this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2026
153 points (93.7% liked)
Programmer Humor
30188 readers
2018 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
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Fuck. I’m having nightmarish flashbacks looking at this. Hell.
Hmm, "atomic office" you say?
Lemma 1 mentions "definition of phi", but the phi is never defined. Wtf.
OP posted the two pages in the wrong order, so you (and I) saw page 2 before page 1.
Oops. Sorry.
oh I thought it's a joke that things are defined, or others are "immediate from" something else, while actually not. like how they love to teach this topic without explaining what is necessary
It did bother me there was no fall through.
follow?
There’s no fall through case, it’s ambiguous what the room state should be
Oh, yes, sorry. Quick read. 🖖🏼
I can see why there are more pages with reworks
Thank you.
CVE score 9.9 vuln: slide sign halfway in between
TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for &: 'str' and 'str'
comparison chaining strikes again!
Idk it works for me.
Also "8:00:00" > "10:00:00"
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.
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.
I once wrote down a food recept in code style because it seemed like the most structured way to do so.
Seems reasonable to me.
Me definitely not thinking in c++ while learning c++
Anyone else pause on the ! for "...to use" vs the . of "...in use"?