4 ms·
> Ezra Zygmuntowitz pointed GitHub in my direction, and let me take the time to really get into the problem with the GitHub team This sentence is funny to me.
by matsemann 3y ago
> Ezra Zygmuntowitz pointed GitHub in my direction, and let me take the time to really get into the problem with the GitHub team
This sentence is funny to me. Maybe because I'm not a native speaker, but I can't avoid reading it as a big problem with the GH team itself, heh. I was expecting the next sentences to "get into" that.
> I wonder if Luciano hadn’t found it, how long it might have been before it was found
I think perhaps only GH or one of the big cloud providers would have stumbled upon it, few places I can think of that would have thousands and thousands of keys stored from users.
- alias_neo 3y ago> This sentence is funny to me It does / can read both ways, but a comma after "problem" would have removed that doubt.
- thedanbob 3y agoBut that wouldn't be correct syntax. That would imply the middle section was an addition to the complete thought of the outer two sections, e.g. > Ezra Zygmuntowitz pointed GitHub in my direction (and let me take the time to really get into the problem) with the GitHub team > Ezra Zygmuntowitz pointed GitHub in my direction (...) with the GitHub team
- arnsholt 3y agoIn syntactic problem, this is called the PP attachment problem. Basically, should the sentence read (get into the problem) (with the GH team) or (get into (the problem with the GH team)). Turns out to be a very hard thing to do correctly.
- gosub100 3y agoIs that the same thing as being a context sensitive grammar?