dissent

This is exactly what I disagree with. It forces you to consider git your package boundary. You're now organising your source as if it was a package registry, when git can (and should) be orthogonal to that. Your problem with cross module development may even be because you're using git this way. If you want to do cross package development, having them in a monorepo and building two artifacts is the easy way. If that's not an option because the two packages need to be separate, you need a workflow that pulls the source together again.

To say nothing about hardcoded repo URLs (not resolvable identifiers), transient dependencies, URL schemes, and trying to pretend github is the only package source.

Exactly my point. You assume the source is the thing you want to consume, but it isn't. Package registries are much more than a convenience and packages don't necessarily map 1:1 with source code repositories. Nor should they need to. You shouldn't have to build every dependency and care where their source code is.

Sure you want the source available, otherwise it's closed source, but ideally you never need to look at it unless you're a contributor.

git has really conflated the two concepts.

Not at all. What I mean is each sex has a vested interest in the well being of the other, since both of them have a vested interest in the well being in their children of either sex. If my wife gains from affirmative action while her 5 sons lose, it's a net loss to my wife. By the same token, emancipation of women is good for the man with 5 daughters.

The race comparison doesn't hold in quite the same way, because there isn't automatically a heredity line. One group can just exploit the other indefinitely.

You're right that it's always been there, but wrong that you think it can be won. Every woman's gain is her son's loss, and every father's gain is his daughter's loss. It's an iterative game with a long term aggregate outcome for the society in question. You're framing it from the perspective of individuals. Women cannot win without men also winning and vice versa.

If you can point a package manager at a git repo and use it like package, this is accidental convenience. Source code repositories should be factored as source code, with a build step to transform them into packages. For some languages that means compilation, for others it means transpiling, minifying, or just copying files. The resulting artifact is a different shape, designed for consumption.

If you use git for packages, then your repo becomes the package boundary. You no longer have the option of producing multiple packages from one repo, or even one package from multiple repos.

Is this satire?

Come on, it was the 1930s, in Germany and Hitler and the Nazis (the real ones we got the name from) were actually in power. You're comparing apples to potatoes.

Godwin's Law. But without the usual irony.

If I said I wasn't a Musk or Tesla fanboy, I would expect you to take me at my word. I gave a two sided account of my Tesla experience. I do like this car, and I bought it because I liked it.

Maybe it gets flagged because there's no chance of having an intellectually honest discussion if it involves Elon or Tesla? I certainly don't flag them.

Thanks for the thoughtful response. You know what, I do feel a bit conned by this vision only implementation. It wasn't obvious when we test drove it, and they didn't mention it. When we picked the car up, on the shop floor, before it had even moved we saw the "Park Assist Degraded" warning and questioned it. They assured us it just needed time to calibrate. It has never gone away. It will never go away.

As a consumer, I'm pissed off. I do feel conned.

But I'm fine explaining Musk's promises away as hubris. He made promises he should not have, and couldn't keep. He shouldn't have done it, but I do think he believed it. I don't think it was an intent to mislead. Incompetence before malice and so on.

He deserves credit where credit is due. He did push us into the EV era.

I saw more of an awkward guy doing a weird gesture, either because he was trying to be edgy, or he meant it as something else. He might even have done it as an ill advised joke because people were already calling him one.

It's silly to call him a nazi because he doesn't fit the profile well at all. It only works if you redefine nazi to be whatever you don't agree with at the moment. This might even be harmful, as it's an obvious strawman that provides cover for his real faults.

He denies being a nazi. We can take his word on that. One thing about nazis is they are weren't shy about their beliefs.

I actually don't really care if he's a nice person or not, just like I don't care who the CEO of other car makers are. But for the record I think it's pretty silly to call him a Nazi.

I kind of don't really care, as long as I get good service if my car is affected. I'm not defending them here. The next few years will tell if it was a bad buy or not. So far I'm really happy with it.

My point was there's a huge anti-Tesla bias entirely as a reaction to Elon Musk. It's emotional, not rational. It's not objective criticism of Tesla. Sure, there are some awful moves he's made, vision only, FSD claims, but if it was another car company it wouldn't even be on HN. Wasn't so long ago that VW (a manufacturer literally started by the Nazis by the way!) were caught falsifying their emissions.

I was in the market for an EV due to great tax advantages. I assumed BYD would be the sweet spot, but test drove a Tesla for comparison.

I ended up with the Tesla. It is hands down the better vehicle and I'd be very surprised if anybody seriously thought otherwise. There wasn't very much in it price wise so that wasn't a factor.

The BYD (Sealion 7) wasn't even a bad car. It's a good car. But it's inspired and just a little gaudy. It felt like a conventional SUV with an EV powertrain. The Tesla felt like the future.

I bought a new Model Y a few months ago.

On the whole, it's a great car, it really is. They've pretty much nailed the fundamentals. It's opinionated, not unlike Apple, but if the opinions work for you you'll enjoy the car.

But there are shortcomings, and they are jarring. The parking sensors basically don't work at all due to being vision only - and apparently can't be made to work properly. The lane change and reverse warnings are just crap and may as well not be there. My previous car implemented these to perfection, but I cannot trust the Tesla. The autopilot is a gimmick that offers you nothing but increased risk - and there's no way in hell I'd trust FSD for car that can't accurately detect the distance of my house when parking. The big touchscreen is great for passengers, but outright dangerous for drivers.

Having said all that, it seems strong emotions around Musk and Tesla cause people to want Tesla to fail. They want the car to be bad. There is so much motivated reasoning around this brand that it's hard to take any article like the above, or half the comments in this thread, seriously.

The conclusion of the article is "yes", because you usually end up saving more time in the long run than you think.

But there's an even better reason. Consistency, encapsulation of process, and a form of self documentation. This is the real goal - the time savings are a bonus.

Homebrew's built a package manager on top of git. I'm talking about platforms that generate built artifacts and have package managers with dependency resolution to fetch them.

That may be true, but if you think your definition of morality is correct and anybody who thinks otherwise needs to be punished, then no wonder you've ended up with an authoritarian who's beaten you at your own game.

It's also got nothing to do with Apple fanboyism. The same is true for all corporations in the US.

He might be lynched by his shareholders :)

There's a big difference between being a party member actually in a government position (war related, no less), and being a businessman surviving under that regime. You're not only making an absurd comparison, you're calling for punishment for somebody who hasn't even remotely broken any laws. Can't you see you're being authoritarian?

Does anybody actually find Autopilot to be more than a novelty? Having to look ahead like a robot and keep your hands on the wheel is exactly how you drive without it. It feels like placing trust in the system and accepting risk without any tangible benefit.

This implies there's some kind of shared resource out there on the network that your devs are developing on. Why not make all these resources part of your local dev stack, served on localhost, and use dummy credentials? You can even commit them because they're not sensitive.

Not in the context of claiming NAT offers protection.

An ipv6 lan with default ingress deny is more secure than ipv4+nat

NAT isn't protecting them. Not being on the public internet at all is protecting them.

NAT is then unprotecting them a little by letting them punch out again. It's super easy for routers to implement this behaviour by default if your LAN is publicly addressable, and removes a whole class of exploits caused by applications making NAT hacks.

Couple of problems with git.

In the enterprise, RBAC is a royal pain. You give out a URL and it's hard to know if the consumer can fetch it.

URLs are absolute, there is no resolution by name. Compounded further if you want transient dependencies (maybe not needed in this instance though).

In your project, you end up hardcoding the https/ssh scheme.

It's a well understood principle and an abstract value. It's got nothing to do with the US per-se, except it found it's way into your constitution and is protected. The conservative right were never for free speech, that was plainly obvious from the start. That doesn't mean principled free speech absolutists can't exist. And it doesn't mean they need to be pure. You can permit them their flaws while still holding up the value. More free speech, rather than less.

I know what you mean, but there seems to be some kind of misplaced fear about this which has led us down the garden path of unmaintainable config (or even trying to jinja template it!)

If your config is turing complete and consumed as-is, then without a lot of discipline you can dig yourself into a hole, sure.

If you're producing YAML that is not turing complete, that constraint means you have to code in a way that produces deterministic output. It's actually very safe, and YAML maps 1:1 to types in something like Python.

My favourite go-to example is for AWS Cloudformation:

https://github.com/cloudtools/troposphere

I happen to agree in this principle, but for most of human history it would have been considered a radical idea. Much of the world still doesn't fully buy into it. It's a philosophical position, not a universal truth. You need to persuade, not force. Banning people is not the answer, provided they are communicating in good faith.

Write it in a higher level language and generate the YAML from that. See the YAML as a wire protocol, not something you author things in.

STRIPE_KEY I understand because it's an external service that you can't really simulate locally. But DATABASE_URL - why not just default this to localhost, and default the secret to a dummy string? If your workflow doesn't even use secrets in the first place, you can never accidentally commit them.