> "Update 15 Jun 2015: Someone was wrong on the internet and this time it was me! Astute readers will notice that a tiny off-by-one bug in my implementation (see the fifth revision) led it to generate a lock with three tumblers with eleven letters each, and one tumbler with ten letters.
The new best lock from this implementation only generates 1,161 words, leaving Norvig’s solution the best still:
Not sure if that was a joke or not, but this problem has already been solved in CSS (@font-face). Though the downside to that would be that they'd then have the issue of hosting copyrighted content (ie the typeface).
True, but equally not all browsers support images either (lynx, elinks, etc). Which is probably about the same market share as browsers that don't support custom typefaces these days. And at least custom typefaces would still leave you with a readable text on non-supported browsers - which is more than an image would (which also gives them added bonus of being easily programmatically parseable, eg by web crawlers).
Why on earth was that voted down? It wasn't rude, spam, nor factually inaccurate.
I'm getting quite fed up with people who abuse their negative karma privileges. I mean, at least justify your peer moderation with a follow up comment when the reason for the penalty is as ambiguous as it is in this instance.
I excepect I'll just get down voted again though, for daring to have a rant about people who do "hit and run" down voting...
...and once again you've failed to specify why it was wrong. Simply stating something to be wrong is a worthless comment. Provide an reason; or citation if it's necessary. I'm open to correction if you can provide a counter argument.
@font-face is not a solution that works 100% of the time.
I'm not sure how to back that up, it's a basic fact.
Someone was being cheeky about ensuring comic sans. You replied by 'correcting' them with something that wouldn't in fact ensure comic sans. It was wrong and not particularly useful, and it had a good amount of missing-the-joke, so it got downvoted.
I didn't say it works 100% of time. (See my other comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8832776) and I did say that I wasn't sure if that was a joke or not from the offset (text isn't always easy to judge sarcasm)
So basically what you are saying is you down voted me because you misread my post (and frankly, even if I did categorically state what you thought I said, I still think your reason would have been somewhat petty)
This is why people shouldn't down vote without leaving a reply first. :)
>I didn't say it works 100% of time. (See my other comment
When you reply to 'ensures' then by default you are talking about ensuring. There are plenty of ways for hosted fonts to fail, even in supported browsers. And when you talk about fallbacks with 'at least' you have missed the point that an image format is comic sans or bust, never an inferior font.
>I did say that I wasn't sure if that was a joke or not
Being aware that you missed a joke doesn't make a joke-missing comment better.
>This is why people shouldn't down vote without leaving a reply first. :)
So you can pedantically argue about being right rather than accept that your comment wasn't as helpful as you thought? Seems like a net negative to me.
I suppose. It depends on whether you think downvotes are necessarily a rebuke.
>So basically what you are saying is you down voted me because you misread my post
I didn't downvote you. What an unfortunate misreading. ;)
1. I didn't say "ensures" and commenting that the context carries over from the previous comment while also arguing it's a joke that shouldn't be taken literally is just daft.
Plus, as I'd already said, images aren't 100% supported either, so the 100% figure you're pining for doesn't exist anyway.
2. My comments have at least been informative, unlike the kind of non-constructive arguing and hit-and-run moderation you seen keen on promoting.
Your compliant seems to just be that I did not replied to a joke with a joke. Personally I don't think that's enough for negative karma, but opinions obviously differ on this. :)
3. You are arguing about me being pedantic while basing your entire rebuttal on fringe cases. Does that not strike you as a little hypothetical?
4. Making the assumption that you down voted me isn't a misreading when I specifically requested those that did down vote me to discuss why. You were effectively confessing to the act. However I am grateful that someone has elelaborate on why I would have received negative reputation, even if that was from someone who was reasoning about another's motives :)
You made a technical correction. It's just daft to say that your reply doesn't have to meet the same standards as the comment you're replying to. Joking doesn't matter when you're deliberately making a serious reply.
Image ensures that it's comic sans if it works at all.
Downvotes don't waste space, I don't see the issue. You're the one asking for meta comments.
You care way too much about karma for a single comment, you have plenty. And yes don't reply to a joke by correcting it to nobody's benefit.
"Browsers suck" is not a fringe case. And I don't think it's hypocritical to use pedantry in response to pedantry, which you started by 'correcting' a practice that works just fine here.
That Google gets you developer questions such CSS properties being used incorrectly or CDNs not issuing cross domain headers. Which is easily fixable by the web site developers / sysadmins and thus isn't remotely the same thing as the web browsers themselves not supporting @font-face.
There's a great many subjects I'm ignorant on, but I do know what I'm talking about here. So you're wasting your time trying to prove that I was wrong about @font-face.
The joke point you made at least makes some sense - even if I personally think it's a petty reason on its own. But everyones judgement will differ. :)
Yes. A good team will recognize that your love for programming means you'll improve rapidly, especially in an environment with constructive feedback from tolerant team members. And if you have other professional experience you can bring to bear (knowing how to work in a team, process & planning, customer support) the find a team that needs someone with that experience as well as programming ability.
If you can't find anyone willing to hire you because of your lack of professional experience, find a team you like and offer to work for them for free for three months. If you show promise, and you get along with the team, they'll want to hire you when the three months are up. And if not, you'll get feedback on your skills and learn what kind of teams to look for in the future.
the illustration is accurate. you're right about the better control, we may do that if we replicate the study... but really I don't think the absence of writing on the neutral tape can explain the findings.
* It abbreviates "US" in "US Citizen" but not "United States". I would expect both "United States Citizen" and "US" (country) to work too. It uses "British Citizen" vs. "United Kingdom". Both "United Kingdom Citizen" and "Britain" should work too.
* Using ISO 3166 country codes in the URLs would make them shorter.