From af5a6de2ead7cedb7c72e907f86cb8a0960ce648 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Colin McMillen <colin@semicolin.games>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 12:10:05 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] remove obsolete "charset" attribute from <script>

---
 content/sigbovik/index.md | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/content/sigbovik/index.md b/content/sigbovik/index.md
index be2f1d0..f24875d 100644
--- a/content/sigbovik/index.md
+++ b/content/sigbovik/index.md
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ In this paper, we aim to answer a long-standing open problem in the programming
 We answer this question in the affirmative: it **is possible** to smear paint on the wall without creating a valid Perl program. We employ an empirical approach, using optical character recognition (OCR) software, which finds that merely 93% of paint splatters parse as valid Perl. We analyze the properties of paint-splatter Perl programs, and present seven examples of paint splatters which are not valid Perl programs.
 
 <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">but is it possible to smear paint on the wall without creating valid Perl?</p>&mdash; Jake Archibald (@jaffathecake) <a href="https://twitter.com/jaffathecake/status/1095706032448393217?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 13, 2019</a></blockquote>
-<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
+<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
 
 Accepted for publication at SIGBOVIK 2019, held April 1st 2019 in Pittsburgh. Winner of a Unwitting Participation Ribbon, "an unwelcome brand we’ve affixed to each paper determined after careful scrutiny to have included a genuine artifact, thereby furthering the admirable causes of open science and fruitful procrastination."