|
Greg Utas wrote: A secret admirer!
Probably from the nudist colony. 
|
|
|
|
|
Without digging too deeply into the code my guess is it's because the account that created that reaction has been closed.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
And just look at the reactions to yours I'm replying to.
A possible clue: The first time I tried to thumbs-up it, I saw, momentarily, undefined flash up where I'd expect to see the reaction icons.
Cheers,
Peter
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
That one has been previously reported.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: That one has been previously reported.
by me....
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
I guess you know how to reproduce it!
|
|
|
|
|
That's actually logically an d physically impossible.
And yet...
(Added to the bug list but it will take us a bit to get to it: dealing with a few hairy ones right now)
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed this n a C-based QA question: Why it prints the value only int is initialized?[^]
If you enter this:
int *ptr = #
Without a code block, it shows as this:
int *ptr = #
I understand that, it makes sense.
But ... inside a code block, that should be ignored, but it isn't:
int *ptr = #
To get it to work, you have to modify the code:
int *ptr = #
To get this:
int *ptr = #
I'm pretty sure that didn't used to happen? Or I'm getting old and forgetful ... 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Ugh. We'll add that to the list. We have another HTML encoding issue we need to look at too.
I suspect something changed with the HTML sanitiser we were using. I can't see how it could have, since we dictate the rules it uses, but after an upgrade we've seen a couple of issues.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
In message / QA moderation, links are highlighted in Yellow.
Would it be possible to add a toggle for that to article moderation so we could switch it on and off? Just thinking it would make some of the spam easier to spot - for example when it's empty, or just a "." at the end of a sentence.
For example: Difference Between pip and pip3 in Python[^] - yes, it's garbage as an article, but the spam link is the first word of the third sentence / paragraph, and it's hard to see (it slipped past Greg for example). Having a yellow background toggle in moderation woudl make it so much easier for everybody!
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I could wrap the links in the blink tag...
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Argghhh! My EYES! 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Next you'll be suggesting Comic Sans ...
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
tap, tap-tap, tap...
font-face: "MS Comic S
Wait, what? That's a no to Comic Sans?
Thank goodness for git revert
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need some CSS to make it work in modern browsers.
blink {
animation: paulAnnoyer 1s infinite;
}
@keyframes paulAnnoyer {
from { opacity: 1; }
50% { opacity: 0; }
to { opacity: 1; }
}
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
I was thinking the same thing but you've gone ahead and done it more eloquently than I could have.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you click "Load More" what happens?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Right now I'm seeing recent posts, but that wasn't the case earlier today. The next time I see old ones, I'll try to remember to do this and let you know what happens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Before Load more
after load more
|
|
|
|
|
Again, at ~07:15. The first two are somewhat current, but not the others.
EDIT: And 5 minutes later, back to normal.
|
|
|
|
|
This is a tough one to debug due to it being sporadic and hard to reproduce. We'll keep an eye on it though.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure if they're correlated, but the Discussions list is currently manifesting the bug, and the little star icons aren't displaying properly, something that I've also noticed many times:
|
|
|
|
|
The little stars are messed up again, but the Discussions list is OK, so no correlation.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
