« first day (3588 days earlier)      last day (1631 days later) » 
00:00 - 20:0020:00 - 22:00

20:00
I.e. you say "so and so is right-wing", as opposed to "so and so is nuts".
And "left" is so vague that one can use it for a uselessly broad array of things.
Eric Blair had a lot of good things to say about the abuse of language for political ends, but he used "left" and "right" too. That was as early as the 1930s.
right ~ conservative, left ~ liberal
Those have been popular terms for a long time, sadly.
@Mitch Those terms on the right are pretty vague too.
conservative tends to be paternalistic, left maternalistic
People who blow up banks or rob them are criminal lunatics no matter whether they're anarchist leftists or board-of-directors derechistas.
@Mitch I think that's an overly flattering depiction of what the term "right" covers these days.
20:03
@FaheemMitha oh sure, but they are at least roughly consistently used by everybody.
@tchrist I wonder how many anarchists blow up banks. I'd like a list. Also, the word anarchist is another terms that is much abused.
whereas 'socialist' means 5 different things to 4 different people
In political theory it means decentralization of power.
Liberal is no more the opposite of conservative than Missus is the opposite of Mister.
@Mitch Actually, that term is relatively consistently used as the ownership of the means of production by the workers.
Which is really an economic term.
20:04
Revolutionary and reactionary are two sides of the selfsame extremist coin of the realm.
@FaheemMitha it's also used by people to mean centralized control of an economy, which while those may be correlated are not the same thing.
@Mitch That's a command economy, like the Soviet Union had, and that's not a correct use of the term.
What's a liberal democracy?
Socialism doesn't mean that at all.
I don't think the term socialism is particularly well defined, but that's the neighborhood of it, at least.
@tchrist If you are asking me, I've no idea.
This is the first sentence of the Wikipedia entry for Socialism.
In theory, it's one that has free trade and free markets.
20:08
> Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership[1][2][3] of the means of production[4][5][6][7] and workers' self-management of enterprises.
For once, they seem to have got something approximately right.
The current extant version as mostly Syndicalism, I think.
Historically, the Polite Right in America have been opposed to wholly unregulated free trade because it affords fewer worker protections.
@tchrist I don't really understand free trade issues.
@FaheemMitha Me neither.
A lot of people seem to think it's a bad idea, but I'm not completely clear why.
Closed markets and barriers to trade are generally considered bad things.
20:12
The major reason given is that it drives worker rights down to the lowest common denominator. But what's the alternative? I'm not clear.
But I'm very ignorant about many things, including economics. I just wish I'd had a better education...
@tchrist Yes, indeed.
The Raving Fascists have destroyed America's labor unions.
In the early 1980s union membership stood at some 20%; today it has halved, down to some 10%.
@tchrist Which is probably a Bad Thing.
Most workers don't even know what a union is for, let alone have one.
@tchrist Are you in the US too?
@FaheemMitha Yes.
20:15
@tchrist I hope you are doing ok.
@FaheemMitha Sure...I'm just telling you how people use it. Socialism is often considered a synonym of communism. But also socialism is also used simply as a scary word to conservatives for higher taxes for non-military purposes. It's just how lots of people use the term whether they are following bookish definitions or not.
@Mitch Communism is another much-abused word.
@FaheemMitha Better than many.
Apparently universal health care, or more precisely, single-payer, is either communist or socialist, and therefore bad.
I don't really follow this argument.
We've returned to Upton Sinclair's world of The Jungle.
20:17
I'm hoping this catastrophe gives a push to single-payer, if it does nothing else.
@FaheemMitha use my last definition. it means more govt funds for health care instead of military (to state it a little too black/white)
I think some states came quite close to pushing it through. Apparently Vermont was this close.
@FaheemMitha Nobody in their right mind thinks what we have now here is anything other than a disaster.
It seems that it's possible to push it through on a state level. Here's hoping someone manages it.
@FaheemMitha The free-market treatment of health care finance in the US has unfortunately led to uncontrollable rent seeking by intermediaries like health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies.
20:20
The US has a lot of problems. Many of them inherited from its horrific history. Mostly they're really good at sweeping it under the carpet.
@Mitch Yes, I'm aware. Sort of. I used to live there, once.
Again, there are worse histories. And I think absolutely everybody in the world who is not hiding under a rock knows about the US's short past.
@Mitch I'm not sure who has a worse history.
IN the sense that, if I were black (or rather, specifically, African-American) I wouldn't want to emigrate to Russia or China. It might be slightly better in UK/France/Germany but for each different reasons, but that slight difference might not be worth the move.
@FaheemMitha Iceland. People always think that Iceland is so great.
@Mitch Tell me more.
@Mitch Oh, I'm not suggesting that Russia or China would be better places to live in. Not my point at all.
@Mitch 🍌🍌🍌
20:27
You think it's all penguins and sno-cones... but it's a good mix of Viking marauders and Irish slaves.
Also, I've never met anyone who thinks Iceland is great. Mostly it's invisible.
@FaheemMitha There's no point here. We're just spitballing.
@FaheemMitha Awful teen alcoholism problem.
@Mitch I was assuming that at least some of the time there was a point...
Hm...I think they've managed that only in the past 5 years or so with afterschool activities.
@Mitch Really? Hmm.
20:29
@Mitch Show me an icy place without a teen alcohol problem, and I'll show you an icy place without teens.
@FaheemMitha Oh and they were badly hit by the 2008 recession.
@tchrist haha.
ha.
wait...
@Mitch Yes, bank fraud, I think.
what happened to those teens
> Drinking is now less common among underage young people in all Nordic countries
compared to the situation some 10 or 15 years ago.
@tchrist see. proof!
20:31
Yes, because all the 10–15 year olds are 10–15 years older. End of problem.
haha. math
Or 'Children of Men'
where all of a sudden no more babies being born 15 years ago
> Youth drinking is nowadays least prevalent in Iceland and Norway, followed by
Sweden and Finland. Denmark serves as the ‘Nordic exception’. It is the only
Nordic country where adolescent drinking is above the European average. Still,
adolescent drinking has also declined in Denmark, although less than in other
Nordic countries.
@tchrist That sounds unlikely to be the reason.
So, how worrying is the election situation? Is the Idiot in Chief likely to come back?
supposedly the birth rate in the southern european countries is dropping rapidly, already well below replication rate.
> The share of adolescents [in 2015] who had been intoxicated during the
last 30 days was 32% in Denmark, 13% in Finland, 10% in the Faroe Islands, 9% in
Sweden, 8% in Norway, and 3% in Iceland.
20:34
@FaheemMitha it's worrisome no matter what happens with voting.
@Mitch I don't follow. You mean no matter who wins?
@FaheemMitha I don't know; it's a long paper.
he wins, people follow rules, he continues for 4 more years and continues the ruining of US govt. He loses, he throws a stink (or worse calls for all those far-right people to take up arms).
@tchrist last 30 days? oh 2015. But still. I've heard that drinking problems have gone up considerably in the past 6 months
Even without the reins of power fully vested in the Tyrant Prince of Orange, everything that gave birth to him will remain, a festering cancer upon the nation.
@Mitch So he throws a stink. Just ignore him?
@tchrist Such as? You mean, like those judges?
20:38
I wish. Didn't you see what I said about 'militia'?
@FaheemMitha I meant the insane, soi-disant populist movement.
@FaheemMitha They have guns.
@tchrist Right...assholes aren't gonna change just because someone else is a leader.
@Mitch Yes, I did, but I didn't take it seriously. Do you really think that could happen?
@tchrist Wasn't that there before?
He's been rousing them to furor.
He won't stop doing that.
And people have been getting killed because of it all.
If there really is a mass uprising, I'll seriously have to consider whether 2020 has really just been a long nightmare.
20:40
@FaheemMitha The right-leaning judges will do conservative style things like turn back abortion or give more rights to unimprisonable corporations. But they won't start a civil war.
Nor will they stop one.
@Mitch Do you really think things are that bad?
@FaheemMitha No.
@FaheemMitha It may be hyperventilating/hand-wringing, but it's not entirely crazy to worry about.
But is is nonetheless incendiary.
20:41
@FaheemMitha Yes, but they weren't so mobilized as now.
@Mitch Hmm. Anyway, I'm worried, at least.
The problem is in part all that weaponry in North America.
@tchrist Now, now, the Prince of Orange is hardly a tyrant.
If the USA melts down, that's not a great outlook.
@FaheemMitha That was the good version (in the sense that it could be that much more terribly worse)
Including all those thousands of nuclear missiles.
Which are real. Not a hallucination or nightmare.
@Cerberus So did you finish your marking?
20:43
Not yet.
@FaheemMitha It already has. The world is forever changed.
And I also have some other stuff going on.
@Cerberus I don't think he'd mind being one though. He ain't gonna stop it if vigilantes (and his aides) put him there.
@FaheemMitha Not even Kashmir needs so many.
America no longer stands for anything special in the eyes of the world, if it ever did.
Just another inept and corrupt state who lies to itself and to the world.
Fucking Iceland. They're the worst.
20:47
The beacons have been forever extinguished.
@tchrist You're probably a regex expert. Could I interest you in unix.stackexchange.com/q/608345/4671 ?
Though the question is really more a complaint about poor documentation.
Sigh.
POSIX defines BRE and ERE.
But vi uses its own set, including \< for a left-word-boundary.
grep is supposed to use BRE; egrep ERE. \< is neither.
OMG vi
But people really want at least PREs. Again, \< isn't there either.
vi was probably invented in Iceland
20:50
Berkeley.
Bill Joy's visual mode for the ex editor.
@tchrist So would it be best to politely ignore it? Though why is it in the GNU extensions?
pfft, probably by visiting Icelanders
@FaheemMitha I merely hotbuttoned. I haven't even read your posting yet.
So Bill Joy was a secret Icelander?
@tchrist Assuming you look at U&L.
@FaheemMitha You could say that. If I had a question about regular expressions, Tom is who I would ping.
20:54
If the flags you call regcomp with include REG_ENHANCED then you with GNU you get a bunch of funky weirdnesses that are neither BREs, EREs, nor PCREs.
Man, you guys are churning the pixels here in chat. I go away and come back to find like 300 new posts.
That's mostly my fault, sorry.
@tchrist So I see something that says GNU extension or Vi I should scream and run?
Is that the take-home message?
That depends on your mission.
I started with "Mastering Regular Expressions" to mostly learn PCRE, which appears to be the most powerful of the regex dialects.
Oh oh oh, I see you have posted what it claims and what you can discern.
Are you running Linux or a BSD variant?
20:58
But the author started on grep, so got sidetracked.
Where MacOs is a BSD variant.
@tchrist Debian 10/buster.
So GNU grep 3.3.
They in general have shit for documentation on Linux.
20:59
@tchrist Who does?
@FaheemMitha Linux in general does.
That question doesn't really have much of a point, but by the time I had gone through all that I was so peeved, I just wanted to complain.
Oh you have GNU grep 3.3; I see a 2.2 hereabouts.
@FaheemMitha Even the best manpaged documentation is inexact here.
Also, I'd like feedback as to whether I should file a bug report against the GNU documentation, which fails spectacularly here.
21:01
Check man 7 re_format as well as man 3 regcomp for starters.
Mostly it's quite good, though. And considering how much people seem to love regexes, I find that a bit surprising.
> Since the onset of COVID-19, there has been a surfeit of commentary arguing that 2020 will have transformative effects on world politics....A review of how the novel coronavirus has affected the distribution of power and interest in its first six months suggests that COVID-19 will not have transformative effects on world politics. Absent a profound ex post shift in hegemonic ideas, 2020 is unlikely to be an inflection point.
MacOS has this:
   Assertions (available for both enhanced basic and enhanced extended REs)
     In addition to `^' and `$' (the assertions that match the null string at the
     beginning and end of line, respectively), the following assertions become
     available:

           \<  Matches the null string at the beginning of a word.  This is equiv-
               alent to `[[:<:]]'.

           \>  Matches the null string at the end of a word.  This is equivalent
               to `[[:>:]]'.

           \b  Matches the null string at a word boundary (either the beginning or
I think that's the only scientific conclusion to be made.
Under the REG_ENHANCED flag.
21:03
@tchrist That seems to be something different, unless I'm misunderstanding.
I.e. not the same as the GNU grep one.
Is so! :)
 -w, --word-regexp
         The expression is searched for as a word (as if surrounded by
         `[[:<:]]' and `[[:>:]]'; see re_format(7)).
I'm not even sure what "matches the null string" means.
Yes well, it's weasel worded.
It actually means that it matches a string of length zero.
21:04
@tchrist Ok. But I still don't see how that is equivalent.
Is your question about the exact behavior of the GNU \< and \> assertions?
@tchrist Yes.
Since that is what I'm using.
     There are two special cases= of bracket expressions: the bracket expressions
     `[[:<:]]' and `[[:>:]]' match the null string at the beginning and end of a
     word respectively.  A word is defined as a sequence of word characters which
     is neither preceded nor followed by word characters.  A word character is an
     alnum character (as defined by ctype(3)) or an underscore.  This is an exten-
     sion, compatible with but not specified by IEEE Std 1003.2 (``POSIX.2''), and
     should be used with caution in software intended to be portable to other sys-
It's a lot of pain.
@tchrist Oh, I see. Then it is equivalent, once unpacked. Still don't understand the underscore thing, though.
Where is this a quote from?
\b really means (?:(?<=\w)(?!\w)|(?<!\w)(?=\w)) while it negation \B really means (?:(?<=\w)(?=\w)|(?<!\w)(?!\w)).
21:09
To sum up, that's an "interesting" definition of a word.
A word character is one with this or that Unicode character property.
@tchrist Where does that definition come from, originally?
@FaheemMitha perl
It originally meant [A-Za-z0-9_] back when characters had only 7 bits.
@tchrist So \b is the union of \< and \> in a manner of speaking?
Yes.
21:11
@tchrist Oh. Thanks for the history lesson.
It precise behavior depends on what it's edging against.
I wonder if I should delete that question.
@tchrist Edging against?
haha
Should I complain to GNU about their manuals?
Expanding the \b expansion of (?:(?<=\w)(?!\w)|(?<!\w)(?=\w)) out so you read it yields this:
  1 (?:
  2     (?<= \w)  (?! \w )
  3   | (?<! \w)  (?= \w )
  4 )
I've left line numbers for the sake of discussion.
So it means one of two possible things.
It is either the thing at line 2 or the one at line 3.
But in both cases, it is two different zero-width assertion.
Line 2 says that it is true if there is a word character to the left and there is not a word character to the right.
Line 3 says it is true if there is not a word character to the left and there is a word character to the right.
21:28
  1 (?:            # EITHER THIS PAIR IS TRUE:
  2     (?<= \w )  #    yes word-char right before this
  3                # and also
  4     (?!  \w )  #    no  word-char right after this
  5   |            # OR ELSE THIS PAIR IS TRUE:
  6     (?<! \w )  #    no  word-char right before this
  7                # and also
  8     (?=  \w )  #    yes word-char right after this
  9 )
There, that's what \b means.
It's always a combination of a lookbehind assertion and a lookahead assertion, where the first case is a positive lookbehind and a negative lookahead, and in the second case it's a negative lookbehind and a positive lookahead.
So a\b matches when the letter a is NOT followed by another word character.
But =\b matches when the = IS INDEED followed by a word character.
Because a is a word character so a right boundary after it says there must not be another word char immediately to its right.
But = is NOT a word-char, so a right boundary after it says there MUST be a word char immediately to its right.
People become infinitely confused about these zero-width assertions involving boundaries and nonboundaries, because their behavior is not uniform. They depend on the type a character -- either word or nonword -- they're right next to.
@FaheemMitha Trees falling in the school for the deaf's forest.
Feel free. Let me know how that works out for you.
A regex is a linear sequence of rules that are evaluated left to right in a string that is also handled left to right. Most rules consume at least one character from the input, but zero-width assertions consume zero characters.
So as a rule, a matches one character just as a+ matches one or more repetitions of a single character and thus is one or more characters in length.
The lookarounds never consume anything in the string. They are always zero width by definition.
Just like ^ is a zero-width assertion that is true only when there are no characters to its left in the string. Hence, at the beginning.
Most of these fancy lookaround assertions make it impossible to solve in exponential time.
Which is already quite bad enough, thank you very much.
That means you can't use a deterministic finite automaton to solve them, nor a nondeterministic one either.
21:47
Prince of Orange (or Princess of Orange if the holder is female) is a title originally associated with the sovereign Principality of Orange, in what is now southern France. The title "Prince of Orange" was created in 1163 by the Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, by elevating the county of Orange to a principality, in order to bolster his support in that area in his conflict with the Papacy. The title and land passed to the French noble houses of Baux, in 1173, and of Chalons, in 1393, before arriving with Rene of Nassau in 1530. The principality then passed to a Dutch nobleman, Rene’s cousin William...
> The current users of the title are Princess Catharina-Amalia of the Netherlands (Orange-Nassau), ...
Seems Irish.
Irish?
O’Range :)
Well.
Maybe.
It's like how Obama is Irish because is has an Irish grandmother.
But her name wasn't O'Bama. :)
21:51
Oh, has he.
@FaheemMitha Another way to put it is that if your engine supports (?(condition)yes-pattern|no-pattern) then \b is simply (?(?<=\w)(?!\w)|(?=\w)).
Oh, it's Regex now.
He's annoyed at how shitty the gnu docs are.
Hmm.
I suppose I'm spoiled with the Autohotkey docs.
@FaheemMitha it's relatively consistently used by economists and people who know what they're talking about. It's very inconsistently used by millions of people that far outnumber the economists as either "Eeeeevil Russia" or "I'm not a socialist!"
00:00 - 20:0020:00 - 22:00

« first day (3588 days earlier)      last day (1631 days later) »