« first day (2933 days earlier)      last day (33 days later) » 

1:11 AM
@EliahKagan seems there should be some way to separate the question part from the answer part and put the latter into the answer
 
Yes. That is certainly possible. I'm not sure the question is itself clear, though.
 
1:22 AM
I have edited it
 
Thanks.
 
there is some detail in their forum post but I could not see anything in particular to add
 
I didn't think of moving that much into the answer, but that's probably the best way, since it makes it possible for the question to be clearly a question.
 
does it seem alright? Or should it still be closed?
 
I don't know if it should be considered clear or not at this point, but I think it's improved to the point that reviewers are likely to figure that out as well as with most other questions.
 
1:24 AM
:)
Is this thing really a bug?
 
I don't know. If this comment is to be taken as clarification on what the question is asking, then I think it's probably not off-topic.
 
can it be edited, I wonder...
 
2:20 AM
well, I edited it
 
 
1 hour later…
@Natty tp
 
4:56 AM
no repro? See self-answer
 
5:11 AM
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
 
@SmokeDetector hmm... is that question answerable?
 
eject usually works.
Maybe it can be closed as a duplicate of something?
The answer, though not spam, doesn't appear to be correct regarding the specific brand and model of machine mentioned in the question. I've commented.
@Natty tp
 
oh damn, I missed the hardware info in the title
I guess the question is OK
 
The problem could be due to hardware failure of course.
 
@EliahKagan yeah... I guess we'll never know at this point
@EliahKagan aha! good catch
 
6:17 AM
I'm not sure if that's the best one, though I haven't found a better one.
@Zanna The new question might not be a duplicate, or whether or not it's a duplicate may depend on what aspects of the new question are focused on. I've commented.
 
I guess my edit messed it up
thanks for looking into it and commenting
at least they will probably appreciate that link more than the unhelpful close message
 
@Zanna Or a dupe.
 
ugh it will live forever as a dupe :(
 
6:34 AM
Is that bad?
 
@Natty fp It's phrased as questions, but it's actually an answer.
 
@EliahKagan if it's going to live forever, I have to think of a better title for it
 
I think it should possibly live forever because the domain it mentions is one that probably other people will search with, from their error messages. I think Kulfy is right that it should be closed as a duplicate rather than no repro. I'm considering even retracting my no repro vote to avoid that outcome. I'm not sure what I should do.
@Zanna How do you feel about the title I've just given it? Maybe it's too long.
 
without even looking, I know I'm going to like the title because it's long :)
yes, fine, good
ok, happy now
time to wash dishes and veggies etc for hours
@EliahKagan I guess people will vote dupe. If it really bothers you I have got this hammer...
 
6:41 AM
@EliahKagan As of now it has 1 no-repro vote and 2 dupe votes. I think it'll be closed as dupe anyway.
 
7:25 AM
OT Debian
 
7:53 AM
I am having trouble remembering that
Nov 12 '19 at 19:00, by Zanna
after all we don't ourselves have to do everything that should be done on Ask Ubuntu
 
Does this look worth deleting?
 
(you may be referring to that)
 
Seems OP deleted their account network-wide
 
not sure about that
 
8:35 AM
OT Debian wheezy (see OP's comment)
 
From this suggested edit, I realised CommonMark no longer hides "<%break%>". The cached copy looks fine but the revision history reflects the change.
 
9:00 AM
the question still looks fine to me
I don't see <%break%> written in the rendered version
I guess I am missing something
 
7
A: Fenced code markdowns in posts before 2019 doesn't render correctly

Sonic the Masked WerehogThis is status-bydesign. When a post is made or edited, the Markdown is processed just once, and then the HTML that was created is cached indefinitely. This same HTML continues to be served even after changes are made to the Markdown renderer, so that posts don't have to be re-rendered every tim...

The Markdown was processed when you edited the post. It seems Markdowns are re-rendered in revision history since "<%break%>" is visible there.
 
9:16 AM
 
@Kulfy Yes, revision histories, as well as old revisions of posts when viewed, don't use cached HTML.
Your understanding is perfectly correct. In the revision history we calculate and diff a post's HTML on the fly based on the revision's markdown source. That means that after switching over to CommonMark, even revisions that predate the CommonMark migration will be rendered with the new CommonMark renderer. I know, that's less than stellar but it's all we can do if we don't want to keep the old renderer around forever. — Ham Vocke ♦ Jun 2 at 8:40
 
Is it feasible to find all posts with <%break%>?
 
Was <%break%> ever widely used or recommended or officially supported?
This is the first time I've seen it used. Code blocks and blockquotes can be broken up with an HTML comment, which can be the empty comment <!-- -->. I've seen and used that often.
I believe there's a way to search the Markdown of posts' current revision in SEDE, though I don't know how.
 
9:43 AM
Maybe an SEDE work
 
9:57 AM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Potentially bad ns for domain in answer (1): Duplicity with Google Cloud throwing TypeError by user1103057 on askubuntu.com
 
SEDE query*
 
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Url-only title, bad ip for hostname in title, bad keyword in title, blacklisted website in title, potentially bad ns for domain in title, +1 more (399): ketoavis.com/keto-360-slim-uruguay/ by mqdghbhumkop on askubuntu.com
 
@SmokeDetector Hmm, what's with the text at the very end?
@Natty tp
 
10:12 AM
@Kulfy ohhh thank you for this!
Lunching, back soon
 
@EliahKagan duply.net
 
Right, but is that related to Duplicity?
It was based on that text that SmokeDetector reported it. And having a post end that way for no apparent reason does seem quite suspicious.
 
10:43 AM
I was worrying about my <%break%> comments some time back
Jun 13 at 9:14, by Zanna
I have been inserting breaks using <%break%> or just <%%>. This seems not to work any more?
long ago, I saw someone somewhere mention that <%arbitrary text%> could be used instead of <br>
so I started doing it every time I wanted to make a break without making a horizontal line
 
Oh.
I don't think I noticed those messages.
Did that really do the same thing as <br/>?
It seems to me that the parser thought it was intended as an HTML tag, but since it wasn't on the tag whitelist, it was removed.
 
I don't really know what <br/> does
what I actually read was that <%something%> was a "markdown comment"
and therefore the proper thing to use on SE
 
I meant <br>. I'm accustomed to writing it as <br/>.
@Zanna Oh. I guess that was guaranteed to work then. I was unaware of that.
 
sorry, I mean I don't know what either of them do, if it's not just make a new line
 
Well, <br> makes a newline.
 
But this usage is for breaking up one code block into two.
 
I didn't mean to say that <br> and <br/> were different; I have always assumed not, though I don't know if that was a correct assumption
sorry for the confusion
double confusion
the reason I said "I thought it could be used instead of <br>" was because when I was worrying about my <%%> breaks no longer working recently, jokerdino told me I could use <br> instead of that
I have never tested whether <br> does what I was using <%%> to do
I am just generally talking nonsense and should be ignored
XD
 
But I am understanding correctly that the purpose is for breaking up one code block into two successive code blocks, right?
 
yes, or for putting a code block right after a list without it being indented as part of the list or something like that
 
Putting an unrecognized tag is sufficient to produce that effect, at least with the current parser, at least with the preview JavaScript renderer.
However, if I put punctuation in there, it no longer regards it to be an HTML tag, and the text, including the leading < and the trailing >, appears in the preview.
 
10:59 AM
well, I remember various occasions when I forgot which character was the magic one (it was %), and not being able to produce the effect I wanted
 
I think, back when it worked, stuff like <%break%> and <%%> was just parsed as a tag, found not to be on the whitelist, and removed, yet still effective and ending the code block before it (by ending the indentation).
@Zanna What happened if you guessed wrong? Did you see the literal text, including the < and the >?
 
yes
 
Then I think there was no magic character, but rather there were some characters that even the old parser knew wouldn't appear in a tag.
 
OT Mint
 
@EliahKagan I don't think <% %> makes a Markdown comment. My guess is that this notation has been assumed to make a Markdown comment because it was parsed as an HTML tag and removed due to not being whitelisted. My further guess is that the idea it would make a Markdown comment is based on how, in some dialects of Markdown, {% %} makes a Markdown comment.
 
11:05 AM
I just found the same post
oh well
 
Anyway, I don't recommend using <br> for that either.
You can use an HTML comment:
    first line

<!-- -->

    second line
 
I have been using --- and putting up with the line
@EliahKagan ok
 
Or you can use code fences, and have them be separate fenced code blocks.
 
yes, that is a good thing about code fences!
 
Neither an extra <br> nor a <hr> is conceptually desirable there. The HTML comment causes the other generated HTML to be correct for two successive code blocks. (Successive code fences also produce correct HTML.)
Related. (It shows that technique.) I guess that post should be updated, since some of what it says is no longer accurate since the CommonMark migration. For example, a line with no > is now sufficient to break up successive blockquotes. Also there are other ways to achieve some of the things I showed there, since we have code fences.
Editing that will/would be interesting. It's not written in valid CommonMark, and it wasn't automatically migrated.
I'm not sure why it wasn't migrated. Amazingly, when treated as CommonMark, everything looks like it displays the same as before, except for the broken headings. But broken headings are something the migration tool was capable of fixing. So somehow it generated different HTML even after an automatic migration attempt.
 
11:30 AM
@EliahKagan Seems to be. duply.net redirects to Duply (simple duplicity)
 
12:15 PM
@Natty tp
 
% seems to be a glob in SQL... is there any way to quote it? Backslash seems to be treated literally :S
 
Try ESCAPE '\' after like. For example, like '\%something' ESCAPE '\'
 
@Kulfy yesss I think that got it!
thanks a million @Kulfy glad I asked
the syntax highlighting got screwed up but it worked
 
12:31 PM
44 is a manageable number. But do they really need to be edited?
 
I don't know - they could get confusingly broken in the event that they were edited subsequently
@Kulfy you asked
 
@Zanna Yes
They can also be edited to replace 4 space code formatting with the backtick formatting
 
@Natty tp
 
1:34 PM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Username similar to website in answer (62): Setting nautilus-open-terminal to launch Terminator rather than gnome-terminal by alvaroferran on askubuntu.com
 
2:18 PM
No need to reopen this question
Instead deleting the older one would be better as it doesn't serve the purpose of a good signpost too as it lacks clarity and formatting. (cc mods: @Zanna @jokerdino @Ravexina)
 
@pomsky instead of reopening?
oh sorry I misread your first message
I think I need to take a day off XD
that username... is it my dad posting?
I'm not totally sure what to do here
the first question has an answer (which may be wrong, but still)
so, rather than delete it, I think at this point we could close it as a dupe of the new one
instead of the current target
 
@Zanna That's a better idea indeed :)
 
I see vanadium knows about the new question... presumably they will post a new answer if they want to
however, I'm still not sure because of the way the newer question is framed
I'll go do my housework and take another look after that, if it hasn't already been fixed
 
@SmokeDetector user declared affiliation and it's just a link to their personal blog post
the actual answer is included too :)
 
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Pattern-matching website in body, potentially bad ns for domain in body, potentially bad keyword in body (98): supplant my GPU by Chris Jackson on askubuntu.com
 
@Zanna You aren't the only one who using <%%>. For example, see this revision history
 
3:19 PM
kind of a relief to know :D
@Natty question needs hardware info?
 
@Natty tp
 
 
2 hours later…
@Natty tp
 
7:10 PM
@Zanna vanadium deleted their answer and the question is gathering more reopen votes
 
8:12 PM
@Natty tp
@pomsky Why would lacking clarity and formatting make something a bad signpost? Signposts are good if people find them by searching and then click through (or get redirected) to something that helps them.
 
Also, I don't think there is ever a case where being a bad signpost justifies deleting a question within 48 hours of closure.
Such deletions are supposed to be rare. Why and how are some questions deleted?, which is what people go to when they want to understand how and why their questions have been deleted (it is linked in the post notice), says:
> Questions that have been closed within the past 48 hours cannot be deleted, so as to allow for editing and possible reopening.
Of course that is false; we can delete them sooner. But that is supposed to be so rare as to not be worth mentioning in the help center page on question deletion.
There's a reason casting delete votes on a question within the first 48 hours of closure requires twice and much rep as casting delete votes on other posts and requires the question to have a score of -3 or lower.
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty tp - The version Natty saw was NAA.
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
@Natty tp
 
@Natty tp
 
@EliahKagan Only being a bad signpost is not the issue, the problem is that it might get reopened soon. That would be a futile exercise as even though the dupe doesn't help OP, they already posted another question, this time clarifying their actual problem eventually (thanks to the clarifications asked by others in comments).
@Zanna had another idea of closing it against the second question by the OP, which might be a better one.
The first one is kind of an XY-problem.
 
8:55 PM
@pomsky That is also addressed by (and is actually the main point of) the text I quoted above from the help center. Questions are supposed to be very hard to delete within the first 48 hours of closure to ensure that they have an opportunity to be reopened. Deletion is not supposed to be used to circumvent this process.
It is hard for me to think of a case where attempting to delete a question that's been closed for less than two days because it has reopen votes would not be a misuse of the system. The question has multiple reopen votes, zero comments arguing against reopening, and zero downvotes. It strikes me as a textbook case where circumventing the usual review processes by early deletion is unwarranted. It might be worthwhile to comment on the question to explain why it shouldn't be reopened.
 
That seems good to me.
Perhaps some of the reopen votes are with the intention of doing so. I'm not sure. I have not voted to reopen it. (I wouldn't personally be able to cast another close vote there since I'm one of the users who voted to close it before.)
Thanks for commenting btw.
 
@EliahKagan If I'm not mistaken unfortunately the comment won't be visible in the review queue.
(3xRO, 2xLC)
 
9:11 PM
@pomsky Arguably it should be reopened to be closed as a duplicate of their new question... but I think just leaving it closed, or asking for the other question to be added to the banner, are also good. So I've gone ahead and added my Leave Closed review. It's out of the queue. It might still get reopen votes, but not (or at least not initially) from the reopen queue.
 
[ Natty | Sentinel ] Link to Post Low Length; No Code Block; Low Rep; Unregistered User; 2.5;
 
^^ Possibly spam. Also likely not something we allow (the link looks like it goes to a crack or serial keys for that software, though I have not followed it). Viewing it charitably, it's a comment. The OP is asking for alternatives to that software; also, there are answers about that software. I'm not totally sure it should be considered spam so I've flagged it VLQ.
@Natty fp though it does not seem like a correct answer.
@EliahKagan It's not actually a nonsense post (which is the major case where VLQ is appropriate), and I do think it qualifies as NAA, so I'll understand if my VLQ flag is declined.
 
9:30 PM
sounded opinion-based and a bit unclear to me, but on a second thought probably better to close against some other question(s) (there are quite a few in the 'Related" section at the right side)
deletable, wrong / not useful for the question
 
@pomsky I've duped it to something. Should What's a good back-up strategy for 1 desktop PC? be added?
 
@pomsky An (essentially) identical answer by another new user is deleted previously, better to protect it? (cc @EliahKagan)
 
Personally I wouldn't protect that question at this point because it only has 210 views.
The new wrong answer looks like it'll be deleted. But if it weren't, its downvotes and comment would likely make clear why that method doesn't work, and prevent future answers offering the same thing. Of course, even with no community delete votes, post authors often delete their own answers after finding that they are wrong.
Anyway, though I wouldn't protect that question (as it currently stands), I don't think this is a case where protection is clearly wrong. If you believe it should be protected, I think it's reasonable for you to go ahead and protect it.
 
@EliahKagan My rule of thumb here is "the more, the better" :D Looks like the OP doesn't have a very specific question, they just need to read up on some generic stuffs related to the topic a bit more.
 
 
1 hour later…
10:44 PM
dupe, please add this one to the target
Any idea what might cause this issue since OP claimed they're not touching the touchpad while typing? Or what kind of clarifying details should be asked here?
 

« first day (2933 days earlier)      last day (33 days later) »