🔥 Popular | Latest

Beautiful, Community, and God: 21 Answers votes oldest newest You can't parse [X]HTML with regex. Because HTML can't be parsed by regex. Regex is not a tool that can be used to correctly parse HTML. As I have answered in HTML-and-regex questions here so many times before, the use of regex will not allow you to consume HTML. Regular expressions are a tool that is insufficiently sophisticated to understand the constructs employed by HTML. HTML is not a regular language and hence cannot be parsed by regular expressions. Regex queries are not equipped to break down HTML into its meaningful parts. so many times but it is not getting to me. Even enhanced irregular regular expressions as used by Perl are not up to the task of parsing HTML. You will never make me crack. HTML is a language of sufficient complexity that it cannot be parsed by regular expressions. Even Jon Skeet cannot parse HTML using regular expressions. Every time you attempt to parse HTML with regular expressions, the unholy child weeps the blood of virgins, and Russian hackers pwn your webapp. Parsing HTML with regex summons tainted souls into the realm of the living. HTML and regex go together like love, marriage, and ritual infanticide. The <center> cannot hold it is too late. The force of regex and HTML together in the same conceptual space will destroy your mind like so much watery putty. If you parse HTML with regex you are giving in to Them and their blasphemous ways which doom us all to inhuman toil for the One whose Name cannot be expressed in the Basic Multilingual Plane, he comes. HTML-plus-regexp will liquify the nerves of the sentient whilst you observe, your psyche withering in the onslaught of horror. Regex-based HTML parsers are the cancer that is killing StackOverflow it is too late it is too late we cannot be saved the trangession of a child ensures regex will consume all living tissue (except for HTML which it cannot, as previously prophesied) dear lord help us how can anyone survive this scourge using regex to parse HTML has doomed humanity to an eternity of dread torture and security holes using regex as a tool to process HTML establishes a breach between this world and the dread realm of čorrupt entities (like SGML entities, but more corrupt) a mere glimpse of the world of reg ex parsers for HTML will instantly transport a programmer's consciousness into a world of ceaseless screaming, he comes-the pestilent slithy regex-infection will devour your HTML parser, application and existence for all time like Vişual Basic only worse he comes he comes do not fight he comes, his uņholy radiance destroping all enlightenment, HTML tags leaking frọm your eyesiike liquid pain, the song of regular expression parsing-will extinguish the voices of mortal man from the sphere I can see it can you see t it is beautiful the f inal snuf fing of the lies of Man ALL ĮS LOSTALL IS LOST the pony he comes he comes hejcemes the ichor permeates al MY FACEFACEh god no NO NOOoo Ne stop the an ges aře not reâj ZALGO IS TON THË PONY, HECOMES 1811 Have you tried using an XML parser instead? link edit flag edited Nov 14 at 0:18 community wiki bobince regex and html
Save
Being Alone, Arguing, and Bad: Alyssa Milano @Alyssa_Milano Follow Ns NEWS MARIJU 4:14 PM 18 Apr 2018 MAKEMAT 1,593 Retweets 4.735 Likes 主与玉丰丰 -- libertarirynn: vaporwavevocap: cheshireinthemiddle: napoleonbonerfarte: cheshireinthemiddle: pseudopupil: cheshireinthemiddle: hardboiledoldman: cheshireinthemiddle: hardboiledoldman: cheshireinthemiddle: But you knowingly broke the law. You could sleep with a 17 year old and the age of consent of your state can lower the next year. You still broke the law. You’re an unfathomably dumb cunt. At least I have a good argument. And since i’ve already gone into great detail proving my point, unless you have something constructive to add, move along. A sound argument is not a good argument, you dummy. Making a sound argument isn’t the same thing as making a good one, and you’ve made a bad argument cause you’re a dumb as fuck bootlicker. We all know breaking the law has consequences, doesn’t mean we have to think it’s morally good, you brain-worm-riddled moron. Something being normal and the accepted reality doesn’t make it reasonable or good. You’re not smart and your rhetoric is garbage-tier. Eat shit. A sound argument is one that is well thought out and covers its bases. Which is what I gave. Your counterargument is…insults. You personally not agreeing with a law doesnt mean that you can just break it. If youre an immigrant coming from a country with a liwer legal drinking age or age of consent, you can see breaking those laws in the US as harmless. You can think they are stupid laws. They might even change in the future. But if you break them in the US, you will be punished. “I personally dont find an. Issue with this law” is not a defense. If you want to do something illegal and think it is unfair, work to have the law changed. Advocate for its change. And abide by the new rules (in this case, get a license, sell only to specific people, and dont sell to children). And this isnt slavery. This isnt criminalized homosexuality. This isnt infringing on your right to live. You can wait to get high in this particular method or sell it to others after it has been legalized. It isnt that hard. You are such an idiot and coward. “Breaking the law is illegal” is the entirety of what you’re saying (congrats on your basic baby brain logic) but its still fucking pathetic you’re defending a heinous prison system simply because you are pussy who loves authority and pointless contrarianism. Like it IS a stupid law and the point of this comic is that no one should lose years (or any time!) of their life over it.  If the government made a law that jaywalking is a felony you’d defend people being locked away only because they “broke the law”. Thats stupid and says more about you than anything. Grow a spine you slug. Another person who just insults and doesnt read. The argument isnt “breaking the law is illegal”, but that knowingly breaking the law comes with predictable punishments. If you dont agree with a law, you advocate for its change. You dont personally get to decide what is and isnt a stupid law. The age of consent in France is 15. And if you live in France, that could seem harmless. But if you immigrated to Japan or the US and started sleeping with 15 year olds, you can argue that it is harmless all you want, but it is still illegal. The government has made leaving your preteen or lower child home alone as a form child abuse. You can have your children taken away if you do it too much. I was left alone at 8 years old. All the time. I was fine. The other little kids left alone were fine. We could handle ourselves. We and Our parents saw it as “harmless”. That doesnt mean the parents cant be pubished for it. “I will break this law because i personally dont like it/think it’s harmless” is acceptable to you until it is used on a law that you actually support. “maybe if those jews didn’t want to get sent to concentration camps they shouldn’t have been jewish in poland.” that’s exactly what you sound like lmao. I’m really not sure what argument you’re trying to go for right now? Oh, i’m sorry, I guess you getting high is comparable to persecution now. Your argument can be used to justify breaking literally any law. There is a HUGE difference between laws that violate your right to live and laws that you just dont feel like following. If you cant see the difference then i feel very sorry for you. It is persecution, if there is no victim there is no crime, therefore treating people like criminals without a crime is persecution. What she said ^ Also forcing people into legal slavery by arresting and imprisoning them for victimless crimes sure as shit sounds like persecution to me.
Save
Being Alone, Arguing, and Bad: Alyssa Milano @Alyssa_Milano Follow Ns NEWS MARIJU 4:14 PM 18 Apr 2018 MAKEMAT 1,593 Retweets 4.735 Likes 主与玉丰丰 -- vaporwavevocap: cheshireinthemiddle: napoleonbonerfarte: cheshireinthemiddle: pseudopupil: cheshireinthemiddle: hardboiledoldman: cheshireinthemiddle: hardboiledoldman: cheshireinthemiddle: But you knowingly broke the law. You could sleep with a 17 year old and the age of consent of your state can lower the next year. You still broke the law. You’re an unfathomably dumb cunt. At least I have a good argument. And since i’ve already gone into great detail proving my point, unless you have something constructive to add, move along. A sound argument is not a good argument, you dummy. Making a sound argument isn’t the same thing as making a good one, and you’ve made a bad argument cause you’re a dumb as fuck bootlicker. We all know breaking the law has consequences, doesn’t mean we have to think it’s morally good, you brain-worm-riddled moron. Something being normal and the accepted reality doesn’t make it reasonable or good. You’re not smart and your rhetoric is garbage-tier. Eat shit. A sound argument is one that is well thought out and covers its bases. Which is what I gave. Your counterargument is…insults. You personally not agreeing with a law doesnt mean that you can just break it. If youre an immigrant coming from a country with a liwer legal drinking age or age of consent, you can see breaking those laws in the US as harmless. You can think they are stupid laws. They might even change in the future. But if you break them in the US, you will be punished. “I personally dont find an. Issue with this law” is not a defense. If you want to do something illegal and think it is unfair, work to have the law changed. Advocate for its change. And abide by the new rules (in this case, get a license, sell only to specific people, and dont sell to children). And this isnt slavery. This isnt criminalized homosexuality. This isnt infringing on your right to live. You can wait to get high in this particular method or sell it to others after it has been legalized. It isnt that hard. You are such an idiot and coward. “Breaking the law is illegal” is the entirety of what you’re saying (congrats on your basic baby brain logic) but its still fucking pathetic you’re defending a heinous prison system simply because you are pussy who loves authority and pointless contrarianism. Like it IS a stupid law and the point of this comic is that no one should lose years (or any time!) of their life over it.  If the government made a law that jaywalking is a felony you’d defend people being locked away only because they “broke the law”. Thats stupid and says more about you than anything. Grow a spine you slug. Another person who just insults and doesnt read. The argument isnt “breaking the law is illegal”, but that knowingly breaking the law comes with predictable punishments. If you dont agree with a law, you advocate for its change. You dont personally get to decide what is and isnt a stupid law. The age of consent in France is 15. And if you live in France, that could seem harmless. But if you immigrated to Japan or the US and started sleeping with 15 year olds, you can argue that it is harmless all you want, but it is still illegal. The government has made leaving your preteen or lower child home alone as a form child abuse. You can have your children taken away if you do it too much. I was left alone at 8 years old. All the time. I was fine. The other little kids left alone were fine. We could handle ourselves. We and Our parents saw it as “harmless”. That doesnt mean the parents cant be pubished for it. “I will break this law because i personally dont like it/think it’s harmless” is acceptable to you until it is used on a law that you actually support. “maybe if those jews didn’t want to get sent to concentration camps they shouldn’t have been jewish in poland.” that’s exactly what you sound like lmao. I’m really not sure what argument you’re trying to go for right now? Oh, i’m sorry, I guess you getting high is comparable to persecution now. Your argument can be used to justify breaking literally any law. There is a HUGE difference between laws that violate your right to live and laws that you just dont feel like following. If you cant see the difference then i feel very sorry for you. It is persecution, if there is no victim there is no crime, therefore treating people like criminals without a crime is persecution. What she said ^
Save
Animals, Bad, and Energy: zpo 96u noorsuekdeeysiddeymmm ut IOT-NHD KTV 8 No sheep were sheared to make this yarn, so rest all warm and snuggly in their own wooly jumpers tonight. spectralarchers: thegreenwolf: lipsredasroses: beachgirlnikita: glyndarling: witchella: laylibear: bettagal: sabelmouse: This fake yarn is supposedly better for sheep. Aimed at people who don’t know where wool comes from, it’s 100% plastic. Yes, plastic. So any garment you wash will release microfibres into the sea. It’ll never decompose. You’re supposed to believe that sheep shearing is violent and cruel. There are imbeciles out there that work in an unprofessional manner while shearing, but that’s not the case overall. Sheep don’t suffer from having their fleece removed. Left on, the fleece can become a home for fly eggs and the subsequent maggots which can eat the sheep. Chemical treatments are available to prevent that happening. It’s much better for the sheep, the land and the farmer to avoid chemical use. Don’t be fooled. Wool is a sustainable material, one we should make more and better use of. Miscrofibers hurt our fish friends. 😓 Hey kiddos as someone who grew up in the sheep capitol of the world, shearing sheep isn’t a bad thing and can be helpful for our fluffy friends!! Please be concious of your decisions!!! Also plastic yarn is cheap and difficult to work with. Please remember to peel your sheeps. Some sheep can be peeled! The process is called rooing. Domestic sheep do not shed their wool. They need to be sheered. If left unsheered, the wool they produce can become to heavy and kill them. Trust me, no sheep wasn’t to have so much wool it crushes them to death. Peel a sheep. Save a life. (Or lots of lives, if you consider the sea life choking on microplastics.) Any version of a “vegan” animal-material (silk, wool, leather, fur, etc.) is made from 100% plastic. They may call it all sorts of fancy things but it is plastic - plastic is made from petrol, which also fuels the whole oil- and petrol industry. You want to be dependent on green energy only? Then almost everything you buy in your local HM, New Yorker or other cheaper retail store isn’t helping. It’s all plastic. Which, as stated above, releases microfibres into the water EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. They’re washed. These microfibres degrade at an extremely long rate, whereas natural products decompose at a much faster rate. Polyester is made from the same thing they put in antifreeze for your car (Ethylene glycol). Sheering sheep doesn’t hurt them. Cow leather comes from cattle that is used in the meat industry. I understand if you do not want to use silk or fur because of the way it is produced (even though some furs are actually also byproducts of hunting, like Greenlandic sealskin, which is sold as a byproduct of Kalaalit hunting traditions and as a byproduct), but using polyester, acrylic or even viscose (the energy and CO2 print of creating viscose is GINORMOUS) instead is as harmful, if not, to the general ‘health’ of the planet. You made have saved a sheep, but you’ve just poisoned a whole bunch of fish and other water dwelling animals and microorganisms instead. If wooly products still bother you, buy 100% cotton, flax, hemp, bamboo, coconut fibre, wool (sheep, merino, alpaca, bison, angora, camel, any kind of animal you can brush/sheer, yes, even your golden retriever hairs should be able to be made into yarn if you find a spinning wheel and a spinster willing to try), sisal, etc. products instead. They’re nice and breathable too!

spectralarchers: thegreenwolf: lipsredasroses: beachgirlnikita: glyndarling: witchella: laylibear: bettagal: sabelmouse: This fak...

Save
Alive, Confused, and Crime: mango Follow @problemabbic anne frank was gay?? omg?? THE DIARY OF A YOUNG GIRI 142 I already had these kinds of feelings subconsciously before I came here, because I remember that once when I slept with girl friend I had a strong desire to kiss her, and that I did so. I could not help being terribly inquisitive about her, for had always kept it hidden from me. I asked her whether, as a proof of our friendship, refused. I go into ecstasies every time I see the naked figure of a woman, such as Venus, for example. It strikes me as s0 wonderful and exquisite that I have difficulty in stopping the tears rolling down my cheeks rou a see ho ma ger we should feel one another, but she an tel th to If only I had a girl friend! S Yours, Anne. 12:13 PM - 4 Jun 2019 3,487 Retweets 16,120 Likes 律「黙れターフ」 Follow @andreareventon Cishet folks have spent an eternity erasing queer people's stories. Anne Frank's diary was edited to remove things like this in all the original copywritten versions. mango @problemabbic anne frank was gay?? omg?? od t M4I INPS 11 in d odid e: tsk Show this thread 2:36 PM 4 Jun 2019 8,314 Retweets 20,886 Likes 律「黙れターフ」 Follow @andreareventon Every trans person is rewritten as a cis person who was either confused or "bravely challenging gender". Anyone who liked the same gender romantically or sexually are reduced to having had close bonds with those of the same gender. 2:37 PM - 4 Jun 2019 267 Retweets 1,772 Likes kat 律「黙れターフ」 Follow @andreareventon And in case you were wondering why they'd leave this out of her diary when it only adds to the danger she faced from the Nazis. Many of the countries of the "allied forces" still considered it a sinful crime to be gay at the time. It would be considered a flaw. 2:53 PM - 4 Jun 2019 172 Retweets 1,377 Likes 律「黙れターフ」 Follow @andreareventon Reminder that Anne Frank's attraction to boys was *not* removed, only her attraction to girls. Also, to answer the mentions I've gotten. Yes, I'm aware the edits were made by her dad. That doesn't make them not be edits made by cishet people. 6m In my experience in the US, the diary is generally assigned in 4th or 5th grade. Not sure why reading about another adolescent child's sexual feelings and gynecological health are appropriate at this stage. 3:30 AM -5 Jun 2019 206 Retweets 1,216 Likes ediejay: luanna801: gahdamnpunk: I’m just now finding out Anne Frank was bi??? OMG Yeah okay, those edits were made by her dad, a cishet person - and also her dad, a Holocaust survivor, who would have been brutally aware that when the diary was first published in freakin’ 1947, had he included anything which people could use to demonize his daughter or tar her as some kind of “pervert”, it would prevent the message he was trying to send about the horrors of the Holocaust and the heroism of his daughter from being properly understood and accepted the way he hoped. That isn’t fair. It isn’t just. But it is reality. If Otto Frank had let this be included in the published version, there’s a large chance the homophobic backlash would have prevented the book from reaching the audience it did and spreading the message it needed to. It was NINETEEN. FORTY. SEVEN. The Holocaust had ended TWO YEARS AGO. The acceptance of LGBT identities was basically nonexistent. Otto Frank made a decision based on the time and place he was living in, about what the world at that time was and wasn’t ready to accept.  Let me say this as bluntly as I can - I am a bisexual Jewish girl and I would have made the same decision Otto Frank did. Making sure Anne Frank was unambiguously seen as sympathic and heroic was more important. Making sure people weren’t sidetracked from the main issue of the Holocaust was more important. He shouldn’t have had to make that decision, without doubt. Anne Frank’s sexuality (however she would have identified in modern terms) shouldn’t be considered relevant to her status as a hero or a sympathetic victim. But in 1947, it undoubtedly would have been. Otto Frank survived Auschwitz and lost his entire family (a wife and two teenage daughters) to the horrors of the Holocaust. He hoped that publishing his daughter’s diary would spread awareness and sympathy for the victims of the Holocaust. If he had to make sacrifices to do that - well frankly, so fucking be it. I don’t know who alive today has the right to judge him.  Thank you for that addition. We cannot blanket demonize people while ignoring context.
Save