Does the Dolby treatment carry into Linux with comparable performance, or does "best sound" require Windows?
1,951 karma · joined August 20, 2019
What marketing does to people
The onus of the proof regarding their meaningful and transformative nature is on you.
The largest niche LLMs have so far managed to carve for themselves is software code, with the jury still on the fence as whether the productivity needle actually moved in one direction or the other, and the other, literal jury, enshrining the fact that vibe-coded software is not copyrightable and becomes a public good, that should give pause to any company living of selling software or software-related services as whether they want to poison their well.
Web search hasn't been disrupted very much either with users being quick to realise how hallucinogenic LLM summaries are (with the fact that it's baked in the tech and practically unsolvable being one of the reasons I don't consider LLMs a significant stepping stone towards actual AI).
The age of computers that respond to voice orders was 10 years ago, with Siri, Alexa, Google Assistant, nobody could care less then, and the fact the same systems became less capable after re-inventing themselves on top of LLMs probably won't have people care more now.
I'd rather be surprised if they are still doing business by then.
--courtesy for all the LLM pushers so they don't have to bother commenting on this one
Again, that's orthogonal: you may or may not use "named branches" (the kind of which persists at commit level), rebasing works either way consistently and predictably.
> It is something that has to be bolted on with an extension.
The extension ships in core, UX is why it's not enabled by default.
> IIUC Git also does not care much about the rebase target being a "branch".
Indeed, it's just that things likely get weird (for no good reason) when you don't (detached head, "unreachable" commits)
> I can live with Git because Git is "enough" if used carefully and after coming to terms with the non-intutive UI.
That's our sad state of affairs. JJ helps a bit, though.
True, Apple is no more no less guilty of this than the competition, but they are also not shifting the needle while pretending to do so, with so many untaped opportunities.
Among the tricks being used was remotefilelogs, which is a way to "hydrate" content locally on-demand, which was mimicked in git many years later with Microsoft's git-vfs. Same goes with binary/large files that git eventually got as git-lfs.
It's funny to think that a big reason for git to be "fast" today is by playing catch-up with mercurial, which carries this "forever stigma" of being slow.
I love jumping in discussions about git branching, because that's a very objective and practical area where git made the playing field worse. Less and less people feel it, because people old-enough to have used branch-powered VCSes have long forgotten about them, and those who didn't forget are under-represented in comparison to the newcomers who never have experienced anything else since git became a monopoly.
Anyhow, let's pick django as a project that was using a VCS with branches before moving to git/github, and have a look at the repo history: https://github.com/django/django/commits/stable/6.0.x
Yes, every commit is prefixed with the branch name. Because, unlike mercurial, git is incapable of storing this in its commit metadata. That's ridiculous, that's obscene, but that's the easiest way to do it with git.
not sure what you mean to say, but for thoroughness' sake, no: git and mercurial concepts are not interchangeable, with git having mostly an inferior model.
To give examples: git has no concept of branching (in the way every VCS but Git uses the term). A branch in git is merely a tag on the tip of a series meant to signify that all ancestors belong to the same lineage. This comes with the implication that this lineage information is totally lost when two branches merge (you can't tell which side of the merge corresponded to which lineage). The ugly and generalised workaround is to abuse commit message (e.g. "merge feat-ABC into main") to store an essential piece of the repository history that the VCS cannot take.
Another example is phasing: mercurial records at commit level whether it was exchanged with others or not. That draws a clean line between the history that's always safe to rewrite, and which that is subject to conflicting merges if the person you shared those commits with also happened to rewrite them on their end.
> Then one day I was getting ready to go on a work trip with a half-finished feature on my work laptop, and realised there was simply no in-model way for backing that wip up to the repo. If I lost my laptop, I lost the progress. mercurial-scm fails at SCM.
Sorry to be blunt, but that's a skill issue: hg is no different than every other VCS in that regard. If you want your WIP changes to leave your laptop, you've got to push them somewhere, just like you would in git.
- rebasing in Mercurial simply means chopping a subtree off of the history and re-attaching it to a different parent commit. In that sense, rebasing is a very useful and common history-rewriting operation. In fact, it's even simpler and more powerful/versatile than in git, because mercurial couldn't care less if the sub-tree you are rebasing belongs to a branch or not: it's just a DAG. It gets transplanted from A to B. A may or may not be your checked commit, or be the tip of a branch, doesn't matter.
- that mercurial requires a configuration toggle before rebasing can be used (i.e. that the user need to enable the extension explicitly) is a way to encourage interested users to learn their tool, and grow its capabilities together with their knowledge. It's opinionated, it may be too much hand-holding for some, but there is an elegant simplicity in keeping the help pages and autocomplete commands just as complex as the user can take it.
Yes we are? The slow paths of mercurial have been rewritten in C (and more recently in Rust) and improved the perf story substantially, without taking away from the wild modularity and extensibility hg always had.
For your use-case, mercurial has had a `largefiles`² extension for a very long time (long before git-lfs).
> I liked its features better, but chose git, and that was the correct decision.
Anyhow, my personal story with git is that I bought into the hype and social effects without really challenging my assumptions ("it must be the best, everyone says so"), until I got very fed-up with its obnoxious UI, and someone on IRC told me "ehh, give hg a shot". Nowadays, I mostly interact with git repos through hg-git and jj.
¹: https://www.kernel.org/doc/ols/2006/ols2006v2-pages-91-98.pd...