3 ms·
It's fast, but it'll miss a ton of cases. This feels like it would be better served by a prompt instruction, or an additional tiny neural network. And some of
by BoppreH 7mo ago
It's fast, but it'll miss a ton of cases. This feels like it would be better served by a prompt instruction, or an additional tiny neural network.
And some of the entries are too short and will create false positives. It'll match the word "offset" ("ffs"), for example. EDIT: no it won't, I missed the \b. Still sounds weird to me.
- hk__2 7mo agoIt’s fast and it matches 80% of the cases. There’s no point in overengineering it.
- NitpickLawyer 7mo ago> There’s no point in overengineering it. I swear this whole thread about regexes is just fake rage at something, and I bet it'd be reversed had they used something heavier (omg, look they're using an LLM call where a simple regex would have worked, lul)...
- vharuck 7mo agoThe pattern only matches if both ends are word boundaries. So "diffs" won't match, but "Oh, ffs!" will. It's also why they had to use the pattern "shit(ty|tiest)" instead of just "shit".
- BoppreH 7mo agoYou're right, I missed the \b's. Thanks for the correction.