Had a good day today. Deadpool 2, pizza at a new place within walking distance... afternoon nap... and getting to actually see my son before he goes to sleep.
Lots of things to do today...wait for my new, larger tripod coming tomorrow, prepare another slide deck in the meantime, and help my mom out with hew new catering business
I acquired a new studio light. Great way to repurpose the new battery I bought for my old tape camcorder from 1999
also, you probably would have been better off commenting that its an unsupported browser
ah no
actually
maaan, that actually might have been a valid bug report.
> The latest version of Chrome (66) works on somes sites, but crashes trying to load a unix.stackexchange.com or Software Engineering page.
Specifically, this is when tapping a link in the weekly email. Chrome is launched briefly showing the sg-links URL with a blank page. Then returned to the browser-selection popup.
TOTALLY a valid bug report, even if it happens with other sites
Anyone know how I can find a list of Roombaed questions? Trying to figure out whether what I claim to have seen in meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/368215/… was real or whether I'm crazy.
hey, it's genuinely ambiguous! And I didn't know the rules for determining how many undelete votes it takes to undelete something! And the post I was originally trying to undelete had negative score, so it seemed plausible that it would require lots of undelete votes!
> If you have the vote to delete privilege (part of the "moderator tools" privilege) (10k rep on launched sites, 2k on beta sites), you get five votes to delete per day, plus 1 vote per 1000 reputation points above 10k (up to a maximum of 30 votes per day). Votes to delete your own posts may or may not count toward the limit, depending on circumstances.
> You get as many votes to undelete as votes to delete.
Interesting quote from https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/367985/1709587, I think:
> The tools used in software development lack empathy and compassion. If you let the seemingly-endless streams of compiler/linker errors, build fails, runtime faults and spec deviations get to you mentally, the machinery and tools will drive you insane.
@MarkAmery I'd be a little concerned if the compiler tried to give me a cookie for messing up. Or did passive aggressive things when I gave it bad code "Oh... so you think it's OK to not initialize an identifier... FAR BE IT FROM ME to tell you how to code!"
Sure. But one of the pet hypotheses that I've had for a while (which I guess Martin shares) is that much of programmer culture is shaped by the fact that programming is a profession in which your routine activities consist of being told over and over again by an uncaring machine that you are wrong and that you have not done your job correctly. Perhaps that selects for - and cultivates - a sort of character that's robust against receiving a constant stream of negativity.
@MarkAmery without a proper sociological study with proper P values I couldn't say. I would say the same thing I say about performance issues though: "Don't ever assume"
That said... a few friends of mine did make the "Zap" programming language in college where all the compiler errors were Zap Brannigan quotes
Straw poll (don't answer if you already know the particular reason I'm asking, or if you've seen the term used in the last few days). If you read that a law enforcement agency had an "embedded informant" within an organisation, what would you take that to mean?
In particular, would you infer that an "embedded informant" was someone who had been planted within the organisation by the law enforcement agency, or would you infer that it was an existing member of the organisation who had decided to whistleblow, or would you be unsure and consider the term ambiguous between the two?
Generally speaking embedded informants usually indicate there was significant and probable cause to indicate the organization was involved in RICO or FISA activities
@Mgetz Hmm, I'm just trying to figure out what you'd parse "embedded informant" to mean - sounds like you've taken some meaning as given and skipped to what surrounding circumstances you'd infer
@Mgetz so would you infer from the term that the informant had been planted within the organisation by the law enforcement agency, or would you consider the term equally compatible with somebody within the organisation deciding of their own volition to provide law enforcement with information?
Basically let's say you have multiple CIs telling you something completely nuts, so you get someone who's friendly that you trust but so will the group you want to monitor to become an EI. You only use ULEO if it's a long term persistent threat
@MarkAmery The former, but it's highly regulated. You can't just ask someone to become an EI because a group is interesting.
You have to have probable cause first in most cases
interesting. Well, thanks - between the three of you you've completely failed to help me resolve the question I was unsure about, since I've got a vote from Mgetz for "EI must be planted", a vote from πάντα ῥεῖ for "I'd assume they were just a whistleblower" and a vote from hey for "no idea, I'd Google".
The issue is that CIs often have their own agendas
Oh yeah the trump issue... they are trying to rally their base for the election ignoring the fact that it was legit based on the existing counter intelligence investigation already ongoing
If I was them I wouldn't use watergate as a comparison, I'd use COINTELPRO
Hmm... I'm not sure myself, but still never heard those being put in a company. Usually they're undercover agent instead... for government asset corruption-related
Governments implant agents into closed groups (of conspiracy) and even vice versa. That's an ubiquitous thing in secret gathering of information. Nothing new or special.
@ArtOfCode I'm not particularly inclined to respect partisanship from people who've in the last few hours accused me of dishonesty, confusion, and wilful mental gymnastics for trying to get an ambiguity clarified while refusing to implement the clarification. Let them show a little respect first.
the answer claims that they arranged for the passage of legislation to prevent the Centre for Disease control spending any money at all on research into firearms death and injury" but that's a misrepresentation of the characterisation of the Dickey Amendment in the article being quoted, which claims that it only "prevents the Centre for Disease Control spending any money at all on research "that might advocate or promote gun control"
And that in turn is a misrepresentation of the text of the Dickey Amendment, which doesn't include the "might" but merely says that CDC funds may not be "used to advocate or promote gun control"
huh, actually looks like the answer got cleaned up to remove the false claims?!
@MarkAmery The practical effect is pretty much the same, any research into gun deaths is basically prohibited and congress gets really agitated if they start on anything
(or at least to limit it to the false claims in the partisan source being used to support the answer, rather than false claims made up completely by the answerer)
@Mgetz that may be, but I'll only believe it if I see evidence
Them tending to interpret claims in a way that benefits their individual politics is one thing. Outright censoring anyone querying their interpretation or pointing out different possible interpretations, and refusing to permit edits that clarify what interpretation an answer is addressing... that's another. There's no plausible way that that helps people be more accurately informed; it's purely partisan.
I wouldn't be adding any new evidence, though, purely a different tl;dr take on the evidence already presented by other answers. That doesn't seem like it deserves its own answer.
TBH this is only an issue at all because Devin Nunes is allegedly party to conspiracy to commit kidnapping but that's it's own crazy insane ball of WTF
anyway, what I don't really like about being skeptical (in general, not SE) is, for news related to very recent event, so there's no/only few reliable information to be used as a material for answering... unless you wait 6-8 weeks later when the clear info is now available, but then the question is.... well, moot.
But it sucks to walk away from it. Their community is actively misleading people while presenting itself as a truth-seeking community. I don't like tolerating dishonesty and deception, but I'm outnumbered on SSE by dishonest partisans so I can't win the fight.
But the reasoning he gave is "not willing to undelete it until this happens", that's why I replied. He can leave it deleted and post new question without the sensitive info.
> Probably a situation better handled with a custom mod flag, or by using the contact us link at the bottom of the page. This kind of public exposure is probably the opposite of what someone who's struggling needs, please delete this. – apaul yesterday
All links that identify the specific user were removed in a subsequent edit, and the question was deleted.
If I undelete it, that information would be visible in the post history.
I am able to view the Stack Overflow site moderators by clicking on this
https://stackoverflow.com/users?tab=moderators
But when I search the same in meta.stackexchange, it does not display the site moderators.
https://meta.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators
The below message is displaye...
I have flags from nearly a month ago here that haven't been handled yet
Anonymous
9:45 PM
If you're already using jQuery, just use $(location).attr('href',url);. window.location.href seems to have inconstant behavior in some browsers, in fact, it flat out doesn't work in my version of Firefox. I've heard tell of setting window.location directly not working in versions of IE. — NozJan 28 '15 at 22:34
@bwDraco never say never, but I am pretty sure it will not be done, the private chat rooms here surely contain tons of super sensitive stuff that only SE employees can/should see. Solution would be to block "ordinary" moderator from seeing those rooms, but it will probably require non trivial development time, which is better spent elsewhere.
I am able to view the Stack Overflow site moderators by clicking on this
https://stackoverflow.com/users?tab=moderators
But when I search the same in meta.stackexchange, it does not display the site moderators.
https://meta.stackexchange.com/users?tab=moderators
The below message is displaye...
