Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #13271 > unrolled thread

Re: stackoverflow and c.l.py

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: stackoverflow and c.l.py memilanuk <memilanuk@gmail.com> - 2011-09-14 06:05 -0700
    Re: stackoverflow and c.l.py "Rhodri James" <rhodri@wildebst.demon.co.uk> - 2011-09-15 00:26 +0100
    Re: stackoverflow and c.l.py Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2011-09-15 09:58 +1000
      Re: stackoverflow and c.l.py Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> - 2011-09-14 20:05 -0700
      Re: stackoverflow and c.l.py john <gnujohn@gmail.com> - 2011-09-15 01:01 -0700
      Re: stackoverflow and c.l.py Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2011-09-15 18:39 +1000

#13271 — Re: stackoverflow and c.l.py

On 09/14/2011 05:47 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> The SNR here isn't bad either. Most of the spam gets filtered out, and
> even stuff like Ranting Rick posts can be of some amusement when it's
> a slow day...

I subscribe to the list via Gmane, and if 'most of the spam' gets 
filtered out, I'd hate to see how much gets submitted as I still see 2-5 
minimum blatant spam per day on here.

Rick & Xang Li are two examples of what you *don't* see (or at least I 
don't) @ SO

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#13289

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:05:23 +0100, memilanuk <memilanuk@gmail.com> wrote:

> Rick & Xang Li are two examples of what you *don't* see (or at least I  
> don't) @ SO

Then you haven't been looking hard enough ;-)

-- 
Rhodri James *-* Wildebeest Herder to the Masses

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13290

memilanuk wrote:

> On 09/14/2011 05:47 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> The SNR here isn't bad either. Most of the spam gets filtered out, and
>> even stuff like Ranting Rick posts can be of some amusement when it's
>> a slow day...
> 
> I subscribe to the list via Gmane, and if 'most of the spam' gets
> filtered out, I'd hate to see how much gets submitted as I still see 2-5
> minimum blatant spam per day on here.

2-5 spam posts is nothing. (Well, I know any spam is too much spam, but
still.) Since nearly all of it is obvious, it's easy to filter out of your
mail client, news client, or if all else fails, your attention. The hard
ones to ignore are the ones that look like they might be legitimate, but
fortunately most spammers are too lazy or stupid to bother with even the
most feeble disguise.

Either way, I don't consider half a dozen spam posts a day to be anything
more than a minor distraction.

Commercial spam is annoying, but otherwise harmless because it is so easy to
filter. What's really the problem is crackpots, trollers and griefers,
because there is a terrible temptation to engage them in debate: "someone
is wrong on the Internet!". If you want to see a news group gone bad, go to
something like sci.math. You can't move for the cranks "disproving"
Cantor's Diagonal Theorem and Special Relativity and proving that 10**603
is the One True Actual Infinity (I'm not making that last one up!).



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13309

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 09:58:32AM +1000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> memilanuk wrote:
> 
> > On 09/14/2011 05:47 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> >> The SNR here isn't bad either. Most of the spam gets filtered out, and
> >> even stuff like Ranting Rick posts can be of some amusement when it's
> >> a slow day...
> > 
> > I subscribe to the list via Gmane, and if 'most of the spam' gets
> > filtered out, I'd hate to see how much gets submitted as I still see 2-5
> > minimum blatant spam per day on here.
> 
> 2-5 spam posts is nothing. (Well, I know any spam is too much spam, but
> still.) Since nearly all of it is obvious, it's easy to filter out of your
> mail client, news client, or if all else fails, your attention. The hard
> ones to ignore are the ones that look like they might be legitimate, but
> fortunately most spammers are too lazy or stupid to bother with even the
> most feeble disguise.
> 
> Either way, I don't consider half a dozen spam posts a day to be anything
> more than a minor distraction.
> 
> Commercial spam is annoying, but otherwise harmless because it is so easy to
> filter. What's really the problem is crackpots, trollers and griefers,
> because there is a terrible temptation to engage them in debate: "someone
> is wrong on the Internet!". If you want to see a news group gone bad, go to
> something like sci.math. You can't move for the cranks "disproving"
> Cantor's Diagonal Theorem and Special Relativity and proving that 10**603
> is the One True Actual Infinity (I'm not making that last one up!).
> 
> 
> 

This is really what I love and hate about the internet.  It's full of
people who argue for the sake of venting their internal frustrations.
How many discussions comparing declarative and imperative programming
languages have you seen on the web?  They are everywhere.  Really,
there's no point to these discussions, just use what you like, but it's
still fun to read and think.  This goes into all kinds of subjects.
That said, this post is somewhat of a rant and may spur debate.  It is
what it is, no matter where you are, the internet is just a natural
breeder of this kind of thing.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13310

On Sep 14, 4:58 pm, Steven D'Aprano <steve
+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
> memilanuk wrote:
> > On 09/14/2011 05:47 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> >> The SNR here isn't bad either. Most of the spam gets filtered out, and
> >> even stuff like Ranting Rick posts can be of some amusement when it's
> >> a slow day...
>
> > I subscribe to the list via Gmane, and if 'most of the spam' gets
> > filtered out, I'd hate to see how much gets submitted as I still see 2-5
> > minimum blatant spam per day on here.
>
> 2-5 spam posts is nothing. (Well, I know any spam is too much spam, but
> still.) Since nearly all of it is obvious, it's easy to filter out of your
> mail client, news client, or if all else fails, your attention. The hard
> ones to ignore are the ones that look like they might be legitimate, but
> fortunately most spammers are too lazy or stupid to bother with even the
> most feeble disguise.
>
> Either way, I don't consider half a dozen spam posts a day to be anything
> more than a minor distraction.
>
> Commercial spam is annoying, but otherwise harmless because it is so easy to
> filter. What's really the problem is crackpots, trollers and griefers,
> because there is a terrible temptation to engage them in debate: "someone
> is wrong on the Internet!". If you want to see a news group gone bad, go to
> something like sci.math. You can't move for the cranks "disproving"
> Cantor's Diagonal Theorem and Special Relativity and proving that 10**603
> is the One True Actual Infinity (I'm not making that last one up!).
>
> --
> Steven

And, all this time, I'd thought it was ((10**603) - 1) that was the
highest.  Oh, well.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13313

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Westley Martínez <anikom15@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is really what I love and hate about the internet.  It's full of
> people who argue for the sake of venting their internal frustrations.
> How many discussions comparing declarative and imperative programming
> languages have you seen on the web?

Yes, it's both normal and useful on the internet to break off
conversation to argue about a minor technicality. But it's completely
inappropriate in other contexts, to the point that it can be used for
comedy. Two characters, in the middle of a rather heated debate, stop
to discuss grammar:

"Listen - I've come to pinch her!"
"Mercy! Whom?"
"You mean who."
"Nay! It is the accusative after the verb!"

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web