80x40
blog.mattbierner.com
blog.mattbierner.com
Fun concept regardless.
https://github.com/art-dot-git/80x40/commit/4f511b050a949bfc...
What if there will be bunch of bots drawing penises over each other penises perpetually?
Which means that it's now just this, and has been for 10 minutes: https://github.com/art-dot-git/80x40/commit/675cb618fb6221d2...
Hmmm... There's better things to do with one's time.
They might say that there's better things to do with one's emotional and time resources than react to them or try to censor them.
It's effectively an subjective DoS, they can cause someone else to expend emotional/experience/effort resources disproportionate and larger than those they expended themselves.
It's really the sincerest form of hacker spirit which manifests itself this way. Why? Because internet^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Hitler.
Edit: Well, I didn't quite address the art part but still.
You can argue against something, or show it to be unworkable.
Any company judging "maturity" of actions done by someone in their spare time is not worth working for. It's just not their business to decide whether someone is "mature" or not, so if they cannot manage their business properly, why should I want to work with them? They probably won't be able to maintain healthy relationship with their employees anyway if they're so keen to filter out perfectly fine candidates over something so unimportant and nonharmful as low-grade sense of humor.
But if you maintain a good wall between your professional life and that immature spare time, such that the employer doesn't even see the low-grade stuff, then fine.
It's hardly even "acting unprofessionally". It's a lighthearted project where, well, some part of the fun is waiting for the first person to draw some dicks in. If you can't get over it, that's more likely problem with your attitude, not the person's who drew it.
Anyway, let the mutual filtering continue. You don't want to work for a company that cares about drawing public dicks, and such a company won't want to hire you. It doesn't really even matter to decide whose attitude has a problem -- you're just culturally incompatible.
In the User Trust and Safety community, this is affectionately called TTP, or Time To Penis. Whenever you launch a service that allows user-generated content it's something to consider.
for c in `git log --oneline --reverse | awk '{print $1}'`
do
clear; echo "$c"; git --no-pager show $c:README; sleep 1;
done
is what one could use on a terminal --oneline
with --pretty=format:"%h"1- clone the repo on github 2- clone the clone locally 3- patch the file 4- commit (with a meaningful commit message) 5- push the patch to the clone on github 6- go to the github web to post a pull request.
Plus, that would leave a trace on my github account (I assume that I could:
7- delete my github clone.
but only after the pull request is acted upon (which even if automatic is bound to take some time during which this github activity could be seen).
The lesson here is that providing small patches is too costly.
The ideal workflow for me would be:
1. Clone the repo locally (not making a public fork that requires cleanup).
2. Make changes and commit them (not making a branch that requires cleanup).
3. Send the patch (or patches) for review.
4. If the patch is reviewed, it's either automatically landed or a project committer applies it and commits it. Either way, there's nothing else I have to do at this point besides deleting my local clone.
I can see how the GitHub model works for people who contribute to the same projects frequently, but there's too much stuff you have to do (forking, cloning, branching) and then un-do if you're making a drive-by change and don't want the project to clutter up your profile.
Even if you're making complex changes, I think GitHub is much easier to work with than the classic "patch" emails.
I frequently will randomly fork a project that I'm using and submit a minor pull request when I wouldn't hunt down their source control system, clone it locally, make changes, find their preferred email/patch system, look up the commands to create a patch file, and email the patch.
GitHub is drop dead simple:
1. Click fork. 2. Edit your fork online or clone locally, committing changes. 3. Click the "pull request" button.
Just because a model is new doesn't mean it's worse.
True, you still have to make a commit message and click submit on the pull request, but the cloning/forking is taken care of behind the scene
curl https://github.com/art-dot-git/80x40/blob/master/README | sudo tee /etc/motd >/dev/nullIt should be:
sudo curl -L https://github.com/art-dot-git/80x40/raw/master/README -o /etc/motd
sudo bash -c 'curl https://github.com/art-dot-git/80x40/blob/master/README > /etc/motd'Traditionally, ASCII art is limited to ASCII 32-126 plus tabs.