all 28 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [S] 44 points 8 months ago (15 children)
  • [–] [S] 42 points 8 months ago (12 children)
  • [–] [S] 50 points 8 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 14 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    Lemma 1 mentions "definition of phi", but the phi is never defined. Wtf.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    OP posted the two pages in the wrong order, so you (and I) saw page 2 before page 1.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    It did bother me there was no fall through.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    I once wrote down a food recept in code style because it seemed like the most structured way to do so.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for &: 'str' and 'str'

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Idk it works for me.

    Also "8:00:00" > "10:00:00"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    Idk it works for me.

    I don't think there is any possible value for the sign variable which would make that if statement do anything other than raise a TypeError.

    Also "8:00:00" > "10:00:00"

    but "08:00:00" < "10:00:00". comparing timestamps as strings is weird but actually works, as long as the hour is zero-padded :)

    the problem with this code is that & (bitwise AND) has higher operator precedence than > and == do, so it is first trying to bitwise AND "10:00:00" with sign (which i'm assuming would also be a string) and that will always raise a TypeError.

    to do what the author appears to have intended to do, they would either need use parenthesis around both comparisons to actually bitwise AND their results, or (better) to use the boolean AND operator (and) instead of &.

    The boolean and operator is the right tool for the job, and since it is lower precedence it also wouldn't require that any parenthesis be added here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    Heh you're right, I didn't catch the bitwise and, so I thought you were making a TypeError joke about comparing strings. Fixing the and though (which I did naturally when I typed it into my interpreter to double-check), we get the issue that they are just using a string for the time rather than a time object. "Too early" is also a valid entry that gets us an available office.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 8 months ago

    CVE score 9.9 vuln: slide sign halfway in between

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago*

    Anyone else pause on the ! for "...to use" vs the . of "...in use"?

  • source