unix-guy
Master of RTFM
Or it was intentionally written wrong by a clever girl because she knew silly boys would waste a lot of time trying to figure why it was wrong and what it was supposed to do.
Touché clever girl!
Or it was intentionally written wrong by a clever girl because she knew silly boys would waste a lot of time trying to figure why it was wrong and what it was supposed to do.
Or it was intentionally written wrong by a clever girl because she knew silly boys would waste a lot of time trying to figure why it was wrong and what it was supposed to do.
Touché clever girl!
I'm saying a range operation to extract the good characters (and probably a subsequent substitution for the missing characters) was intended to follow the encoding to fix up the string. However I believe that range/substitution step is mostly missing. In fact, the syntax error is evidence that something is missing. That seems a lot more likely than typos in the input. The encoding looks very intentional. It would be difficult to produce that output by making a couple of typos
.
Yeah... That would make sense.I'm saying a range operation to extract the good characters (and probably a subsequent substitution for the missing characters) was intended to follow the encoding to fix up the string. However I believe that range/substitution step is mostly missing. In fact, the syntax error is evidence that something is missing. That seems a lot more likely than typos in the input. The encoding looks very intentional. It would be difficult to produce that output by making a couple of typos
.
Yeah, that would do it! But kinda kills whatever code elegance they were probably going for.I believe this is the correct formulation. In other words, the shirt is missing the characters between ".." and ".gsub(/" They probably needed to shorten it to fit on the shirt and figured nobody would notice
Never_Underestimate_a_Girl_Who_Can_Code == ["\\\×D7\xAFz\xBDT\x9D\×D7\xABz\xCBb\x99\xAB^\×D5\xADF\x8A\xB9uZ\x1A5\t\×A9\xF5\n\x87^"].pack('m0')[1..-1].gsub("MOXRD",'N').gsub("cOXRD",'d').gsub("w", '').gsub("dEN",'').gsub("cOXQT",'a').gsub(/\d/,'_')
I think this is the answer. A girl makes a single statement and the boy spends hours trying to figure out what she's really talking about.Or it was intentionally written wrong by a clever girl because she knew silly boys would waste a lot of time trying to figure why it was wrong and what it was supposed to do.
Touché clever girl!
Don't need code for that.I think this is the answer. A girl makes a single statement and the boy spends hours trying to figure out what she's really talking about.
Yeah, like you, I would have devised the puzzle a bit differently, but this explanation fits with what's on the shirtYeah, that would do it! But kinda kills whatever code elegance they were probably going for.
.
Right? Feels like nerd sniping.Or it was intentionally written wrong by a clever girl because she knew silly boys would waste a lot of time trying to figure why it was wrong and what it was supposed to do.
Touché clever girl!
"\\\×D7\xAFz\xBDT\x9D\×D7\xABz\xCBb\x99\xAB^\×D5\xADF\x8A\xB9uZ\x1A5\t\×A9\xF5\n\x87^"× and the second x ? The characters are similar but not the same and certainly don't have the same meaning. I hate it when that happens! Oh the time that I've lost to that sort of thing.x characters in the hex encoding, then the result is as expected:
[1..] is legal in recent versions of Ruby, but will give you syntax errors in older versions; which is what you saw with some online Ruby interpreters.
Fixing the Wrong is always ok.Wait... the last post was from weeks ago? I only replied because I thought that this was a current thread.