Sam WhitedIt's not a fucking bike shed. The stupid way in which you're counting characters is entirely screwing me over while it's trivial to do it the other way
jonas’Sam Whited, your stupid way of character counting would be entirely screwing me over, while it’s trivial the other way!!! (for me)
Sam WhitedIt's not, I implemented it in python and Go both ways.
Sam WhitedBut you constantly ignore my examples while demanding that I produce more examples and never producing any of your own. I'm sick of this community wielding the burden of proof as a weapon.
Sam Whited(I don't mean "you" personally, I don't remember who all in that massive thread it was, FWIW)
Sam WhitedAnyways, done now, I don't know why I bother. We do all the same mistakes over and over again and just insist that it's fine.
ZashI don't like the tone here.
Sam WhitedYah, sorry, I need to leave this channel. Between this and DOAP I'm fucking furious and that's not okay in a public place, sorry.
jonas’sorry, I was trying to be ironic
jonas’(symbolised by a lot of `!`)
pep.I'm happy I haven't been following standards threads lately
flowirony often doesn't work in text chats. it appears that counting codepoints is a middle ground and has consensus. I am still not convinced that counting grapheme clusters is necessarily wrong, since there is a least one programming language with build in support for this.
jonas’> irony often doesn't work in text chats.
let’s bikeshed a protocol for that </i>
pep.I'd use <p> for Poe, and insides include things like <i> for irony, <s> for sarcasm, etc. This way we could get to things like <p><s><i>Are you sure?</s></i></p>
flowbut since sometimes (often?) len_codepoints(input) == len_grapheme_clusters(input), I can settle with codepoints (or "starting" with codepoints ;))
flowseems like the bikeshed was already done
pep.Zash, ITYM 007^W^Wnvm :-°
jonas’Rejected though, flow
flowpep., the key is to stay calm
flowwhich is actually a good advice in any situation
flow(even though, it is sometimes not easy)
flowbut getting emotional in a discussion is typically counter productive
Kevflow: Fuck that.
ZashI miss Summit
jonas’Summit would’ve been great, especially after this straining year
ZashMuch too easy to get upset at a bunch of text on a screen than AFK faces.
KevI'm hoping someone's going to announce a remote summit, but I don't have the cycles to put into arranging one, so I'm not making noise about it.
KevOh, I guess it would have been tomorrow and Friday if it was happening wouldn't it. Nevermind :)
flowKev, yep, sometimes that is tempting to write…
flowmisses summit too
ZashKev, why yes, the bystander effect working group will take care of it!
flowI'd really like to hear some short presentations from every active xmpp project about what they are currently doing and did in the last eyar
KevWell, Summit's usually a Board-led thing, not just 'someone' :)
jonas’SCAM I thought?
KevIt's been Board in the past.
KevMaybe they've delegated to SCAM (but if they delegated, it's still a Board thing).
pep.I feel that lately board has just been a routing utility to working groups
ZashThat's a valid thing for a board to do.
Kevpep.: I think that's fine. Board doesn't have to do work, just set direction and ensure that work is done.
flowwell if there is a SCAM team, then it appears sensible to delgate it to them, no?