snowfarthing

As someone who doesn't like to see history lost via "rebase" and "squashing" branches, I have had to think through some of these things, since my personal preferences are often trampled on by company policy.

I have only been in one place where "rebase" is used regularly, and now that I'm a little more familiar with it, I don't mind using it to bring in changes from a parent branch into a working branch, if the working branch hasn't been pushed to origin. It still weirds me out somewhat, and I don't see why a simple merge can't just be the preferred way.-

I have, however, seen "squashing" regularly (and my current position uses it as well as rebasing) -- and I don't particularly like it, because sometimes I put in notes and trials that get "lost" as the task progresses, but nonetheless might be helpful for future work. While it's often standard to delete "squashed" branches, I cannot help but think that, for history-minded folks like me, a good compromise would be to "squash and keep" -- so that the individual commits don't pollute the parent branch, while the details are kept around for anyone needing to review them.

Having said that, I've never been in a position where I felt like I need to "forcibly" push for my preferences. I just figure I might as well just "go with the flow", even if a tiny bit of me dies every time I squash or rebase something, or delete a branch upon merging!

XKCD has a fun comic about a guy who recalculates the world records of pole vaulters based on the gravity of the locations of various events. Earth's surface gravity is by no means constant -- it varies, presumably due to the density and altitude of any particular location.

Indeed, "sea level" is defined as the level that the sea would be at, if the area of question didn't have the land mass, but still had the same gravity. Of the various possibilities, this particular definition is useful, in that it you can expect the air pressure at a particular altitude to be the same, regardless of where you are, after factoring in things like temperature and humidity -- which is kindof important if you're a pilot of some sort!

With the lack of precision for clocks the way they are, and worries about variance in travel time due to traffic, distractions, potty emergencies, and so forth, the more natural way to handle precision is to give yourself a 5-to-15-minute-to-an-hour buffer to ensure that you're in your seat when the clock ticks from 11:59 to 12:00.

And yes, 5-to-15-to-an-hour is something that varies, depending on the length of your trip. 5 is appropriate when you're in your office and you need to get to the conference room, 15 if you're driving from your nearby home, an hour if you're flying in, or if you have to drive 200 miles or so -- particularly if it's a trip you don't regularly take!

For meetings, I actually give myself 16 "precise" minutes -- one minute less than 15, with 4-minute-30-second snoozes, so I can have both adequate warning, and regular pokes, to make sure I can do something on time.

There have been times when my wife and I resorted to including send times, because the latency between our phones was ridiculously high. I really wish SMS and email would include both sent and received times, so that latency issues can be accounted for.

I remember a discussion of why it was acceptable and even expected to be late at parties, but for work events, you had to be on time or better yet early, and the general consensus was "when you're doing work, you need to be precise, but when you're doing leisure, it's good to have time to relax while waiting for guests, and for guests not to stress getting there at a precise moment!"

I strive to be on time for work things, but don't mind being a little late to parties -- and this drives me and my my wife nuts, because my wife wants to be on time for parties.

What I don't get is how he says "we think of year and month as intervals, but it doesn't make sense to think of minutes as intervals" -- and I can't help but wonder "why not?" When we say something happened at 1:35pm, we really mean it happened somewhere on or after 1:35:00pm and before 1:36:00pm. Why is this any less natural than saying "it happened in 2007" or "it happened in July"?

One of the things that intrigues me about Google's Plus Code addressing system is how it converts longitude and lattitude into "area block intervals" -- the first four digits represent a large area, the next four + three represent a small area, and if you know the large area, you can specify only the latter seven, or if the area is big enough, you could ignore the last three digits after +, or if you're talking about a ranch or a campground, you could even specify just the last three digits. The first four are analogous to "year", the second four to "month", and the last three to "day". This can even be continued into smaller and smaller intervals, just as we can divide a "day" into "hours" and "minutes" and "seconds" and so forth, we can specify smaller and smaller areas with plus codes.

This comment reminds me of a video I saw recently (not sure if I could find it) where someone broke down failure points for projects based on different aspects of engineering, using "designing a drone" as the example project.

For someone working on the systems interactions, the failure point is making sure all the bits of the project are working together.

For someone working on optics, the failure point is finding cost-effective optics -- if you can't do that, then the project isn't going to go forward.

For the hobbyist? The failure point is <i>getting the project done</i>. Every other concern takes a back seat to this!

From my vantage point as someone living in America, however, I'm probably in a similar boat to you, because of my inexperience in electronics. If I want to take a deep dive into the subject, I'd be much better off getting a lot of generic cheap parts I can accidentally burn through, but would give me 90% of what I need, and I can worry about whether or not I need something highly specialized later, as my projects -- and my knowledge and skills! -- mature.

Nowadays, as someone who has heavily used LaTeX, I think WYSIWYG is rightly dismissed as WYSIAYG (ie "What You See Is ALL You Get").

There's a certain power that comes when you can designate that something is a section header, or a title, or a paragraph, or an equation -- and that power is felt when you decide you want to change the style for all the titles and section headers, or change how you number and reference equations and theorems.

Word processors (to the best of my knowledge -- it's been years since I've used one) can't do this. This kind of power comes from markup languages, like LaTeX or HTML/CSS (if you organize your documents correctly).

Having said that, there are LaTeX editors that both provide a certain amount of "What You See Is What You Get" (I think one is called "LyX", and I think GUI Emacs provides this, too) but nonetheless allow you to use LaTeX directly when you need it; I guess this is equivalent to the "Show Codes" ability that WordPerfect provided. (I wouldn't know, though, because I prefer to use Vim to write my documents.)

Also, I would agree that when things become freely available, that can be a game-changer, but as someone who grew up with a terminal and a giant computer with 8-inch disks and an Atari 800XL, when a neighbor showed off his Macintosh, it would be out of the question for my family to think of that as "free".

But those of us who think the entire idea of "patentability" is a joke in and of itself.

All these fuzzy lines behind this "who invented what" is a major reason I consider patents to be evil -- the entire system sets up artificial and harmful barriers keeping ideas from fertilizing each other and growing beyond our wildest imaginations.

(And as someone who strongly dislikes all things Apple -- but not quite as much as all things Windows -- I cannot help but observe that both Apple and Microsoft simultaneously deserve both more and less acknowledgement, all depending on how one looks at things, for their inventiveness).

On the other hand, Xena might also have a brain broken for written communication, and this is the best way to deal with it!

I have only recently learned that I have ADHD, and have been trying to iron out all the implications of that (well, that and autism, which I also only recently learned about) -- I cannot help but wonder if a workflow like this would help me in my writing....

It doesn't matter if it's literally stealing -- it's the mentality that is important here.

Sure, you could always quit -- but the thing is, if you're pushing for these kinds of policies, you may very well push your best talent to accepting that option!

I think the ambiguity of the first two amendments -- heck, the Fourth has been gutted almost to non-existence by all the exceptions the Supreme Court has made over the years -- is the desire of certain people, particularly ones who are in favor of government control, to control their fellow citizens in ways those citizens may very well be unhappy about.

This isn't just a Constitution problem, either: it happens with all law, to one degree or another, and in all levels of government, from HOAs all the way up to the Federal and even International ones.

The issue isn't the wording, though -- it's humans being human, for better and for worse. While we can try to mitigate the problems arising from humans being human, there's only so much we can do!

I consider this a feature rather than a bug. If you don't advocate for yourself and those you care about, who will? There's a certain level of ethics where you may be hurting someone else, but dealing with that is ... complicated ... to say the least!

What's more, the very "loophole" that enables a murderer to get away with murder is what an innocent person would use to be unjustly convicted of murder.

There are very few rules that will only permit good outcomes and never bad ones.

This reminds me of an article I read several years ago (I wish I had the link!) that explained that because the Law has contradictions, you can literally prove anything!

The article then went on to say this isn't necessarily a bad thing: two lawyers put their arguments before the judge, and the judge can then decide what's best for that particular situation.

The author of the article was at least somewhat libertarian, because he suggested that this is necessary when there's a single body of Law to deal with; the other way to deal with these problems is to go with arbitrators instead -- but in that case, the "Law" would be decided between the two parties and the arbitrator, which has its own twists and turns!

What should be done for the high-school freshman dropout who goes on to get a commercial driver's license, and then goes on to get an endorsement for transporting hazardous materials?

I'd take out the reference to "job" -- because the only State violence where it's legal to commit violence against another person without provocation is in the Military (and even then, it's subject to Rules of Engagement and other protocols); whereas even though police have powers not normally exercised by other citizens to arrest people, both police and citizens have the right to respond to lethal force with lethal force, which can often (but not always -- "lethal" can mean severe maiming, for example, or an attempt to incapacitate) lead to the death of the person being responded to.

And in reading your comment, I just realized there's a difference between casual conversation and writing something down.

I can easily say "Hey, let's meet next Wednesday!" and you may reply with "Oh, great, I'll put it in the calendar, the 8th it is!" and you reply with "No, I meant the 15th" -- and this reduces the ambiguity. This kind of thing would be happening in "real time", so being perfectly clear isn't as important.

However, if you write "next Wednesday" in a contract, and then complete it on the 15th instead of the 8th, and it's taken to Court ... it's a lot harder to figure out what the the original conversation was like, that led to the writing of the contract!

Hence, it makes sense to use as unambiguous language as possible when writing a contract.

I like to use the word "superstition" to describe my attempts to prevent migraines by wearing sunglasses, eating chocolate, and avoiding orange juice. I only have vague corollaries to believe these are helpful (particularly since I don't get migraines often, as awful as it is when I get hit by one), so it's not fair to attribute any of these with certainty -- but it's also not fair to dismiss them out of hand, either.

Sure, some "superstitions" are the result of random folklore, and can be ignored without consequence. (Knock on wood!) But others are the result of meme-ized facts, passed on via something that's folklorish and easy to remember to share.

Thus, it is fair to use the word "superstition" to describe something you think might be harmless, but may actually have serious consequences, if ignored, after all.

I like to use words like "thus", "hence", and "therefore" a lot -- but this is because, as a mathematician, I picked up a style of writing that has been deeply influenced by the mathematics I learned.

For that matter, the first day I was in Great Britain, I noticed that the other Americans I met had British accents, and I noticed in the few hours talking with them, I was already picking up on the accent myself.

It's only natural to pick up the language and idioms of the cultures you happen to be immersed in!

(And this applies to Law and Engineering as much as anything else, too.)

I decided in 11th grade to be a mathematician because I read Jurassic Park, went down a rabbit hole about chaos theory, and ran smack-dab into a conversation where someone asked Mandelbrot if the mathematicians knew he was using their work in practical ways, and his answer was "No, and they probably don't care."

Something clicked -- I realized mathematics was so beautiful, it was a worthy pursuit in and of itself -- and thus I went on to get a PhD in math, decided not to stay in academia, and be frustrated that most of the web development I was doing wasn't sufficiently mathematical.

Having said that, I also cannot help but think that connections to the real world ought to be pursued -- both because some of the hardest and most interesting mathematical problems come from practical concerns, and because practical concerns draw on math to simplify those concerns and make new discoveries. Indeed, it is a crying shame that there are efforts (at least, on the philosophical level) to try to remove math from physics and engineering, as if the math is what makes those subjects hard!

Also, we don't know what approach will work with each kid. It would be a great benefit if we tried different approaches, some of which may "click", some of which will fall flat.

In this day and age, I would think "politician" would be worse than "grifter".

(Well, maybe not just this day and age ... this is a rather timeless observation.)

In my experience, it's been just as difficult to convince conservatives to let go of the notion that only government can solve problems, as it has been for liberals. For this kind of "lunacy", you generally have to go full-blown libertarian -- and very few people listen to libertarians.

As for free market health care and education: Are they really impossible, though? And if it's "purely" impossible, is it really impossible to introduce some fundamental free-market reforms, like school choice, or the ability to choose your own doctor?

As for "government-run education being successful" -- ever since I started school in the 1980s, government-run schools have been in crisis mode -- indeed, it's what's led to things like the Department of Education and No Child Left Behind. What's more, there is no evidence things are improving, and plenty of evidence that it's been degrading over time.

How many children's futures are you willing to cut off at the kneecaps until you finally admit that government education, particularly in the United States, has serious problems?

> I've never seen this evidence, but to speculate: probably since the colonist were, well, colonists, and literally building every industry from the ground up, they had to be.

I would strongly recommend looking into John Taylor Gatto's "An Underground History of American Education", at least as a starting point. Indeed, that is where I learned that a literacy drop between WWI and WWII raised eyebrows, but when it came to the Vietnam era, the Army had to investigate "How can so many people fake illiteracy?" and found that the answer was "They aren't faking it."

> After this though, in the 19th century, we knew most people could not read or write.

Now it's your turn: I'd like to see your evidence for this.

> True, but worker widgets who can read.

That's assuming that everyone (including educators and politicians) think reading is important.

>> There is a strong tendency to recognize "market failure" as a problem -- but it is rather rare to see people discuss "regulatory failure"

> I experience the opposite, but granted I live in Texas. The default mode is regulations are bad, and the less the better.

Have you considered the possibility that what is happening in Texas is an attempt to recognize harmful regulations, and weed them out so that people can have more freedom to function?

>> The assumption that all regulations exist because the alternative is worse is deeply flawed

> It's not an assumption, it's an observation. When it comes to education and others.

I cannot help but worry that your observations are cherry-picked. There's plenty of regulatory fail to observe for the few who look to observe it.

> The thing is the free market relies on there being a free market. Not every market can be a free market. That's a problem. I've already explained how education can never be a free market above, [ed: I can't find that explanation] but another example is healthcare. I can't compete in healthcare because of the HUGE time investment in schooling. I also have zero choice as a consumer - I just go to the nearest hospital. There's also no visibility in price because you have to diagnose me first, and that can be wrong or things can pop up later.

> Healthcare is not, and will never be, a free market. Even now the US has a largely socialized healthcare system, it just so happens to be the worst socialized healthcare system. Primarily because we've handed it off to the private sector, who have incentives to actually make it worse. Meaning, insurance thrives when you receive less care. The inefficiency is built into the profit motive, and you can't get around it.

I have both experienced and seen what health care in Great Britain is like, and based on the statistics I hav come across over time, to this day, to suggest Great Britain's health care is better than America's is a big stretch. Something similar can be said of Canadian health care (Pittsburg, PA, has more MRI machines than all of Canada!), and certainly, Cuba's awful health care system should be considered "socialized". To the degree that American health care is better than these systems, it's largely because of the private aspects of it -- and what's worse, to the degree that it's harmful, it is because of government regulations that kill competition. How is it that the law requires that I have the freedom to choose where I want my car repaired, but that I must find an "in-network" doctor? Why can I purchase auto insurance from any company in any State, but I must have insurance sold in my home State? How the heck are these specific kinds of restrictions supposed to make health care better?!?

Many of the concerns you gave about health care apply to the car repair market too -- both in terms of insurance and in terms of car repairs and maintenance. Why is it that mostly-privatized car repair is market-friendly, but health care is not?

Then again, it may be because FOIL is stupid.

I've always had a difficult time wrapping my head around this acronym. What counts as "outer"? What counts as "inner"? And yes, when there are more than two items (not necessarily variables!) to be multiplied, you suddenly have to ignore this little trick, because now it's confusing to know what to do about the middle stuff -- and it doesn't take into account non-commutativity either.

And yes, some of the problem may be due to my (very recently diagnosed! at least, formally) autistic mind. But I cannot help but think that if someone with a PhD in math struggles with and largely ignores "FOIL", then the problem may be with the technique, and not with the people who don't understand it.

Your wife teaches in a one-room schoolhouse?

If not, then your wife's experience doesn't say anything about how well the Little House/Christmas Story model works.

Indeed, I would go so far as to suspect that this is likely a failure of the "integrate kids no matter what, and force them to learn at the exact same pace, no matter what" style of schooling that has become so ubiquitous in modern society.

Did it really improve, though? There's evidence that Colonial/Revolutionary-Era American populace was highly educated, and that education had been gradually going downhill as the United States gradually adopted the Prussian model of education -- an education system designed to produce loyal soldiers and interchangeable worker widgets.

There is a strong tendency to recognize "market failure" as a problem -- but it is rather rare to see people discuss "regulatory failure". Yet there is this endless cycle of increasing regulation, where a politician or bureaucrat identifies a problem with the market -- real or imagined -- and then offers a solution. That solution the situation even worse, but politicians and bureaucrats will blame this on "market failure", and then insist on another solution ... and so it goes.

Yes, it's true that some regulation is necessary. But how much effort is put into place to make sure that the regulations put in place do what they are supposed to do? What effort is put into place to identify the nasty side effects of otherwise good regulations? The assumption that all regulations exist because the alternative is worse is deeply flawed.

And that's even before we get into the fact that regulations have their limits: people can handle only so many rules, particularly if they are onerous, and will start ignoring regulations when it's the only way to get things done. An example of this is a report from the FAA, where they identified around 2,000 pilots who didn't report disqualifying health conditions. Why? Because the conditions were quickly resolved, and their livelihoods depended on flying, so they didn't want to go through the hassle of waiting three months for their license to fly to be cleared again. What's worse, of the 2,000 or so pilots who did this, only 4 or so had serious-enough conditions that they shouldn't have been flying!

This is a problem that has been around for years, perhaps decades. One memorable example comes from "To Kill a Mockingbird", where the teacher complained about the main character Scout having learned to read before her 1st grade -- when Atticus had nothing to do with it, because she learned how to read on her own at the age of 4.

Others have given their own experiences in this thread -- some teachers are encouraging, others get frustrated.

I have seen the cynical observation, made more than once over the years, that an uneducated population is easier to manipulate, and thus it's only natural for government-run schools to get worse over time.

There is value in asking the question "when should an individual start studying anyway?" I don't have a link at hand for a discussion of studies comparing no pre-school to "play" pre-school" to "rigorous" pre-school -- and the studies find that the children who go through the rigorous pre-school -- usually 5.5 hours of instruction -- are ahead of their peers in the first grade, even out by third grade, and then fall behind. The study that followed kids into adulthood found that they had a higher rate of criminal activity.

I cannot help but think that we shouldn't be forcing kids to learn if they don't want to learn -- and rather than try to force every kid to be "grade level", we should go back to 1-room schoolhouses (for elementary levels, at least) and teach each student at their own pace.

This is the very question that crossed my mind when I saw this headline (albeit at a different site): was this a failure of EdTech, or was it a failure of our highly structured and inflexible school system?

This is an issue that started to bother me while in high school, or perhaps even in junior high, and have realized over the years that people learn at different rates, that what should matter is knowledge and mastery and not grades, and that a failure in a class or several shouldn't be permanently incorporated into a "GPA" that also doesn't really capture the true essence of someone's knowledge and mastery.

In the past year, I have been learning a lot about autism and ADHD -- in no small part because I have come to realize I have both -- and I cannot help but come to the conclusion that regardless of why an individual student is different -- whether it be autism, ADHD, life-event-driven depression (eg from a death in the family or a divorce), or high or low or late-blooming intelligence, or even mere boredom that needs to be overcome by the "right spark" -- the school system as currently instituted can handle none of this -- and what's worse, any student who cannot conform to this, even if temporarily, is permanently considered flawed somehow.