Something something about forbidding gay marriage being unconstitutional IIRC
2013-07-01 18201, 2013
ruaok
that a stupid law that said that marriage was between a man and a woman was overtuned.
2013-07-01 18209, 2013
reosarevok
Only 10 years late or so :p
2013-07-01 18211, 2013
ruaok
reosarevok: it wasn't that direct.
2013-07-01 18215, 2013
djce joined the channel
2013-07-01 18230, 2013
ocharles
oh, that's good news!
2013-07-01 18233, 2013
ruaok
they merely said that this one law is unconstitutional.
2013-07-01 18238, 2013
ruaok
ocharles: way good news.
2013-07-01 18243, 2013
reosarevok is amazed that if a law is against the constitution, it takes almost 18 years to find out
2013-07-01 18246, 2013
ruaok
and that it came the week before pride was awesome.
2013-07-01 18255, 2013
ruaok
SF has been offf the hook the last week
2013-07-01 18212, 2013
Leftmost
Basically, the SCOTUS decision requires the federal law to recognize same-sex marriages performed at the state level.
2013-07-01 18254, 2013
Leftmost
It doesn't require states to allow same-sex marriage, but it does mean that if someone gets married in California or Massachusetts or one of the other states that allow same-sex marriage, they get the usual federal benefits.
2013-07-01 18219, 2013
reosarevok
Even if they then move to $crazy_christ_state?
2013-07-01 18235, 2013
Leftmost
I'm not totally clear on that.
2013-07-01 18204, 2013
Leftmost
It might depend on residency, or it might just be that they lose state recognition.
2013-07-01 18216, 2013
reosarevok
If yes, then I guess it's kinda the same as a full-country legalisation to most effects, except for poor people who can't get to any of those states :/
2013-07-01 18222, 2013
Leftmost
Or it could be any one of a number of other options.
2013-07-01 18210, 2013
ocharles
ruaok: is the plan to carry on with VM stuff today?
2013-07-01 18233, 2013
ruaok
yes, though didn't we agreed to go separate paths?
2013-07-01 18240, 2013
ruaok
you lolo, me search and release VM?
2013-07-01 18250, 2013
Leftmost
I know that a couple of the states that allow gay marriage don't require the married couple to be a resident of the state in question, which could mean that just getting married is sufficient to gain federal recognition.
2013-07-01 18253, 2013
ocharles
No, I need to give you stuff that assumes only one drive instead of two
2013-07-01 18232, 2013
ruaok
didn't you check that in already?
2013-07-01 18238, 2013
Leftmost
Now if Montana allowed gay marriage, it'd get rid of the travel problem: Montana allows double-proxy marriages. (Neither party need be present.)
2013-07-01 18204, 2013
ocharles
ruaok: no, we decided to that ten minutes before I left work :)
2013-07-01 18209, 2013
ruaok
woah, really? thats crazy.
2013-07-01 18212, 2013
ocharles
to do that*
2013-07-01 18216, 2013
ruaok
ok, np.
2013-07-01 18220, 2013
ruaok
then lets carry on with that.
2013-07-01 18223, 2013
reosarevok
Leftmost: do they need to agree? :p
2013-07-01 18228, 2013
Leftmost
Yes. :-P
2013-07-01 18235, 2013
ruaok
if I get not response from the vagrant people tomorrorw, I will just fork over $80
2013-07-01 18239, 2013
reosarevok
That sounds like you could forge someone's letter and get married without them knowing :p
2013-07-01 18218, 2013
Leftmost
I think the Montana government should recognize the potential goldmine awaiting them. "Are you in a same-sex relationship and want to get married? Do it from the comfort of your home!"
I live in Montana. It's my business to know how weird a state it really is.
2013-07-01 18211, 2013
reosarevok
Oh! That explains it :)
2013-07-01 18234, 2013
Leftmost
A few states allow proxy marriages, but Montana is the only one to allow double-proxy.
2013-07-01 18258, 2013
outsidecontext joined the channel
2013-07-01 18221, 2013
ocharles
nikki: I don't know, in short. I don't like shipping the arbitrary scaling, due to my final comment. And in terms of fixing it properly, I need to spend more time understanding how the rank calculation is done
2013-07-01 18235, 2013
nikki
the proper fix is to get rid of the direct search :P
2013-07-01 18245, 2013
ocharles
nikki: so for me, if you don't want it in review submitted, I would have to reject the review
2013-07-01 18249, 2013
ocharles
that would be my vote, anyway
2013-07-01 18218, 2013
ocharles
and yes, I'd love to rather spend my time removing direct search
2013-07-01 18219, 2013
nikki
and it's not arbitrary scaling, it's displaying all scores consistently
2013-07-01 18230, 2013
ocharles
no, it's arbitrary, see my last comment
2013-07-01 18235, 2013
nikki
it doesn't matter that the direct and lucene scores are not comparable, because two lucene scores are also not comparable
2013-07-01 18202, 2013
ocharles
it doesn't mean what people think it means
2013-07-01 18254, 2013
ocharles
basically, I don't think we understand how this score calculation works, so before shipping something I'd like to understand that
2013-07-01 18200, 2013
nikki
what do people think it means?
2013-07-01 18211, 2013
ocharles
well lucene tops out at 100
2013-07-01 18218, 2013
ocharles
but this ranking doesn't have a maximum
2013-07-01 18218, 2013
nikki
and the direct one at 10, afaik
2013-07-01 18232, 2013
ocharles
no, that's just what we see. the ranking choice we use doesn't have a maximum
2013-07-01 18246, 2013
ocharles
but I'd like to understand why we only see 10
2013-07-01 18203, 2013
ocharles
Or more accurately, why the db only goes to 0.1
2013-07-01 18253, 2013
reosarevok shrugs
2013-07-01 18200, 2013
reosarevok
Seems to be pretty consistent in going to 0.1
2013-07-01 18204, 2013
nikki
that seems like a big waste of time
2013-07-01 18221, 2013
ocharles
ruaok: oh, it seems like I may indeed have done the VM stuff
2013-07-01 18205, 2013
ocharles
ruaok: so grab git pull && git submodule update, and see what happens
2013-07-01 18206, 2013
zag
did the lucene search make it into the vm yet?
2013-07-01 18215, 2013
ocharles
zag: no
2013-07-01 18244, 2013
ruaok
ocharles: :-)
2013-07-01 18246, 2013
zag
thx, i took a quick look but looked very complicated
2013-07-01 18257, 2013
ruaok
zag: its really not that bad.
2013-07-01 18209, 2013
zag
making search consistant around the whole site would be nice ;)
2013-07-01 18221, 2013
ruaok
ocharles: I could use some help making the war and jar into .deb s
2013-07-01 18204, 2013
ruaok
ok, time to head out and hit the office
2013-07-01 18206, 2013
ruaok
bbiab
2013-07-01 18208, 2013
ocharles
ruaok: how do I turn lolo on?
2013-07-01 18246, 2013
ruaok
feh. we want to turn lolo on now?
2013-07-01 18256, 2013
ocharles
ruaok: if poss
2013-07-01 18201, 2013
ruaok
that means we'll get charged for it for the whole month.
2013-07-01 18203, 2013
ruaok
oh well.
2013-07-01 18209, 2013
ruaok
let me call them. thats the fastest.
2013-07-01 18235, 2013
ruaok
should be coming up soon.
2013-07-01 18242, 2013
ocharles
thanks!
2013-07-01 18234, 2013
ruaok
bbiab
2013-07-01 18257, 2013
reosarevok
Meh, if only our blog had as many real human readers as it has spammers saying how great it is :p
there's just the ended checkbox ticked, which is why it shows ????
2013-07-01 18225, 2013
alastairp
Died:1983
2013-07-01 18226, 2013
alastairp
oh
2013-07-01 18231, 2013
nikki
oh, you're talking about the artist
2013-07-01 18231, 2013
LordSputnik1 has left the channel
2013-07-01 18233, 2013
alastairp
oh
2013-07-01 18234, 2013
alastairp
I see
2013-07-01 18241, 2013
alastairp
the ???? is for the length of the relationship
2013-07-01 18243, 2013
nikki
yeah
2013-07-01 18244, 2013
alastairp
not details of the person
2013-07-01 18214, 2013
alastairp
never mind then :)
2013-07-01 18208, 2013
nikki
you might like to tell the person/people doing those edits that the sortname should be latin and then it doesn't need to go in the disambiguation comment :P
2013-07-01 18234, 2013
alastairp
sure
2013-07-01 18255, 2013
alastairp
if there is a sort name, should the non-sorted name also be as an alias?
2013-07-01 18215, 2013
nikki
hm?
2013-07-01 18250, 2013
alastairp
name: احمد أقريش, sort name: Aqrish, Ahmed, alias: Ahmed Aqrish
