Everyone hates ads. Frankly, no one wants to pay for anything online. And places like CoinHive offer a service that doesn't clutter the screen and pays people. Too good to be true right? Well the first group of people to latch on the service ramped up the mines to 8 threads at 100% because they were hackers and didn't care if they slowed your computer or drained your battery. They just wanted their almost untraceable money.

What I'm proposing is that if sites were to use miners that instead use 2/4 threads at 10% thereby using far less resources, across enough users provided your traffic is ok, could the results be tangible if we gave it a chance?

edit: I hate cryptocurrency but I was more trying to discuss the idea of getting paid for passive CPU usage more described in this comment by @spctrvl

In most of my programming, I try and remain professional, and do things in a readable, maintainable way, that doesn't involve pushing the language to breaking point.

But, occasionally, I give myself free reign. What if you didn't care about the programmer who came after you? What if you didn't care about what a programmer should do in a certain circumstance?

For myself, over the years I've written and rewritten a C library, I like to call CNoEvil. Here's a little taste of what you could do:

#define EVIL_IO
#define EVIL_COROUTINE
#include "evil.h"

proc(example, int)
  static int i = 0;
  coroutine();
  While 1 then
    co_return(++i);
  end
  co_end();
  return i;
end

Main then
  displayln(example());
  displayln(example());
end

(And yes, that compiles. Without warnings. Even with -Wpedantic.)

So... Here's the challenge:

Ignoring the rules, and best practices... How can you take your favourite programming language... And make it completely unrecogniseable?

(Might be best to choose a language with macros, like Nim, Rust, any of the Lisps. Though, you can still do some impressively awful things in Java or Python, thanks to overloading inbuilt classes.)

Challenge Ideas:

• Make Python look like C
• Make Java look like Python
• Make anything look like BrainFuck

I don’t know how to really explain my fascination with programming, but I’ll try. To somebody who does it, it’s the most interesting thing in the world. It’s a game much more involved than chess, a game where you can make up your own rules and where the end result is whatever you can make of it. - Linus Torvalds

Hello.
I moderate a reddit sub with about 450 thousand people and we have had trouble with transgender people facing abuse from idiots in two different threads. In one of them, a woman chimed in and it got ugly (4 bans in the first 12 comments), in the other a trans woman took part and got shit for it (also featured a few users banned).

Now, each of them had a very different approach. The first got defensive and stopped participating, while the second took the time to respond to the stupid but not offensive ones, trying to educate them.

So even if this is something that bothers me a lot and makes considerably angry, I realised that maybe I should take a more nuanced view on this, and I should actually ask for more opinions on how to handle thiS, instead of simply applying my own standards and maybe making things worse and/or missing a chance to make things better. And since Tildes has always provided me with intelligent, thoughtful and interesting points of view and opinions, I thought this would be the best place for this question.

And so here I am, asking anyone that would care to give an opinion: what would a good moderator do? How harsh or lenient should we be with ignorant but not offensive comments? Should we get involved at all if the discussion is not offensive? What would make our sub a nicer place to everyone? Any other thoughts?

Thank you very much to all.

Hey y'all, first time actually posting something here! Just curious what editor people use, whether its for coding, writing, or just the occasional note, whatever. I've gone through most of the well-known ones (vim, emacs, atom, vs code for starters), but only ever really messed around with vim enough to like it, and I've also been trying out gedit for the last little while and really liking it, but I'm curious to see what other people use!

Edit: What I'm asking below is actually already an option, I guess I'm just bad at reading :-/

As of right now, when you choose a theme, a theme cookie is created which takes a simple string value (white, light, dark or black).

It's straightforward and it works well, but for someone like me who set his browser to delete cookies at the end of his session, it's a little inconvenient to have to go into my settings to set a theme everytime I log on Tildes.

It's a low-priority request, obviously, but maybe you could consider it? I do understand that it makes sense to have it as a cookie since a user may prefer different themes on different devices.

In the meantime I think I'll just write a script to set my theme to black automatically.

Here’s a problem I had to solve at work this week that I enjoyed solving. I think it’s a good programming challenge that will test if you really grok XML.

Your input is some XML such as this:

<DOC>
<TEXT PARTNO="000">
<TAG ID="3">This</TAG> is <TAG ID="0">some *JUNK* data</TAG> .
</TEXT>
<TEXT PARTNO="001">
*FOO* Sometimes <TAG ID="1">tags in <TAG ID="0">the data</TAG> are nested</TAG> .
</TEXT>
<TEXT PARTNO="002">
In addition to <TAG ID="1">nested tags</TAG> , sometimes there is also <TAG ID="2">junk</TAG> we need to ignore .
</TEXT>
<TEXT PARTNO="003">*BAR*-1
<TAG ID="2">Junk</TAG> is marked by uppercase characters between asterisks and can also optionally be followed by a dash and then one or more digits . *JUNK*-123
</TEXT>
<TEXT PARTNO="004">
Note that <TAG ID="4">*this*</TAG> is just emphasized . It's not <TAG ID="2">junk</TAG> !
</TEXT>
</DOC>

The above XML has so-called in-line textual annotations because the XML <TAG> elements are embedded within the document text itself.

Your goal is to convert the in-line XML annotations to so-called stand-off annotations where the text is separated from the annotations and the annotations refer to the text via slicing into the text as a character array with starting and ending character offsets. While in-line annotations are more human-readable, stand-off annotations are equally machine-readable, and stand-off annotations can be modified without changing the document content itself (the text is immutable).

The challenge, then, is to convert to a stand-off JSON format that includes the plain-text of the document and the XML tag annotations grouped by their tag element IDs. In order to preserve the annotation information from the original XML, you must keep track of each <TAG>’s starting and ending character offset within the plain-text of the document. The plain-text is defined as the character data in the XML document ignoring any junk. We’ll define junk as one or more uppercase ASCII characters [A-Z]+ between two *, and optionally a trailing dash - followed by any number of digits [0-9]+.

Here is the desired JSON output for the above example to test your solution:

{
  "data": "\nThis is some data .\n\n\nSometimes tags in the data are nested .\n\n\nIn addition to nested tags , sometimes there is also junk we need to ignore .\n\nJunk is marked by uppercase characters between asterisks and can also optionally be followed by a dash and then one or more digits . \n\nNote that *this* is just emphasized . It's not junk !\n\n",
  "entities": [
    {
      "id": 0,
      "mentions": [
        {
          "start": 9,
          "end": 18,
          "id": 0,
          "text": "some data"
        },
        {
          "start": 41,
          "end": 49,
          "id": 0,
          "text": "the data"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 1,
      "mentions": [
        {
          "start": 33,
          "end": 60,
          "id": 1,
          "text": "tags in the data are nested"
        },
        {
          "start": 80,
          "end": 91,
          "id": 1,
          "text": "nested tags"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 2,
      "mentions": [
        {
          "start": 118,
          "end": 122,
          "id": 2,
          "text": "junk"
        },
        {
          "start": 144,
          "end": 148,
          "id": 2,
          "text": "Junk"
        },
        {
          "start": 326,
          "end": 330,
          "id": 2,
          "text": "junk"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 3,
      "mentions": [
        {
          "start": 1,
          "end": 5,
          "id": 3,
          "text": "This"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 4,
      "mentions": [
        {
          "start": 289,
          "end": 295,
          "id": 4,
          "text": "*this*"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}

Python 3 solution here.

If you need a hint, see if you can find an event-based XML parser (or if you’re feeling really motivated, write your own).

For those unfamiliar with the story, "The Emperor's New Clothes" is about an emperor who parades around naked, but nobody will point out the obvious for fear of being seen as ignorant. Idiomatically, it refers to something seen as true or widely praised, simply because nobody is willing to speak out against it.

I saw a rant about "blockchains" being the new overhyped hotness for tech companies, and it made me wonder what other "new clothes" are out there right now. What's something you have a strong takedown for that everybody else seems to love/support?