[02:21:11] <Ironholds>	 evening harej
[02:21:30] <harej>	 hej
[02:30:29] <Deskana>	 Ironholds: Hey, I have a quick question for you if you're around.
[02:30:36] <Ironholds>	 sure!
[02:30:51] <Deskana>	 How long is data stored in the request logs?
[02:31:12] <Ironholds>	 it varies, but don't bet longer than 1-2 months; last I heard it was at 62 days and being cut down to size
[02:31:20] <Deskana>	 The Nearby feature in the app obviously sends the user's current location to the API, and I was asked how long we retain that information.
[02:31:27] <Deskana>	 So I'll just say "less than three months"
[02:31:51] <Deskana>	 Ironholds: Thanks!
[02:32:17] <Ironholds>	 gotcha
[02:32:32] <Ironholds>	 ....argh must resist urge to be southern twat.
[02:32:46] <Deskana>	 ...fewer?
[02:32:56] <Ironholds>	 actually I guess arguably either would be right
[02:33:08] <Ironholds>	 fewer if we're measuring time in months at a minimum, less if we're aggregating
[02:33:18] <Deskana>	 Months are countable, so really it should be fewer I think.
[02:33:28] <Ironholds>	 so, something that's retained for 40 days is retained for fewer than three months
[02:33:35] <Ironholds>	 and also less than
[02:33:46] <Ironholds>	 but something retained for 70 days is retained for less than three months, but NOT fewer than.
[02:34:13] <Ironholds>	 in fact, actually I think given that 62 days is >2 months, you were correct with less than and I am in fact southern twat squared ;p
[02:34:49] <Ironholds>	 on that note, anyone expressed any thoughts about the "privacy and terms" patch? I'm happy to kick off a mailing list or gerrit-based discussion if one'd be warranted, but the silence is kinda worrying.
[02:39:47] <Deskana>	 Ironholds: I think we all prefer it the way that it is.
[02:40:10] <Ironholds>	 okay. Can you give a rationale, given the history of the term?
[02:40:11] <Deskana>	 Ironholds: I'm personally don't care too much either way.
[02:40:16] <Ironholds>	 Or...any kind of public statement?
[02:40:18] <Deskana>	 *I
[02:40:51] <Ironholds>	 Yeah, I don't expect everyone to have a strong opinion, but explaining why the strong opinions of others around the term's history and the implications for how we see user privacy being prioritised would be welcome
[02:40:59] <Deskana>	 I can't speak for Moiz, but he just thought it was quirky and fun.
[02:41:01] <Ironholds>	 *are not sufficient would be...
[02:41:52] <Ironholds>	 and doesn't see the racist historical background of the term or the implications about the importance of the privacy policy as things worth evaluating? :/
[02:42:29] <Deskana>	 I didn't understand any racist background to it. Perhaps you should send an email with your rationale.
[02:43:13] <Ironholds>	 the term originates in stories about an African persona used to resolve domestic disputes, whose name was anglicised to "mumbo jumbo"
[02:43:32] <Ironholds>	 it took on the current meaning of ineffective and unimportant ephemera because awww, aren't the natives and their ignorant heathen rituals cute and worth ridiculing.
[08:55:42] <ToAruShiroiNeko>	 http://www.theguardian.com/science/live/2015/mar/20/solar-eclipse-live-updates
[14:16:47] <halfak>	 o/ science people.  
[14:16:57] <halfak>	 I'm back in town and working on my email wave. 
[15:57:05] * Ironholds yawns
[15:59:53] <Ironholds>	 mornign!
[16:06:12] <guillom>	 mornign to you too!
[16:07:41] <Ironholds>	 good mornign to all and sudnry! :D
[16:15:11] <guillom>	 Does anyone have a clue why http://stats.grok.se/en/latest30/Terry_Pratchett doesn't show anything prior to 2015-03-12?
[16:25:04] <Nemo_bis>	 guillom: because you'd need a log scale :) hover the x axis
[16:25:07] <Nemo_bis>	 Compare http://stats.grok.se/en/201502/Terry_Pratchett
[16:25:45] <guillom>	 Nemo_bis: Aaah. Thank you :)
[16:27:06] <guillom>	 Ironholds: Do we have any way of finding out the breakdown of referrers for a specific article (say, over the past week)?
[16:28:32] <Ironholds>	 yep
[16:28:52] <Ironholds>	 It won't be entirely accurate but we can mostly do it
[16:29:05] <guillom>	 Ironholds: How difficult is it / how long would it take?
[16:30:47] * Ironholds thinks
[16:30:53] <Ironholds>	 not very but quite a bit
[16:31:07] <guillom>	 heh. Fair enough :)
[16:31:23] <guillom>	 I'll CC you on a related thread.
[16:31:29] <guillom>	 just FYI
[16:31:36] <guillom>	 Not asking you to do anything :)
[16:39:01] <nuria>	 lzia: let me know if you need clarification with the unique identifier issue and wikigrok data
[18:11:37] <Ironholds>	 halfak, https://thescienceweb.wordpress.com/2015/03/19/all-other-languages-tired-of-pythons-shit/ jfyi ;p
[18:20:46] <guillom>	 "Hating on Pythonistas is probably the only thing that can get C++ and C# in agreement."
[18:20:50] <guillom>	 hah
[18:28:52] <Ironholds>	 p.much
[18:32:08] <halfak>	 lol
[18:41:11] <lzia>	 nuria: whenever you have time let's chat about the uid issues with wikigrok data
[18:42:45] <nuria>	 leila: it's pretty short, uniques ids have been fixed to the extent that they can be so in js
[18:43:09] <nuria>	 leila: take a look at the code that fixes issues, they will only be truly fixed in browsers that support cryptoApi
[18:43:39] <leila>	 nuria: this is true for both userToken and taskToen?
[18:44:11] <nuria>	 leila: if both use the same js method, yes (they should, that is wht they did before)
[18:46:38] <leila>	 I see. thanks nuria. 
[18:47:11] <nuria>	 leila: see comments here: https://github.com/wikimedia/mediawiki/blob/3ca5c2f423e922a167990cbfbbc5e10600077911/resources/src/mediawiki/mediawiki.user.js#L59
[18:47:44] <nuria>	 Leila: i think is documented pretty well, randomids are now as random as they can be if you get them from javascript
[18:49:00] <leila>	 reading the documentation. thanks, nuria. 
[21:01:22] <DarTar>	 ggellerman_: running a few minutes late
[21:04:30] <ggellerman_>	 DarTar k...we are in Jaucourt