baot

Your 3rd sentence seems unrelated to the 2nd.

Ah, if only the professional electrical engineers had thought of batteries. Thank goodness there are software developers to tell them what to do.

That sounds like a lot of loophole-ridden bureaucracy to accommodate non-residents driving up the price of housing.

Not if there's induced demand. Areas without zoning laws have been tried, we usually tear them down.

This isn't actually an attack on their political stance though, it's just attacking their personal morals.

In my opinion, if you say that a company unfairly avoids costs of regulations then it makes perfect sense to use them and transfer that saving to your own pocket. You're just confirming that you really believe it's an unfair market.

Perhaps Airbnb saw how Uber went almost entirely unpunished in its pivot from ride-sharing to taxi company and thought they wanted some of that.

Because local housing naturally has a limited supply making it a natural monopoly in addition to the fact that, since it's very difficult to live without housing, it is a one-sided market without alternatives.

So, as much as you'd like to pretend it's just a matter of personal freedoms, bypassing housing codes via the guise of a tech company just enables negative externalities that restrict the personal freedoms of others. And the 'others' are the people who actually live there, making them more important than you.

Well advertising is over 80% of their Q32019 revenue, what else do they want it for?

It's hard to believe that the data in my exercise tracker has real, fundamental worth when I see so much targeted advertising that fails to leverage the data they already have. I suppose it doesn't matter to Google if someone buys a location-specific ad for a place I used to live in despite them knowing where my phone, purchases, and electoral record say I live but then why would them knowing my heart rate help them if they already know I bought a bicycle, search about bicycle parts, frequently use bicycle maps, and travel at about 15 mph?

Furthermore, if you're forced to use it, it's because you need it to interact with others' versions of the repo, in which case branching matters.

You've misinterpreted you finding git to be difficult as everyone finding it difficult, leading to an argument based on git being difficult that will never be compelling to those who didn't find learning git to be difficult. I'm one of them - I don't have any CS training - and so are the interns and new starters who use it without complaint in my workplace.

If you are forced into using it to everything but still haven't taken the steps necessary for understanding it, why is that my problem?

>In my experience, saving a little on runtime doesn't make up for having to crack open the manual even once.

Please don't ask me to give up features so you don't have to read the documentation. It is the most basic step of being a good citizen in a software ecosystem.

>Software development industry could gain a lot of productivity in the form of more sane de facto version control system, with saner defaults and better discoverability.

So write it.

I'm sorry to be so dismissive but it seems notable that those who like git get along with using it while those who complain about it just throw peanuts from the gallery. If it's obvious to you where git's flaws lie, it should be easy to write an alternative. If saner defaults and better discoverability are all you need, you don't even have to change the underlying structure, meaning you can just write a wrapper which will be found by all the competent developers whose productivity is so damaged that they do what they do when they encounter any problem and search the internet for a solution.

It seems notable this hasn't happened.

    man git

The problem is people are unwilling to read the documentation. I have little patience for them demanding I change my workflow to accommodate their sloth.

Fortunately, I don't have to worry because the overlap of 'people who don't RTFM' and 'people who are capable of articulating how they want to change git' have so far failed to write a wrapper that's capable of manipulating git trees without frustrating everyone else on the same repo.

And of course they can't: version control[1] is not a trivial problem. So I see no reason for us to demand that someone knows how to do it without studying when we don't expect the same for other auxiliary parts of software development such as build systems or containerisation or documentation.

[1] As opposed to the backup system the link wants to use it as: asking better questions is another important step. There's little reason to checkout an older commit as a developer unless you want to change the history, in which case it's important you understand how that will interact with other users of the same branch. If you don't need it to be distributed, you already have diff or cp or rsync or a multitude of other tools to accomplish effective backups.

You can't checkout if you have tracked changes. If you mean you lose untracked changes, then a) it's unsolvable in the general case unless we all start doing out-of-source builds, so don't have to worry about build artefacts and b) it's already solved by git-worktree, so if you haven't RTFM, adding new features won't matter anyway.

They can't afford a few thousand for training, so spend more thousands rewriting? The original Haskell devs had to learn, too.

Gaming as a hobby is no more rational than fashion.

No, but it illustrates what I was getting at: that's dozens of operating systems.

Because Linux isn't a UI.

I've written code exactly like that and realised that it just kicks the can down the road: you're still allocating memory from a fixed block, it's just now the malloc is written by you, with more bugs, and you still need to deal with variable allocation delays and running out of memory. The real issue is if you don't know at compile-time what resources you'll need at run-time. For some problems that can be an intractable problem for making a safe product, including, to my knowledge, everything that runs on a rich OS.

I type with two thumbs on a phone because I type with two hands on a keyboard. In fact, one hand is tied up on a computer - on a mouse - more often than I can't use one with my phone. It's an acceptable tradeoff.

Ironically, the last time I needed Windows to run a game was because of Denuvo. I wouldn't have needed it if I'd pirated it.

There is, it's strncpy_s and it was added in C11. And I know, nobody uses C11: that's a security failure.