt(".fancyButton")), function(e) { e.click(); })

Ah, that would be even better!

But that sounds more complicated.

I wouldn't know how to do that, but I can probably manage having a few lines execute in succession, I think.

Just put one below the other, right?

Could I edit your code above so that it presses the CSS selector of my choice?

Maybe I can just remove the prompt bit.

The array thing sounds good, is that like what you said about mapping each selector to a site?

Wow, it works!

The only thing is that my selector wasn't quite unique hehe.

It continued to press random buttons...

@QPaysTaxes Hey, I don't want you to spend time on my little personal projects!

Yay!

I now have code that works perfectly for that one site, yay again.

> [].forEach.call(document.querySelectorAll("#cookieAcceptForm .nowrap .fancyButton"), function(e) { e.click(); })

Well, then they're stupid.

I don't have a PhD.

One of my pupils knows all capitals of Africa. I wouldn't dream of dismissing him for knowing things that I don't!

He also knows a ton of things about history that I don't, and he's only 14.

Probably a lot younger than you are.

And you and I are not in an unequal relation like him and me.

Haha.

I think many people in my province don't know its capital either.

Hah.

Yup.

Could I do something like "if the url of the site is not (bla|bla|bla), end this script"?

I haven't found a way to do that, it could be useful.

Trying to find the code snippets I need is like trying to find the right Chinese word for something by reading a Chinese website.

Yes.

@QPaysTaxes I know that, but the url selectors that Greasemonkey allows are not always fine enough.

I want to be able to use Regex.

Just for the URL?

I have actually created a script that regexes the html of a page, by the way. It works well enough, inefficient though it may be?

Ah OK.

> document.body.innerHTML= document.body.innerHTML.replace(/(>)([0-9]+)\/([0-9]+)(<\/span>)/g,"$1<font color=\"blue\"><strong>$2</strong></font> beschikbaar (van $3)$4");

This works, for example, on a certain site.

It turns "2/3" into "2 available out of 3" and gives it a nice colour.

Because I could never remember what the numbers meant on that site.

Ow...

And will that work on this particular website?

Do you think font will be removed from Firefox any time soon?

> if( regexIgnoreTags.test(evt.target.tagName) || /(disqus\.com)|(GKBWAN5BEFC)|(Wysiwyg)|(UFIAddCommentInput)|(wp-editor)|(composer_rich_textarea)|(contenteditable)/i.test(document.documentElement.innerHTML) || /(live\.com)|(fantasystrike\.com)|(social\.bioware\.com)|(ning\.com)|(twitter\.com)/i.test(window.location.host) ){
return;
}

I also found this code in another one of my userscripts.

So I guess I could use that.

Hmm I'll keep it in mind in case the script stops working, then.

Yay!

It is indeed.

Cerberus

02:08

Hey.

What are you testing?

Cerberus

02:37

Yay.

Hmm.

Cerberus

03:30

@QPaysTaxes Probably wise!

Thanks for you help!

I'm off to bed too.

Bye, horsey.

9 hours later…

Questions tagged “latin” on Linguistics SE

13:00

Q: Why did "exempli gratia" (e.g.) and "id est" (i.e.) become widespread in English, but not in other languages?

Usage of the abbreviations "e.g." and "i.e." is very common in English, but not so much in other language. In Dutch they are used sometimes, but they are recent imports due to a lot of exposure to English. While I am not particularly fluent in these languages, the same seems to hold for French, G...

6 hours later…

Joel Derfner

19:13

Hey, guys (and gals? do we have any gals?)—I uploaded that dictionary I was talking about to my website. It's at joelderfner.com/Humanist_Dictionary.html .

Joel Derfner

19:25

Its real strengths are in a) giving real translations of many words too racy for the other dictionaries we have (though either he's strangely Puritanical about cinaedus, pathicus, etc., or I have a mistaken idea of the registers of those words) and b) the usually funny, often interesting notes.