gitrebase

Reshared: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21735148

Nice article. TL;DR:

- Start with the answer first.

- Group and summarize your supporting arguments.

- Logically order your supporting ideas.

I think the first point is the most important one. To get the attention of busy executives it is important to give them the answer first and then elaborate. The answer would get their attention and that's a battle half won already.

You are talking about very large cities only. How about most of the U.S. with smaller cities and towns?

What does it mean for a black hole to spin at the speed of light? Which point on it spins at that speed?

MD5 is not an encryption algorithm. There is no key!

Microsoft Natural Ergonomic 4000

Uh? Your parent comment was referring to often ill suited "X considered harmful" type of articles.

I doubt any study of hash functions restricts itself to studying a very tiny subset of all possible (infinite) inputs. The security of hash functions is always studied under the assumption of arbitrary inputs.

I find kragan's comments to be creating strawman arguments. They are unnecessarily confrontational.

git commit --amend changes author time.

git commit --amend --reset-author changes both author time and commit time.

git rebase changes commit time.

All three commands can be used just before a merge and push to clean things up. So there is no guarantee that the author time or commit time we see in the final commit history accurately represents the actual time at which the work was done.

Can you describe some attributes of Ocaml and Racket that make them good contenders for expressing thoughts of mind?

Also is it Racket specifically that makes it a good contender or is it the fact that it is a Lisp that makes it a good contender? Would any other Lisp like Scheme or Clojure or Common Lisp be equally good?

> Japanese buildings also are massively lacking in emergency exits.

This does not sound right. On the contrary, I have always seen emergency exits in Japanese buildings.

But how would he learn how easy it is to get other's usernames without actually taking it? He has to run through the whole process at least once to be sure that the process he would share with us works or not.

I like that Python is quite close to my raw thoughts for simple problems. So writing an algorithm in Python almost feels like writing pseudocode. Heck, these days given an option between writing pseudocode and writing Python code, I choose Python for simple problems.

Is there a similar programming language that makes mathematicians feel at home? Something that makes them feel that they would rather write their implementation in that language itself instead of writing it with math notation on paper first?

This almost looks like a quack article but then there are prominent names like Hameroff and Stanza in the article which leaves me very confused. Why would such intelligent people engage this kind of pseudoscientific speculation? Or is there some scientific evidence for this kind of stuff?

I am at loss to understand this. Why take your own life for what clearly looks like an error in evaluation and could possibly be fixed with reevaluation?