9,133 karma · joined July 3, 2014
Every other person I meet along the trail have headphones and some watch to measure their training. I get it, they want to get better at running. Maybe they train for some competition. I don't. I will never be an elite marathon runner and I know that, so I couldn't care less about getting better as long as I come back with a tired body and busy mind.
Everybody is different, but I have never understood why not more people are like me.
That's the most killer feature of git, that it's so easy to slice your commits any way you desire, and then redo again. The use case of taking a chunk and commit separately is so common it even got a special mode in the add command. That, and the super fast jumping between branches is what set it apart from contemporary version control systems.
The extra context provided by the review tool is gone when the review is done anyway. Review systems come and go, but the commit log is for eternity.
Isn't that what commits are? Or ... should be?
For example:
git log mybranch myfile.txt
git show mybranch:myfile.txt
The double dash is normally not needed when it is self evident if a branch or file is referred to. It is only needed when a file no longer exists or a file and a branch exists with the same name. One could easily have imagined the one-argument syntax to be dominant. It would have been a bit awkward in a few situations, but a lot less confusing in others.
Another feature missing in find that xargs has is the maximum processes to start at a time. find will run the commands in sequence, but in many situations you really want to run a bunch in parallel.
grep stuff file.txt | while read key value ; do [ "$key" = "target" ] && found="$value" ; done
while read key value ; do [ "$key" = "target" ] && found="$value" ; done < <(grep stuff file.txt)
Those tools are built for quick iteration. Compared to that, using an LLM surely feels a lot like programming. Also a lot less deterministic.
Hey! I understand your point and you are completely right about violins and saxophones being completely different, but it is simply not right to use the word "ancient" with violins.
We know pretty much exactly how and when the violin evolved. If you found a viola or another instrument from the 1500s you would perhaps say that it's violin-like, but it's clearly not a violin. The Stradivarius is from the 1600s, the modern concert form is from the 1800s. Any which way it is far from being ancient.
A better example of ancient instruments is the flute and the drum. They are truly ancient, have existed in many cultures, and we do not know when they were first built.
The purpose of "datacenters -- in space!" isn't to actually lift server racks into orbit, one piece at a time.
It serves the same purpose as every Tesla serving extra as autonomous taxis, as people travelling by hyperloop instead of a functional train service, and as humanoid robots doing your dishes instead of the normal robots called dish washing machines.
None of these things are meant to be taken literally. Yet they all seems to have worked out just fine.
For these arguments to carry pathos they all need have a grain of truth to them. There will be local AI in satellites, for "special" applications. Think image processing for birds that have a very nice high resolution view of your back yard, and whose decisions must be low latency or when bandwith is an issue. The trick to the argument to to blur the issue by conflating it with the datacenter AI that anyone can use.
They hardly have time to compete, busy as they are with foot-shooting practice.
In events like these it can be useful to operate on the systems thinking maxim and strictly look at who benefited, as this is interesting in itself without entertaining the suggestion that they engaged in anything illegal.
When it comes to social media in politics, I believe the burden of proof is on those who claim a net benfit. Centralization of traditional media is generally regarded as bad for open democracies, and the ultimate owners of almost all social media globally can be counted on one hand with fingers to spare.
Some would consider that an anti-feature. Firewalls are not to be busted. Nothing good lies at the extreme end of working around overly strict policies. Change the policy instead.
Any hosted service can be bent into the shape of a cloud. Large parts of Oracle Cloud balance sheet is probably just hosted PeopleSoft and similar.
They have this in common with IBM which, at least on paper, have a large cloud business.
You tidy up and rebase before making a PR. Anything else is really disrespectful of your reviewer's time. That is also how all the larger open source projects operate.
> you only get one commit for the whole feature
If you are doing one logical commit per PR, you are doing way too many PRs.
Alternatively you don't have a working review process.
But it is true that the app-based future, that didn't exist yet, probably came with market dynamics that limits the number of platforms to two or three. It just wasn't clear which those were at the time.
What a vanilla Linux-based platform, and Meego, Maemo, Moblin and Mer were just iterations of the same thing, would have had going for it was that it could have had much better long time support and not just for hardware for software. Linux famously do not break userspace, and can regularly run 30 year old applications. For a phone you would be surprised if a 3 year old app worked.
Microsoft did this so much worse than both Apple or Android, even if they all suffer from it. Every release of the operating system came not just with new design language, never earth-shattering but often interesting, but new GUI toolkits and application packaging. Just a recompile of your application often wasn't enough, you were expected to rewrite your application to fit in with the new. They really shot themselves in the foot with that, and they did it over and over again despite never having leading market share and everbody seeing where things were heading. It was (and perhaps still is) probably the only way they could operate as a company.
The vanilla Linux-based platforms mentioned above had their own problems which should be obvious from the naming scheme alone, which would have compounded had their marketshare grown bigger. It was a forkfest. But that's the issue with corporate open source, there is rightfully an inherent skepticism where a single company dominates what is an open source project. This is also why Linus never took a job with the big Linux providers. It wasn't for a lack of opportunitites, but he knew that had he worked for Red Hat, people would always suspect even technical decisions to be made for the benefit of his employer. The most successful open source projects are vendor neutral. That is not in telecom companies culture, they had a very hard time understanding that and tend to form alliances instead. Not the same thing.
This does not even make sense as a conspiracy theory.
Had "EU" wanted to hurt Russia there were was a thousand ways to do that. But they didn't. Instead they traded and built infrastructure. Most EU countries saw Russia as a partner before they invaded their neighbour in the most gruesome way possible.
If anything, the EU should have reacted sooner. It was shameful they didn't. You can't really pretend like nothing while an all out war is taking place on the same continent.
In that case there's no need to validate anything as names, dns records, certificates and anything else should already be in place.
Sounds totally legit.
But on hosts you control, you should absolutely provision them with an identity and join the local CA. You're going to need it for a multitude of other reasons.
No. I'm sorry. You are not allowed to say this. Our society is post-truth enough as it is.
This is a company founded on a singular idea: Lock up as much as the free web as possible behind their login and own as much of the information as possible. Every type of web service on the open web, from forums to classifieds to event booking to blogs and social media, and of course games early on, has been reimplemented on their platform.
Every single person working on maximizing "engagement" or whatever you call it these days knows exactly what they are doing.
Sure, do your thing. Take over what parts of the web you can. Take on the metaverse. We live in a market economy and you are free to do this. But not for a second are you allowed to talk about morals or doing good "from the inside". This is not the responsibility of senior executives alone. That is simply too much.
This is a company where everyone knew an actual genocide was coordinated using their platform, and they did absolutely nothing to stop it, despite the efforts from Amnesty and outside journalists to raise attention to it. There must be a limit to how much spin you can put on it.
That part is shrinking however, so you need a plan to cope with that situation sooner or later. Not doing business with others and growing your own food does not suffice as a plan for most people.