2,266 karma · joined November 6, 2017
There's a reason git came into existence for linux kernel development. The linux kernel is a project so massive and so decentralized that it needed a fitting tool to be able to tame the chaos. And git did that perfectly.
Out of curiosity though, what to you is a better source control system?
I really discourage the squashing upon merge approach entirely though, because that's just a bandaid for lazy and/or misinformed developers to cover up the fact that their whole git workflow is completely borked.
Nobody who understands git will ever lose data, because once committed you can never lose it (it's in the reflog). Indeed, even just adding a file means you will never lose it, although it's not as convenient as having an actual commit.
So yeah, you kind of revealed the anti-rebase case quite tellingly there. It's for people that understand git so poorly that they regularly shoot themselves in the foot and lose work or make other similar mistakes.
> Most of the arguments in favor of rebase are by people fanatical about having a git history organized just so. It’s not worth the headache and effort. PRs are a better unit of work than commits in practice.
PRs and good git commit history are not mutually exclusive. But there are many drawbacks of trying to make PRs themselves your source of truth. A big one being that it's not actually stored in git, so if you ever migrate from github to gitlab or some other system, that context is gone.
> Configure GitHub or whatever you use to squash merge only and you’ll be good.
See, now this becomes even more absurd. What's your fear of rebasing if you're going to do the equivalent of a `git rebase -i` upon every merge anyway?
This is a very confusing and nonsensical ideology.
For those who want to improve their grasp of git, I highly recommend https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2. That book changed the game for me, because I finally understood how to visualize git history in terms of the DAG, and furthermore learned about how git actually works under the hood (blobs and the like) which made me confident I would never lose anything I've ever added/committed ever again.
i.e. the anti-rebase people are usually of the "never rebase" flavor. Because they're also the "history is sacred even though I never look at history because if I did I would get dizzy and throw up" crowd :P
It doesn't matter to me at all 3 months later to know that you initially had a typo in your first commit and then fixed it the subsequent commit. That should just be a single commit.
There are some very rare edge cases where having the whole messy history can offer some insight of how a certain mistake ended up being made, but IMO in 999/1000 cases that's not the case.
I agree with your general point, but on this specific point I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that I see an insane amount of people regularly use `git add .` to add every file, because they don't realize they actually want `git add -u` (only add already-tracked files) 99% of the time.
But as a counterpoint, since your example is about giving devs a limited set of commands, you naturally wouldn't be giving them `git add .`. But it's definitely something that frequently comes up in crappy git tutorials.
If you write two commits in your local feature branch, then pull master in and generate an ugly merge commit, and then stack two more commits on top to your local feature branch, and then finally get all that mess merged to master, you have a difficult to read history because of the merge commit randomly in the middle. Whereas if you instead rebase onto origin/master (after fetching of course), you get a nice history where your feature branch commits are cleanly on top of origin/master, so there's no crazy merge commits in the middle.
Most people just use git as a fancy save button, and therefore never actually use the git log / git blame to answer questions about why some part of the codebase is the way it is, and therefore they never realize why their merge commit insanity is so destructive to the usability of the git log.
It's also a big sign to me that the person probably rarely if ever actually spelunks through the git log to understand why a certain change was made. Because if one does, they very quickly discover why a workflow involving sane rebasing onto origin/master produces such a better history.
There's times when merge commits are appropriate, but they are few and far between compared to the endless abuses of merge commits by people who don't understand git in the slightest (my definition of "don't understand git" is someone who can't visualize the DAG)
Unfortunately I've met far too many who have your "remote" superstition. I remember arguing this exact point in my last gig, when someone was mad at me for force pushing my own remote branch that nobody else was using nor should have been.
Because her call was +EV. Not knowing Garrett's cards, it was an insanely stupid call that threw away money. But if one knew Garrett's cards, they'd know it was a healthily +EV call.
The fact that Garrett had outs is very irrelevant here. You seem to think that one would only cheat by knowing that the opponent is drawing completely dead. But that's nonsense. You just need to know if your call is +EV or not.
This tells me you don't understand the basics of poker. Which is fine, but you might want to be clear about that before opining :P
While the expected percent change of her winning the hand was slightly worse than a coinflip, her pot odds made her call +EV. In other words by calling that allin, she stood to profit. Your comment was implicitly assuming that she can only win as much money as she puts in with the final bet.
So yeah, 53% of the time she's going to lose the hand, but her actual expected value of making the call is positive.
> I haven't played running it twice but it looked like there was still importance to secrecy before the second river was flipped given the way they were acting.
I'm a bit confused by this, could you explain this in another way? If you're saying that there was maybe a reason to maintain secrecy (as far as what hand she had) after the first run, that's not true because she already won a hand therefore she will have to show her hand regardless of how the second river goes.
Dopamine is the neurotransmitter you’re thinking of. And also glutamate since glutamatergic firing in brain reward pathways are heavy associated with addiction
The flu vaccine is so ineffective that if we actually applied evidence-based medicine standards to it / actually looked at a real cost:benefit analysis, we would never be pushing the flu vaccine.
https://www.cochrane.org/CD001269/ARI_vaccines-prevent-influ...
> Injected influenza vaccines probably have a small protective effect against influenza and ILI (moderate-certainty evidence), as 71 people would need to be vaccinated to avoid one influenza case, and 29 would need to be vaccinated to avoid one case of ILI. Vaccination may have little or no appreciable effect on hospitalisations (low-certainty evidence) or number of working days lost.
So: a miniscule reduction in actual flu cases (granted, a slightly-better-but-still-weak reduction in general ILI), with no appreciable difference on hospitalizations or working days lost, meaning that the economic benefit of giving the flu vaccine is basically zero.
It's pretty great that the first world (at least America) has been so heavily socialized to accept the flu vaccine as effective and necessary, because it makes arguing for the effectiveness of the COVID vaccine much easier, since the bar is so incredibly low.
I'd also add that even if the absolute death weren't lower in the 3rd world, the relative death would. Being able to be freaked out about an average of .3% chance of dying of COVID if infected is a luxury that those countries struggling with malaria, rampant malnutrition, and insufficient non-COVID vaccination don't really have.
There is something very revealing about the GP's attitude though. They literally interpret someone wanting to avoid killing a baby as being the exact same thing as opposing abortion. So in their worldview abortion really is all about killing babies.
“Bodily autonomy” is a vague and nebulous concept. And it’s also another way to show one’s bias because to a pro-life person abortion is a violation of the unborn child’s bodily autonomy.
You wouldn’t talk about being able to commit murder as an exercise of bodily autonomy on the part of the murderer. And again to someone pro-life that’s going to be directly analogous to how they view abortion.
It's a lot more than just "not every case" though. Every place I've ever worked, we have explicitly hired inferior candidates due to their racial/gender/etc characteristics. I know this not just from intuition but also because of the many times that "adding diversity" has been given as a justification for extending an offer to person X who was clearly not qualified.
I will agree that DEI initiatives are not all bad all the time. The ones that are based around improving communication, and not in the "fire this person because they used the wrong pronoun" sense but the "actually put down a set of principles for what effective communication looks like" sense, have been pretty positive IME. Also at my current company there was some drama several months back where blatant power plays by one of the execs (they fired someone who was beloved by the department presumably so that they could climb the ladder more) got reamed by the head of DEI (happily, for entirely non-racial/etc reasons). So it is nice when the ring is held by someone who's on your side ;)
I'd argue the opposite. We print absolutely insane amounts of money, which is an indirect tax via inflation (and a regressive one at that, since the rich own more inflation-resistant asset classes than the poor, who don't really own any assets). Higher taxes and less money printing would make that hidden tax less hidden, which is good, but the core problem is spending/printing too much, not taxing insufficiently.
Which is a huge part of why the replication crisis is such a thing (besides the outright fraud and the publication bias). The very fact that the datasets and codebases are so disgusting is precisely why the results coming from that data can't be trusted.
These laws are still protecting the equal treatment, since the whole "diversity and inclusion" thing is explicitly about giving unequal (more favorable) treatment to people who aren't white/male/cis. (The classic counterargument here is that because of historical marginalization equal treatment is actually unequal and therefore we must pursue "equity".)
You're right that nobody is seriously talking about rewriting the constitution; rather, states and other actors are just outright passing laws that blatantly disregard the second amendment. So it's actually worse than that. It'd be better if they were honestly just trying to remove the second amendment from the constitution rather than just de-facto abolish it through ridiculous measures.
To your point, in general if you leave a place due to a bad manager (or get fired) and some kind of reform happens and you get invited back, usually the best move is not to come back. The organization already showed it was willing to toss you away at least once. That being said Netflix is probably a bit of an exception because it’s explicitly where you go to work if you want to work with people who are all insanely competent and hardworking and where performance is actually a core focus.
Also I still don’t quite understand the sociopathy element. It doesn’t seem sociopathic to say “hey we got rid of the toxic manager, want your old job back?” although like I said it’s still generally a bad idea to actually take the job back