Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by BoppreH 72 days 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.
2 comments
hk__2 72 days ago
It’s fast and it matches 80% of the cases. There’s no point in overengineering it.
link
NitpickLawyer 72 days 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)...

link
vharuck 72 days ago
The 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".
link
BoppreH 72 days ago
You're right, I missed the \b's. Thanks for the correction.
link