Tavern on the Meta

12:00 PM

@rene so, two times 'kleineletter' then 'HOOFDLETTER' (I know, it's a cryptic hint, to confuse robots, like Captcha :P). And then 'niet-alfanumeriekteken'

Magisch

dutch noises

angry fish

Tinkeringbell

@Magisch If you haven't figured out what those words mean even with my previous message...

I mean, German is supposed to be similar.

rene

@Tinkeringbell ah, yes, sure. That makes sense. Totally ;)

Tinkeringbell

I mean... it's even pretty easy to remember as a password. I'm going to keep this one in mind.

rene

12:28 PM

@Tinkeringbell if it is easy to remember so it is for hackers. At least that is what that Postbus 51 ad is about ...

Tinkeringbell

@rene Meh, hackers.

Postbus 51 is only there to scare people in being obedient citizens ;)

Change of topic though: meta.stackexchange.com/q/328317/369802 < Does anyone actually know how account merges work want to chime in?

rene

@Tinkeringbell it is based on magic / pure luck

Tinkeringbell

@rene I was afraid it would be :P

I found meta.stackexchange.com/q/231414/369802 but that doesn't have an answer

rene

it is still unclear what they exactly have/ want.

Tinkeringbell

@rene Right now, I'm guessing they have two profiles, and they want them merged. But they're wondering if they have to ask for a merge for every community they are a member of, or if the merge will just merge their profiles (and every underlying community)

rene

12:38 PM

There is only ONE networkacount that can have 1 to n useraccounts. I think a merge happens on networkaccount level, taking all useraccounts linked to those networkaccounts with it to a single networkaccount. In all merges the highest id will be the one that remains. But that is all I guessed about how account merges actually work.

If you can get hold of Animuson I suggest you try that.

Tinkeringbell

@rene meta.stackexchange.com/questions/328317/….... guess they solved it themselves

rene

A happy customer!

awaits new meta post with complaint about unclear merge instructions ...

Tinkeringbell

@rene Yay! :D

@rene Why? They seem happy enough ;) I don't think they'll start complaining. Though perhaps there's something to be said about getting a bit of terminology straight and more clearly describing what a merge does ;)

Magisch

merge that feedback

into the feedback about the reprex

Tinkeringbell

12:53 PM

Is SO still upset over that?

Magisch

I mean, -259 is a pretty clear signal

+57 / -316 as of now

Fun fact, if MSO had rep, Shog would have only lost 62 rep from that post

Tinkeringbell

Ouch... I guess the Question Wizard won't be asking for MCVE's or reprexes then, for a while...

Magisch

The change has already been made

The thing is already called stackoverflow.com/help/reprex now

Tinkeringbell

@Magisch meta.stackoverflow.com/a/381695/6380541 isn't yet marked completed though

Magisch

That part hasn't been implemented yet afaik, but MCVE was already renamed to reprex in relevant areas, including redirecting the old help page to the new one, and some changes to the help page including: *The use of “reprex” for Reproducible Example was inspired by Jenny Bryan’s reprex package for R.

You may have been told to include an MCVE – Minimal, Complete, and Verifiable examples is what they were referring to. MCVE was also the former name of the page you're reading now before it was renamed to Minimal, Reproducible Example (or “reprex”).*

Tinkeringbell

1:02 PM

Hmm.

Magisch

The post wasn't "We're considering doing this, what do you think" and more of "We've done this, here's why"

Tinkeringbell

So. Before I go digging a hole to the center of the meta post, did anyone come up with a better word?

Or is everything underneath the question just 'I don't like this, want my old stuff back'?

Magisch

better how

plenty of people made alternative suggestions

Tinkeringbell

@Magisch What do you think is the best one, out of all those?

Magisch

abandoning the idea of a catchphrase to explain a complex concept alltogether

and giving the article a longer title

Tinkeringbell

1:07 PM

Sounds sensible, I think. Unless the question wizard comes with character limits :P

No Distraction Wizard

1:18 PM

Umm... what does "Complete" represent in "Min-Reprex"? The dash? :/

Magisch

reproducible example "reprex" kind of implies complete

i.E in order to be fully reproducible it needs to be complete and verifiable

user302202

TeX - LaTeX uses MWE, "minimal working example"

user302202

283

Q: I've just been asked to write a minimal example, what is that?

I was posting some question about this strange thing LaTeX is doing when I try to compile my thesis. Someone asked me to provide a minimal example that reproduces the problem. My thesis is now a few hundred pages long and spans along ten different source files! How am I supposed to know what or w...

John Dvorak

1:42 PM

Not bad

the abbreviation itself isn't more clear, but the unabbreviated version is just fine.

Tinkeringbell

2:16 PM

working vs. reproducible... hmm. The first seems 'simpler' English, but the second carries more of a thing for 'it only has to do for us what it does for you, even if that means it's not working'.

No Distraction Wizard

code review vs. debugging... hmm.

Margarine

Debugging review

canon

2:48 PM

Sort of bummed this is amassing close votes: meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/385023/…

Even if it does have a ranty rage-quit flavor

where do you even have that discussion?

No Distraction Wizard

The correct way to declaring a review strike is... to just stop reviewing :/

Or Twitter.

canon

well, I think the entire point was to invite some like-minded people to discuss their frustration... rather than silently giving up

and twitter

well, that's certainly more likely to be effective, generally

but not for this

twitter is only useful for non-users to push their agenda

actual users are screwed

No Distraction Wizard

Try Medium then... (referring to Monica's Dear Stack Overflow, we need to talk. post)

Margarine

@canon sums it up

The frustration is understandable, but the act of protest will not have meaningful consequences. You aren’t donating your time reviewing to the team that runs Stack Overflow. You’re donating it to the community of people who use Stack Overflow, to ask and answer questions. The people who started using it and want to keep using it because it avoids their having to waste time slogging through piles of crap. Refusing to review will just mean more crap for you, and I, and everyone else. It won’t make the review queues get fixed. Fewer reviewers means either more work for fewer, or more crap. — Cody Gray ♦ yesterday

It's not looking for discussion, it's making a regrettably bitter and frustrated announcement.

Counterproductive.

It could have went with a different tone, or at least pretended to be asking a question and inviting discussion. While I was looking for more heat than conveyed, there is no sign of willingness to discuss it

And conversations on meta usually do center around the OPs, so it's not like everyone else can just ignore Ivan and keep discussing things.