Re: Proposal: eliminate down-votes

[eyepopslikeamosquito]

in reply to Proposal: eliminate down-votes

You seem convinced that BrowserUk is your "sworn enemy", even going so far as to accuse him of using sock-puppet accounts to downvote your nodes. I believe you are wrong on both counts.

To be sure, BrowserUk calls you out severely when he believes you are wrong. Yet if you examine his posting history, you will notice that you have not been singled out in that regard. And I strongly doubt that he -- or any other highly ranked monk -- would stoop to using sock puppets, a serious crime in the virtual state that is Perl Monks.

For the record, here is a selection of BrowserUk's harsher quotes in response to your posts:

• Re^2: Date Difference using Date::Manip module: "Which makes this post, like 90% of those you make, pointless, platitudinous, fatuous froth. So desperate are you to say something, you'll say anything, no matter how irrelevant or wrong."
• Re^2: Whats quicker - passing along as variable to sub, or global var?: "Just more fatuous garbage."
• Re^2: remove part of string (DNA): "Nothing you have said above is even vaguely relevant to the OPs question. You get more fatuous by the day."
• Re^2: list of unique strings, also eliminating matching substrings: "Utter garbage!"
• Re^2: Perl sorting unique values: "When will you get it through your thick skull that sorting is not linear."
• Re^2: count the maximum no.of occurence: "No, you moron. Sorting is, at best, O(N log N)."
• Re^3: Advice for optimizing lookup speed in gigantic hashes: "Do you actually read the posts you reply to, or just divine their content through your lower lumbar regions? ... So will you please, please, please stop trotting out your "virtual memory is disk" missive at every inopportune moment. Read what you are responding to. (Follow your own advice: read it twice, and then once more). Think about it for a while. AND THEN SHUT THE F*** UP. Because it is getting boring trying to keep correcting you over and over and over."
• Re^2: Tracing memory leak: "Care to explain by what magic of "old bullshitter" logic you arrived at the conclusion that the OP was constructing self-referential structures?"
• Re^3: Problem handling 2 simultaneous socket streams: "Thank you for explaining that to me. Except you're wrong! ... you aren't just slightly off, but absolutely diametrically wrong on all counts ... So why post? Why do you -- who evidently know little of the subject, and understand even less of the little you have some inkling of -- feel the need to demonstrate to me -- I think fair to say, one of the more knowledgeable monks with regard to threading -- just how useless your home-spun wisdom fairy stories on this subject, as with so many others, really are? ... What is the point of your posting this garbage?"
• Re^2: Fork Results in thousands of processes: "Why do you keep blurting out these pointless, useless, whole wrong replies to questions on subjects you obviously have no practical knowledge whatsoever?"
• Re^4: Fork Results in thousands of processes: "at least one other person recognises your crap for what it is"
• Re^7: "Automated" benchmarking: "This is another of these fatuous "wisdoms" you are so ready to trot out."
• Re^2: Need help with Perl multi threading: "Perhaps if you relied less on your apparently limited imagination and tried using the stuff you feel obliged to talk about, you might talk less crap."
• Re^4: Locked threads and tcp timeouts: "Why do you keep spouting the same, groundless, unfounded, garbage? ... It is beginning to feel like Groundhog Day around here ... Doing (saying) the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome, is either first sign of madness or senility."
• Re^5: how did blocking IO become such a problem?: "Sorry, but it is blindingly obvious that you have no idea what is meant by asynchronous IO ... I suggest you look it up -- you know, do a little research, ensure that you know what it is you're pontificating about -- before you torture any more incorrect analogies to death."
• Re^7: how did blocking IO become such a problem?: "... dress them together with ``lot's'' "of" 'different' quotes and _s^t_y^l_i^s_tⁱ_c devices and some flowery analogies to fool the unknowing into a few up-votes, but it stands out like a sore thumb that there is no real understanding behind your words. ... You Sir, are a wannabe. But you're either too old, or too lazy or too recalcitrant to actually to do any research -- much less actually write any programs -- and get a real understanding of that about which you pontificate. You're not even a has-been. More, a never-will-be."
• Re^2: Block-structured language parsing using a Perl module?: "Do you never actually read the question? ... Please stop responding to my questions. Your responses are never useful to me and simply annoy me."
• Re^2: Block-structured language parsing using a Perl module?: "Literally nothing you said above relates in any way to the question I asked. I'm not interested in your extremely dubious "expertise". I'm not interested in your opinion. So please. Just stop."
• Re^3: Perl 5 Optimizing Compiler, Part 4: LLVM Backend?: "And I suspect that, once again, you haven't a clue what you are talking about." ... "In a nutshell, your "suspicions" are so out of touch with reality, and so founded upon little more than supposition, that they are valueless."
• Re^5: Perl 5 Optimizing Compiler, Part 4: LLVM Backend?: "When sundial "contributes" his 'stop energy' (skip directly to 33:24) there is no knowledge, no experience, nothing but the negative energy of his groundless suppositions."
• Re^2: Perl 5 Optimizing Compiler, Part 6: A Love Letter To Dave Mitchell, chromatic, and BrowserUK: "You who has polluted this place with endless reams of your recycled, homespun, out-of-the-ark, ribald tosh."
• Re^2: [OT] Side-by-side assemblies: The nitty-gritty.: "Sorry, but you obviously don't understand the technicalities of the example."
• Re^2: dynamic number of threads based on CPU utilization: "So do just stop regurgitating your useless, pointless, irrelevant, and gratuitously incorrect home-spun wisdoms."
• Re^4: dynamic number of threads based on CPU utilization: "Look you idiot. You are talking crap. SO DO SHUT THE F*** UP!"
• Re: IO::Select and correct way to detect client crashed?: "More of your patented, utter ribald tosh..."
• Re^3: selecting columns from a tab-separated-values file: "I'm not sure that standing on one leg whilst drinking blood from a freshly decapitated chicken would help; so I don't mention it ... your instincts prejudiced guessing is wrong! ... it will show your 'advice' to be nothing more than groundless guessing"
• Re^2: WMI query with Threads: "That statement is garbage ... Why do you insist of posting on subjects that you obviously have no useful knowledge of? Could it be that you know that even your garbage replies will often garner you a few upvotes?"
• Re^4: WMI query with Threads: "You make statements -- that you must just pluck out of your own imagination -- that simply don't make sense ... You are helping no one with answers that are this far off base."
• Re^2: ?Thread safe DBI? any updates?: "on the strength of the utter guff you repeatedly spew into any and every thread on threading; I seriously doubt that you have ever written a threaded program in your life. To date, you have yet to post a single code solution, on any subject, anywhere on this forum. You are a fantasist. Nothing more nor less."
• Re^4: Synchronising threads with signals (or not): "What garbage you speak ... You are just making it up as you go along. As per normal. Pathetic!"
• Re^2: Pause and Resume Exe: "Yet more crap!"
• Re^2: Threads and signals in Windows: "Pure, unadulterated garbage."
• Re^4: Threads and signals in Windows (invoking the name): "Even the answer you gave -- which was to a completely different question -- was wrong in at least four ways! ... You are helping no one by responding with such utter garbage in threads on subjects it is patently and painfully obvious you haven't got the first clue what you are talking about."
• Re^5: Threads and signals in Windows (invoking the name): "After all my carefully constructed, reasoned arguments about the technical merits of your posts; all you are worried about is the downvotes. And a liar to boot."
• Re^2: Does the main thread yield?: "You utter buffoon."
• Re^2: Does the main thread yield?: "You get no respect from me because you do not deserve any whilst you continue to post garbage like this."
• Re^3: PERL issues a "lock can only be used on shared values" when locking a shared hash: "Your lack of understanding -- not just of threading, but Perl, and even programming, in general -- makes it all more frustrating and annoying that you once again have started to dole out "advice" on subjects you simply know nothing useful about."

And here is a selection of your gentler quotes in response to BrowserUk's posts:

• Re^2: Overtime: the "Bad News" Warning Sign: "It is easy to know from hearing you "speak" that you have been around this block many times: yours is the voice of well-seasoned experience."
• Re: Psychic Disconnect and Object Systems: "what BrowserUK said here is, in my opinion, excellent wisdom, well thought-out and presented"
• Re^2: map2 {} grep2 {} ...: "An excellent suggestion. Fav'd."
• Re^2: Problem handling 2 simultaneous socket streams: "Good advice. (Fav'd.)"
• Re^2: Annoying 'Use of uninitialized value in concatenation' warning: "as BrowserUK wisely suggests"
• Re: Perl/Tk code structure: "Agreeing fully with BrowserUK's previous comments on this (I think...)"
• Re^6: "Automated" benchmarking: "++. Very true."
• Re: What's Wrong with program: "such ideas having already been given to you, and in great detail by experts such as BrowserUK"
• Re^4: Faster push and shift: "Quite obviously, BrowserUK very routinely processes gigantic datasets during the course of his work day. He is quite the expert on those (what are to many of us...) edge cases. Upvoted."
• Re^4: how did blocking IO become such a problem?: "(up-voted) ... whereas, if I may presume to impose upon your very apt analogy..."
• Re^2: About self-invoked threads into class: "Such a thorough and well-reasoned explanation certainly should convince anyone. Upvoted."
• Re: Temp variable performace vs Inline behavior: "Apart from the performance/capacity "edge cases" that I openly acknowledge BrowserUK (in particular) deals with every day"
• Re: Concurrent Cache Pattern: "I say this in all seriousness, BrowserUK could whip one up in about three minutes"
• Re: how apply large memory with perl?: "BrowserUK's algorithm is of course more efficient, and he has the RAM."
• Re^3: Perl 5 Optimizing Compiler: "BrowserUK, I specifically acknowledge that your work is an exception to that statement, and very impressive work it certainly is."
• Re: Block-structured language parsing using a Perl module?: "You have "long skills" in certain pursuits, which I have quickly learned to respect and not to question"
• Re^3: var comparison: "with the notable exception of the very valid edge-cases that my esteemed colleague, BrowserUK, routinely and legitimately encounters in his daily work"
• Re: module w/ object-oriented and functional interfaces: best practices?: "Echoing BrowserUK’s comments, and after up-voting his post, ..."
• Re: Parallel processing with ForkManager: "BrowserUK’s subsequent recommendation to use temporary tables and a join-query, below, is in my view unquestionably the best approach"
• Re^3: dynamic number of threads based on CPU utilization: "As you say in the (upvoted) earlier comment, this is a poorly thought-out program from the start."
• Re^5: dynamic number of threads based on CPU utilization: "I will trouble you henceforth to remember that very simple rule of human etiquette."
• Re: Comparing sets of phrases stored in a database?: "As a slight parenthetical comment to BrowserUK’s excellent (and heavily up-voted) advice..."
• Re^3: Does IO::Select work? (Problem partially resolved): "If BrowserUK said it, yes, he is sure. And sure to be right. Seriously."
• Re: BrowserUk Missing but not Forgotten: "Hello? Esteemed Monk, are you, like, okay?? I’m being utterly serious, and daresay not alone. Check in, please..."
• Re^2: "Out of memory" problem: "Agree with BrowserUK ..."
• Re: Syntax explanation required: "(And in making that comment, I consciously and respectfully intend to steer the middle-ground against acknowledged valid ... BrowserUK ... edge-case exceptions ...)"
• Re: Evolving a faster filter?: "I am certain that this thread will attract the attention of BrowserUK, who is well-known about these parts to be especially expert in high-performance algorithms in high-volume situations. I especially look forward to his insights on this subject."
• Re^3: Installing Template::Toolkit on Windows: "sorry, “troll-UK,” but I do have “experience” here"
• Re: Threads and signals in Windows: "Excellent comments, BrowserUK. Very informative."
• Re^4: Threads and signals in Windows (invoking the name): "My response to you has been to commend your responses and to up-vote a great many of them. I have never down-voted a single one"
• Re: How to check if a variable's value is equal to a member of a list of values: "the high-performance applications frequently written by BrowserUK"
• Re: Issue with hash definition & possibly some other stuff: "Echoing BrowserUK..."
• Re: RFC: Simulating Ruby's "yield" and "blocks" in Perl: "As BrowserUK says (in so many words), I would not disabuse the Perl-5 language..."
• Re: Does the main thread yield?: "as BrowserUK's elegant code example does by blocking the sender while the queue is too-large. (I really do think that you should put this little jewel into CPAN anyway, even if it uses an undocumented feature.)"

While admiring your Wile-E-Coyote-like bouncing back after being flattened, I find your sycophantic dishing out of praise to BrowserUk a bit creepy, especially the superfluous "Upvoted" and "Fav'd" comments.

Update: I noticed some recent nodes written with the same distinctive, arbitrary, gratuitous, puerile, pretentious and annoying sundialsvc4-style typography, stylistic devices and flowery analogies   (Just askin’) (“Schweet!”)   (“Priceless™ ...”) and yet were posted anonymously:

• Re: Need help making the change to OO
• Re: if statement consolidation
• Re: perllVm: A Linux test of how Perl and LLVM would work together.

Updated since the original node was written with more recent examples from the long-running and fascinating BrowserUk-sundialsvc4 "relationship". :)

[BrowserUk]

To be sure, BrowserUk calls you out severely when he believes you are wrong.

Just for counterpoint, I didn't start out being quite so direct in my responses. Here are a few earlier posts where I attempted to inform him that he was providing bad information:

• Re^4: How do I cleanly kill a spawned process on Win32. --

  "How?"

• Re^3: Better algorithm or data structure? --

  "At this point, I can say no better than; "Show me the code":)"

• Re^2: In-place sort with order assignment --

  "No. I read you the first time.... As for all the "old-timer" logic. Been there, done that. (Don't ever wanna go back:)."

• Re^2: A matter of style: how to perform a simple action based on a simple condition? --

  "Would you expect a non-musician to be able to work out how a piece of music will sound, from "a glance" at the score?"

• Re^2: Perl5.8.4 , threads - Killing the "async" kid --

  "You don't even know the difference between threads & Thread as you keep conflating the two. And yet, you continue to keep offering advice based upon your misreading of the documentation."

• Re^2: Changing registry permissions --

  "More of your trademark, utterly meaningless "advice"."

• Re^2: fixed set of forked processes --

  "Please don't suggest the use of Thread::Queue::Duplex until you've used it, and therefore encountered its limitations."

• Re^2: Looking for advice on how to tune stack size for threads --

  "Sorry, but this is another case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing."

• Re^2: Simple date and time manipulation --

  "Prove it!."

• Re^2: Cloning shared hashref --

  "If you'd bothered to look, you'd have realised that the sole purpose of Clone::clone() is to perform deep copies. If you'd looked at Storable, you'd have discovered that it doesn't export a routine called clone(). And if you bothered to try dclone(), you'd have found that it produces exactly the same error."

• Re^2: Array or Hash --

  "Utter drivel."

• Re^2: [OT]: threading recursive subroutines. --

  "Once again, you offer a few authoritative sounding 'wisdoms' in place of 'an answer'."

• Re^2: Multi-kernel processors. --

  "You're talking bollocks again! If a process is using 100% cpu, it cannot be doing any I/O. If it is doing no I/O then I/O cannot be a constraint of any kind, let alone a fundamental one. Why do you continue to spout such shite?"

As you can see, I started out with gentle nudges and corrections. It was only after they were completely ignored that I gradually ramped up the directness of my replies.

[Anonymous Monk]

Please, do keep it up. A lot of times I about choke on my coffee going "wtf!?1" when I read his posts and then I see you've already called him on his vaguely theoretical bs and then I smile because you've saved me the trouble of having to do it.