this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2024
881 points (98.9% liked)

Programmer Humor

19488 readers
646 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 157 points 2 days ago (6 children)

We will never solve the Scunthorpe Problem.

[–] [email protected] 46 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

Truly in a clbottom of its own

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago

there's a very trivial solution that always works actually, it's called "stop being a prude"

[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Hasn't it been proven unsolvable?

[–] [email protected] 52 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Impossible. There is always some mf named like cum-sock, smh

[–] [email protected] 32 points 2 days ago

some mf named like cum-sock

Excuse me? My family BUILT this country!

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Proven? I don't think so. I don't think there's a way to devise a formal proof around it. But there's a lot of evidence that, even if it's technically solvable, we're nowhere close.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Have you tried adding a few more kilobytes of regex?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

I swear, I just need 4-5 more graphics cards to solve this!

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Scunthorpe Problem

If only one could buttassinate censorship...

[–] [email protected] 34 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Don't you mean buttbuttinate?

[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago

I have no rebottomal for this comment.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I mean, you could just use a vaguely smarter filter. A tiny "L"LM might have different problems, but not this one.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 days ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

Awww, it's trying its best!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Indeed; it definitely would show some promise. At that point, you'd run into the problem of needing to continually update its weighting and models to account for evolving language, but that's probably not a completely unsolvable problem.

So maybe "never" is an exaggeration. As currently expressed, though, I think I can probably stand by my assertion.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

It causes so much dawizard.