throwaw20221107

5 ms·

1.
by throwaw20221107 4y ago
This is another argument why "not squashing is bad"; because it discourages people from committing.
2.
by throwaw20221107 4y ago
That's fair. Both overwrite (edit: seemingly overwrite) (un)staged changes. But `checkout` requires less hyphens. I feel like all of this would be resolved if my boy Linus had renamed `git add` to `git stage` or `git prepare` or some
3.
by throwaw20221107 4y ago
Ya this is basic economics, fixed investment vs markup driven return.
4.
by throwaw20221107 4y ago
>merging a sequence of PRs from same branch is bad if you squash For me in this scenario, merging `main` w/ squash commit back into PR2 branch after PR1 gets merged works here. As an aside — if code review is the bottleneck, it&#x27
5.
by throwaw20221107 4y ago
Sure but the vision/nlp models required to enable context-sensitive vision apps (i.e. an app to "give me facts from Wikipedia about what I'm seeing"), those models are closed and owned by big companies like Google and Op
6.
by throwaw20221107 4y ago
> the truly adversarial case is rare The problem is not adversarial, or due to malice. The problem is ignorance and expediency driven by a desire to push code and little incentive to cleanup your git history. The easy fix is to squash PR
7.
by throwaw20221107 4y ago
The problem is who is doing the crafting. (And the approving.) At least squash based approach limits to 1 the number of commits an untrustworthy "crafter" can occupy.
8.
by throwaw20221107 4y ago
"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.”
9.
by throwaw20221107 4y ago
Ratorx, do we work on the same team at google? I feel like I've heard you before?
10.
by throwaw20221107 4y ago
Ok I agree, you roll back to the known working version. The easiest way to do that is revert the whole PR (or data deploy in case of flags, ofc). My point is not "flags vs. no flags". My point is "each PR should generate one
11.
by throwaw20221107 4y ago
Sure. I'm just talking about binary deploy. Of course you're gonna use flags to flight things in an industry context, depending on the company and its CI/CD practices. Let's say the binary deploy (before flighting) is fu
12.
by throwaw20221107 4y ago
What do you mean? Dev 1: "I would like my PR to make 2 commits into `main` instead of the 1 that everyone else gets via squash." Dev 2: "Ok then make 2 PRs."
13.
by throwaw20221107 4y ago
>if a PR is broken, revert a simpler commit and just fix that I guess it differs between "library development" and "service development". When you're developing a service, what's in `main` is constantly bein
14.
by throwaw20221107 4y ago
I'd argue "why a method exists" should be addressed with naming and javadocs, not in the commit message. Why split the meaning of the code between the code itself and the commit messages? And if it's not possible to docu
15.
by throwaw20221107 4y ago
Yeah, seems almost like the downfall was its openness. It's almost a kind of hubris -- he didn't need to articulate his plan in detail via a traceable comm like email, should've been more secretive. Maybe Zuck should've
16.
by throwaw20221107 4y ago
For me it was effective writing. Simple sentences in active voice identifying clear actors and relationships. Going to apply it to my own technical writing style. Is it a work of art? No. But he got his point across to me rather clearly. Fo
17.
by throwaw20221107 4y ago
I would love to just learn about places where I go passively with AR. It won't go down this way. Wikipedia for AR will never happen. More likely it'll be thousands of ads and other crap.
18.
by throwaw20221107 4y ago
Ya, the three arguments are 1. `|` 2. `grep` 3. `"my actual filter"`
19.
by throwaw20221107 4y ago
The only reason people lose code is because 1. they didn't read this one diagram: https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Basics-Recording-Changes-... 2. And then they run `reset --hard`
20.
by throwaw20221107 4y ago
Modern Git workflow is very simple on its own: 1. Your codebase has a `main` branch which is write-protected 2. Devs submit changes to `main` from their own branches using PRs 3. Devs can do whatever the fuck they want on their own branch 4
21.
by throwaw20221107 4y ago
>6 months more like 6 years, unless you're a new grad with no savings, or unless you somehow managed to burn through your 200K/yr salary every year. Probably decades if you migrate to an LCOL. Edit: oh, you meant 6 months on th
22.
by throwaw20221107 4y ago
Another example: AI research
23.
by throwaw20221107 4y ago
Lol way too hard given all the politics and gatekeepers in those fields. Doing software is so much easier than that right now. And I disagree that solving climate change etc. is a "need" for most people. I think we all pretty much
24.
by throwaw20221107 4y ago
lol exactly ( https://xkcd.com/451 ) "i need to short a stock" "have you tried options?"
25.
by throwaw20221107 4y ago
This title rewrite is really bad. One interpretation of it is basically slandering opensea. I suspect OP (the person who decided to make up a title instead of using the article title) is not a native English speaker, and there are two ways
26.
by throwaw20221107 4y ago
Yes. OP's post doesn't present any evidence that those packets being sent actually contain your personal data. Show us some data from an actual packet or GTFO. That being said, I don't doubt that they do :)