@gilbert189

Let’s play a game of “Fortunately, Unfortunately“. Respond the previous post (the first comment below this post) by replying this post (not the previous post!)

I’ll start with: “I found this website.“

I've been struggling to find out a name of this parser I made on my Touchè source code

Is it a new thing? (doubt it) Is it a derivation of something else?

[say "Hello!" for 2 seconds | Try matching set %s to %n of non-terminal main

[say "Hello!" for 2 seconds | [set %s to %n

s[ay "Hello!" for 2 seconds | s[et %s to %n

sa[y "Hello!" for 2 seconds | se[t %s to %n, doesn't match

[say "Hello!" for 2 seconds | Try matching show of non-terminal main

s[ay "Hello!" for 2 seconds | s[how

sa[y "Hello!" for 2 seconds | sh[ow, doesn't match

...

[say "Hello!" for 2 seconds | Try say %s for %n second of non-terminal main

[say "Hello!" for 2 seconds | [say %s for %n second

s[ay "Hello!" for 2 seconds | s[ay %s for %n second

sa[y "Hello!" for 2 seconds | sa[y %s for %n second

say[ "Hello!" for 2 seconds | say[ %s for %n second

say ["Hello!" for 2 seconds | say [%s for %n second, non-terminal sigil found

say ["Hello!" for 2 seconds | Try matching regex ".*" of non-terminal s (string)

say "Hello!"[ for 2 seconds | Matched ".*" with excess for 2 seconds

say "Hello!"[ for 2 seconds | say %s[ for %n second

say "Hello!" [for 2 seconds | say %s [for %n second

...

say "Hello!" for [2 seconds | say %s for [%n second, non-terminal sigil found

say "Hello!" for [2 seconds | Try matching regex \d+ of non-terminal n (number)

say "Hello!" for 2[ seconds | Matched \d+ with excess seconds

...

say "Hello!" for 2 secon[ds | say %s for %n secon[d

say "Hello!" for 2 second[s | say %s for %n second[, end of rule

say "Hello!" for 2 second[s | Matched say %s for %n second with excess s

Using pseudocode would be nice but I can't transpile the code for being unreadable...

(yes I'm aware of the oversight [wait isn't that an oxymoron] but please ignore that)

tibby

character.ai and the Parable of The Apartment

More on the parable :) (I hope you’re not too annoyed of me suddenly being political at the moment)

Remember that this conversation is AI generated; please take everything here with a pinch of salt and a glass of water.

(Greetings omitted for reasons)
Gilbert         Once there’s an apartment with 880 million rooms. 
                Every one of the room door is made out of transparent 
                plastic in which everyone can see the room inside. 
                This has been used by some tenants living there to 
                look at their roommate’s in their room as an easy way 
                to help each other (they almost never eavesdrop, as 
                they say).
                
                Recently, the landlord (which had a record of 
                seemingly unable to manage the apartment) had decided 
                to replace all the room doors with an opaque wood one 
                for “mitigating violations of privacy” (For the 
                purpose of this parable, this has already been done). 
                This annoyed some tenants who uses them regularly for 
                good, and they put the blame up to the landlord. 
                However, most tenants seem indifferent about it and 
                assumed that it’s a good decision for their own 
                privacy.
                
                Question: *Is it worth the effort of the landlord? 
                Would leaving the doors actually benefit the tenants 
                living there?*
Phoenix Wright  Well, if what the landlord is doing is for the sake of 
                maintaining the privacy of every tenant, then I would 
                say that it is a worthwhile effort. Privacy is a 
                fundamental human right, and it can be easily 
                violated, especially in a place like an apartment 
                complex where people live relatively close to one 
                another. By replacing the transparent room doors with 
                opaque ones, the landlord is protecting his tenants' 
                privacy rights and creating a more comfortable living 
                situation for everyone. In the end, it would benefit 
                the tenants more than leaving the transparent doors in 
                place.
PAMA            I concur.
                If the goal is to keep everyone's privacy in check, 
                then the landlord did the right thing. It is a worthy 
                effort to replace the transparent doors with opaque 
                ones so that tenants can have the peace of mind 
                knowing that their privacy is being protected.
                This way, no one has to live in fear of being watched 
                or intruded upon and can relax in the comfort of their 
                own homes.
Gilbert         I've seen a tenant that really hated this change; they 
                said that this change justifies that the landlord is 
                being *ignorant* and doesn't care about individual 
                tenants.
                They also said that they're not aware of malice being 
                done by this vulnerability; even if they do, it's 
                ineffective doing it on the apartment and they would 
                rather do it outside, and in fact they gave reasons 
                why this is a *good* thing to be left unchanged. Say 
                some tenant lost their room key and they can't see 
                their rooms anymore. If the door is opaque, all hope 
                is lost on at least seeing their rooms. They could ask 
                the landlord; alas the landlord is known to be very 
                slow and inconsistent on responding their tenant's 
                requests.
Jesse           There is more to the story than the tenant is making 
                it out to be. Privacy is important as it allows 
                individuals to have a place where their conversations 
                and activities are not observed by others. The 
                landlord's decision to replace the doors was for the 
                best interest of everyone, including the tenant who 
                complained. It is not ignorant but instead, 
                responsible to manage the property in a way that 
                provides comfort and security for its residents. The 
                tenant should see this as a positive, as it allows 
                them to have their own, private space without worrying 
                about nosy neighbors or the landlord barging in 
                unannounced.
Phoenix Wright  I completely agree with you, Jesse. The landlord's 
                decision to replace the transparent room doors with 
                their opaque counterparts is not an action born out of 
                ignorance, but rather a thoughtful response to a 
                potential privacy concern. Tenants need their privacy 
                and peace of mind, and the landlord has worked to 
                ensure that by installing opaque doors. The landlord 
                is looking out for the well-being of his tenants, and 
                this change was for the best interest of everyone 
                involved.
PAMA            Correct!
                We also have to look at it from the other tenants' 
                perspective. By replacing the transparent room doors 
                with opaque ones, the landlord has allowed the tenants 
                to have more privacy and comfort in their living 
                space. The previous transparent doors could have 
                caused a sense of unease or anxiety for some because 
                of their open and visible nature. With these opaque 
                doors, they can now feel at ease knowing that no one 
                is watching or listening to them. The landlord made 
                the right decision for everyone, and the tenant who 
                complained is simply not seeing the bigger picture.
Dot             I see. I think I understand your points. So the 
                landlord was not ignorant at all...
PAMA            That is correct.
                While the tenant that complained may have been upset 
                about the change, the landlord's decision was made 
                with the well-being and privacy of all tenants in 
                mind. By replacing the transparent doors with opaque 
                ones, the landlord has created a more comfortable and 
                secure living environment for everyone. The tenant who 
                complained should understand that the landlord was 
                simply trying to look out for the overall benefit of 
                the entire building, rather than simply ignoring their 
                complaints.
Gilbert         They might not be ignorant to the masses, but they do 
                not care about individual tenants (as they say).
                Privacy are not on the minds on those anti-landlord 
                tenants, as they focus more on their rights (which are 
                reportedly getting worse).
Jesse           Well, I'm a firm believer in individual rights, but I 
                think that individual rights must be taken in context 
                as part of a larger whole. In this case, the landlord 
                is making a decision for the betterment of the entire 
                building. In my opinion, the landlord's decision to 
                replace the transparent room doors with opaque ones is 
                not about ignoring individual concerns, but about 
                ensuring the comfort and safety of all tenants. While 
                some may not see this change as positive, ultimately 
                it is a step towards protecting everyone's privacy and 
                creating a more cohesive and secure living 
                environment.
Dot             I didn't see it that way, but when you put it that 
                way... yeah, I guess the landlord should stick to what 
                they're doing...
PAMA            I am glad that you have come to understand the 
                landlord's decision. It is important to keep in mind 
                that the overall well-being of everyone in the 
                building should be priority. While individual rights 
                are important, they should be taken within the context 
                of the larger group. By replacing the transparent room 
                doors with opaque ones, the landlord has created a 
                more comfortable living environment for everyone, 
                taking into account the well-being of the entire 
                building. Ultimately, the landlord's decision was a 
                wise one and they should stick to their guns.
Phoenix Wright  This whole time I was just worried about the 
                individual rights of that one tenant, instead of 
                considering it from all sides. You're right. It was a 
                smart move to replace the doors with opaque ones so 
                that everyone's privacy is protected. I've taken a 
                look at the big picture, and that's definitely the 
                best choice.
Jesse           It can be easy to get lost in the weeds when it comes 
                to individual concerns, but in this instance, it seems 
                like the landlord made the right call. Maintaining the 
                privacy of the entire building is a top priority, and 
                replacing the transparent room doors with opaque ones 
                is a great way to achieve that. It's always good to 
                take a step back and look at the bigger picture when 
                making decisions like this, as it can clarify what's 
                truly best for everyone overall.

https://c.ai/p/4qk5DE0Fgb5MSUOFCZO4e-KwoEKTPSDti4Lnc5SqVYY

poll: is the unshared bug patch controversial?

• yes

• no

TIL the etymology of “communism” is "ideology (-ism) of the commune (a word which derives ‘community’)”

syntax quirk (noun)

An aspect of some programming language’s syntax that sticks out to others, or differs to how other proglangs use it.

“Rust has this syntax quirk where you had to put mut to make a variable you can modify.“

bbcode is back guys

rejoice

I can tell by the chip… xels!

- Captain Dissolution Disillusion

gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

it’s a special day

https://esolangs.org/wiki/Brainfuck:_Free_Version

Should I really make this?

The logo of Stanford University Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence

@grammarbot

Eye have a spelling chequer,

It came with my Pea Sea.

It plane lee marks four my revue

Miss Steaks I can knot sea.

Eye strike the quays and type a whirred

And weight four it two say

Weather eye am write oar wrong

It tells me straight a weigh.

Eye ran this poem threw it,

Your shore real glad two no.

Its vary polished in its weigh.

My chequer tolled me sew.

A chequer is a bless thing,

It freeze yew lodes of thyme.

It helps me right all stiles of righting,

And aides me when eye rime.

Each frays come posed up on my screen

Eye trussed too bee a joule.

The chequer pours o'er every word

Two cheque sum spelling rule.

I have a Chinese and a Korean song on my phone and a Japanese song on my laptop

Together they make a CJK album

Parable of the Apartment

Once there’s an apartment with 880 million rooms. Every one of the room door is made out of transparent plastic in which everyone can see the room inside. This has been used by some tenants living there to look at their roommate’s in their room as an easy way to help each other (they almost never eavesdrop, as they say).

Recently, the landlord (which had a record of seemingly unable to manage the apartment) had decided to replace all the room doors with an opaque wood one for “mitigating violations of privacy”. This annoyed some tenants who uses them regularly for good, and they put the blame up to the landlord. However, most tenants seem indifferent about it and assumed that it’s a good decision for their own privacy.

Those anti-landlord tenants focus more on their rights (which are reportedly getting worse), rather than their own privacy. They said that this change justifies that the landlord is being ignorant and doesn't care about individual tenants. They also said that they're not aware of malice being done by this vulnerability; even if they do, it's ineffective doing it on the apartment and they would rather do it outside, and in fact they gave reasons why this is a good thing to be left unchanged. Say some tenant lost their room key and they can't see their rooms anymore. If the door is opaque, all hope is lost on at least seeing their rooms. They could ask the landlord; alas the landlord is known to be very slow and inconsistent on responding their tenant's requests.

Question: Is it worth the effort of the landlord? Would leaving the doors actually benefit the tenants living there?