9,133 karma · joined July 3, 2014
This is almost exactly what git does, except it's a million times faster. Every commit is one of those copies, and you can instantly jump to any one of them using git checkout.
If you like this mental model, you'll feel right at home with git. You will love git reflog.
Of course a readable code history aids in debugging. Just as comments and indentation do. None of these are technically necessary, but still a good idea.
Of course running the rebase command doesn't guarantee a readable commit history, but it's hard to craft commits without it. Each and every commit on linux-kernel has been rebased probably a dozen times.
I don't think it's fair to make fun of the cable specifications, seems to me they held up just fine despite the jacket disintegrating. The article doesn't mention the error rate, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was still zero.
To a layman, that doesn't sound like very AI-like? Surely there must be a dozen algorithms to effectively search this space already, given that mathematics is pretty logical?
No need for the scare quotes. Forcefully removing people's agency over themselves is pretty much the definition of evil. We do not hurt criminals as punishment anymore, in the civilized age, but we still lock them up.
Now, of course we should not equate physical prisons and digital prisons in any other way, but we should absolutely call both forms of imprisonment evil, plain and simple.
This is a very strange statement and you probably have some specific situation in mind that isn't really representative.
Normally when you hire people to write your code they do a work for hire, unless your contract says otherwise, you own the rights. There are some minor exceptions, typically for countries that treat commercial and artistic copyright differently, but that's it. I've been hired to add changes to people's software thousands of times, and it's never been on the table that I get some kind of ownership of their source code.
The license said source code is under is completely irrelevant. Especially in this question of tax authorities. That source code is normally not under some public license at all because it's their internal processes anyway, they may change at any time and the employ a number of programmers to do so. Plus a handful of consultants.
Lots of people chase downloads on NPM. It's their validation, their youtube subscribers, or their github stars if you will. That's how they get job offers. Or at least they think they do, I don't know if it actually works. There's tons of good software there, but the signal to noise ratio is still rather low.
Given that, I'd rather get paid for including your software as a dependency to my software, boosting your downloads for a long time.
Just kidding, of course. On that last part. But it wouldn't surprise me the least if something like it actually happened. After all, you can buy stars on github just like on any other social media. And that does strange things to the social dynamics.
Can you influence outcomes on Polymarket by purchasing enough UMA tokens?
Why would people accept this? Especially if ownership is anonymous and could overlap with market actors?
How would we know if Polymarket was an active participant in these bets?
But they also show both Android and iOS at 0% which makes me think the dataset is not really representative.
The talk "Look Up" about unencrypted data over DVB satellite links was also though provoking, both in presentation and in technical content. If there's that much data unencrypted over a mainstream IP link, imagine how much is still on legacy protocols in 2025.
Frankly, I don't know why more women doesn't center their social life around activities.
It's an excellent idea. Seriously, what's not to like?
Unless you have even the faintest idea about how F-Droid does it, please stop spreading FUD. All the article says is that it is not a normal contract but a special arrangement where one or a select few have physical access. It could be in a locked basement, it could be in a sealed off cage in a data center, it could be a private research area at a university. We don't know.
A special arrangement with an academic institution providing data center services wouldn't be at all surprising, that has been the case for many large open source projects since long before the term was invented, including Linux, Debian and GNU itself.
Many of these are run by professionals with high standards. The Debian project has done pioneering work with reproducible builds, for example, something the F-Droid project is also very much involved with. Those things are what creates trust in the project.
High-level languages are about higher abstractions for deterministic processes. LLMs are not necessarily higher abstractions but instead about non-deterministic processes, a fundamentally different thing altogether.
But addressing the specific question: It is still a valid. If the product sold is a 10x developer force multiplier, you'd expect to see the company fully utilizing it. Productivity would be expected to increase, rapidly, as the product matures, and independently of any acquisitions made at the same time.
Why isn't that the first question that comes to mind for a journalist covering the latest acquisition? It's like an open secret that nobody really talks about.
Debian, and indeed most projects, do not control the download servers you use. This is why security is end-to-end where packages are signed at creation and verified at installation, the actual files can then pass through several untrusted servers and proxies. This was sound design in the 90s and is sound design today.
Otherwise it would be hard to include other types of obvious text, including completely mainstream ones such as Arabic. They are all strings of symbols intended for humans to read.
Feel free to disagree but I don't understand the argument here, if there is any. Lots of people read both Arabic and musical notation, it's a completely normal thing to do.
For any non-trivial organization, you want to know when client certificates expire too.
In my experience, the easiest way is to export anything that remotely looks like a certificate to the monitoring system, and let people exclude the false positives. Of course, that requires you to have a monitoring system in the first place. That is no longer a given.