On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 at 01:06, Antoon Pardon <antoon.par...@vub.be> wrote: > > > Op 22/02/2022 om 09:40 schreef Chris Angelico: > > On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 at 19:33, Abdur-Rahmaan Janhangeer > > <arj.pyt...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> As discussed here but, it would have been nevertheless great to have this > >> tiny function instead of > >> nothing > >> > > Here's a function that determines whether or not you have an internet > > connection. It's almost as reliable as some of the other examples > > given - I know this, because I tried it ten times, and it gave the > > correct result every time! > > So, you discovered a way of testing that is not very thorough. > > > def has_internet(): > > return True > > > > Tell me, is it useful to have something that doesn't always give the > > right answer, even if it usually does? Is there any value whatsoever > > in a lie? > > Yes that is useful. Live is full of that kind of situations. We in > computerland > are spoiled with the accuracy we can enjoy. It seems even spoiled to the > extend > that when offered a solution that is not 100% accurated we consider it a lie. >
Cool! Then you have a very useful internet-availability testing function. Have fun! ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list