pwdisswordfishq

I thought this was a bit, but then I tried it for myself. It really is his password!

Hey, I logged in as you, it really is your password lol.

DVDs and CDs are digital media. "Digital" does not mean "rented instead of owned".

So, they should allow questions about installing random software?

if it is not perfect (e.g. does not have enough references)

Having references for claims is not "perfect"; it's basics. Which is especially becoming more relevant in the age of ever more rampant misinformation.

Take a look at the list of hoaxes below and wonder what would you have done to prevent them. With Wikipedia being open to editing by anybody, I don't think you could come up with anything better than the system currently in place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wi...

Was the title "What's wrong with this JavaScript code?"?

Many people come to Stack Overflow carrying preconceptions about how the site is supposed to operate and are surprised when reality does not agree with them. Since admitting to being wrong would be too hard, they prefer to come up with quasi-conspiratorial explanations of inflated egos, secret motives and admin cliques. Same thing happens to Wikipedia, really.

"But you said you want to build the sum of all human knowledge! Why can't you accept this piece of alternative history I just made up?"

"So, Stack Overflow is for the computer stuff, right? I have this Word document that... what do you mean this is not a programming question?"

"Since I have no idea where else I could go with this, you must allow me to post it here!"

I mean, it's not like either project is free from power-tripping moderators and overzealous application of procedure; in fact, it's not even particularly rare... but still rarer than the loudest naysayers keep insisting. I have witnessed plenty of dysfunctions myself, and yet whenever I hear others' complaints, I tend to suspect this is yet another case that boils down to "how dare you delete my stuff". With many such anecdotes, I notice they only speak of the situation in the vaguest of terms, omitting details that would have enabled me to identify the actual problem... which I cannot help but wonder if this is because if I were to see the situation myself, it would have made the complainer look much worse.

That's because it black-screened instead.

But why bother when you can just use <button>?

(2026)

Isn't that what "incognito mode" is for? Why should random websites have the capability to wipe themselves from history?

It's "it" as in the pronoun, not as in "iterator".

If you ever make it to the bottom, it was never infinite in the first place.

a relatively good career

What's that for?

Not even any built-in transliteration rules, but the transliteration rules engine. One has to load a custom ruleset to exploit it – and I presume no sane implementation is going to accept rules from untrusted input.

The Google which no longer searches for what you ask and instead rephrases your query into meaninglessness and returns irrelevant results? That Google?

How long is the program which enumerates all N-digit programs?

Indeed. The real shame is that Wikipedia mentions none of that, not that it has an article at all.

Wikipedia editors are just Reddit mods with delusions of grandeur

In other words, just Reddit mods

Trusting a rando who claims to be the CEO of a company nobody heard of is worse, yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_i...

it's not like Wikipedia is running low on paper

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_i...

Wikipedia seems stuck in an antiquated worldview where things like traditionally-published books with second- or third-hand reports of what happened, and which are frequently incomplete or wholly inaccurate, are nonetheless considered more authoritative than primary sources you can find with a ten-second Google search.

Because we should always take everything people say about themselves at face value. If you say you're notable, then you're notable. Obviously.

The actual paper’s title is

“Markets are competitive if and only if P ≠ NP”

It’s 2026, people, you don't have to use crude ASCII approximations of mathematical symbols any more.

Or LGBT flag for Arabic and Persian speakers.

    #[allow(clippy::allow_attributes_without_reason,clippy::let_underscore_untyped,clippy::let_underscore_must_use)]
    let _ = self.poll_flush(cx)?;

In a roundabout way, this exists – it’s called Windows RE.

But "let _ =" is already an explicit suppression of a must-use warning. Where does this arms race of "no, I really know what I am doing, compiler" versus "no, this really looks like a mistake, programmer" end?

Way to make clickbait titles.

Ehh, easy fix

    #[allow(clippy::let_underscore_untyped,clippy::let_underscore_must_use)]
    let _ = self.poll_flush(cx)?;