this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2024
892 points (98.8% liked)

Programmer Humor

19817 readers
57 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 156 points 1 month ago (6 children)

We will never solve the Scunthorpe Problem.

[–] GeorgimusPrime@lemmy.world 46 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] Hexarei@programming.dev 6 points 1 month ago

Truly in a clbottom of its own

[–] SatouKazuma@programming.dev 26 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Hasn't it been proven unsolvable?

[–] Valmond@lemmy.world 53 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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

[–] ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca 34 points 1 month ago

some mf named like cum-sock

Excuse me? My family BUILT this country!

[–] prowling4973@programming.dev 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)
[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month 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.

[–] elvith@feddit.org 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Have you tried adding a few more kilobytes of regex?

[–] theterrasque@infosec.pub 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] elvith@feddit.org 4 points 1 month ago

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

[–] 0x0@programming.dev 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Scunthorpe Problem

If only one could buttassinate censorship...

[–] Scoopta@programming.dev 34 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Don't you mean buttbuttinate?

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] xigoi@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 1 month ago

I have no rebottomal for this comment.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 1 month ago

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

[–] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 9 points 1 month 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.

[–] tja@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Awww, it's trying its best!

[–] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] tja@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago

¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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.

[–] CetaceanNeeded@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

It causes so much dawizard.