Thanks for you input.
4,323 karma · joined September 27, 2021
And it’s also just wrong. People get into professional programming with... less experience than that. You might have never met anyone in your particular bubble but they do exist.
Attend a May Day celebration sometime. (Not to be confused with the American Loyalty Day or Veteran’s Day or whatever it is now.) It is one of the few times that you get reminded that things like the weekend being free time is not something that comes automatically out of a factory.
This isn’t the social contract. There are two classes, workers and capital owners, and each tries to get as much for themselves a they can. But the capital owners have an advantage since they can more easily band together. This has been pointed out since Adam Smith (or that’s the oldest one I know).
But of course it is correct that normal people have benefited from capitalism as well. But you can’t disentangle that from the centuries of class struggle which fought against the tendency of capital taking all the gains for itself. But this fact gets whitewashed as a “social contract”, i.e. a cooperative arrangement, when really the only reason why the so-called middle class thrived in the 50’s USA was because of concessions between the two classes after the struggles of the 30’s and 40’s.
(A sort of We Were Friends All Along history.)
Which is just to say that there absolutely never was a cooperative balance between these two classes under capitalism. There have just been different degrees of imbalance and then class struggle in order to try to correct for that.
> Imagine 100% of users using adblocks.
Then why did the search engine giant choose to buy YouTube?
But I don’t get the same vibe from “vibin’ with it”. Ugh.
For that matter: being stuck with Stoicism compared to Buddhism also wouldn’t be bad.
This worship of the Market Strategy was bad enough before when there wasn’t much talk of actual laws defining how much of a “product” they can make their users. But now there are! And this submission is about unlawful practices. And we’re still going to frame this as Meta just being effectively forced by the horrible consumers who refuse to “pay for services”? Ridiculous.
And I haven’t even really gotten into how much of a fallacy the specific belief is that if you just “pay for services” then you won’t become a “product”. But thankfully there are a lot of other reasonable posters on this forum about tech company profit-maximization.
[1] The Company’s perspective is the prime one. The Company doing shady stuff is merely because the consumer’s are stingy or difficult in some way. If the consumers are inconvenienced by the Company then that is just because the Company had to adopt a market strategy which is not as wholesome as the one they could have used if the consumers were better in some way.
[2] And do we have to retread the hopelessness of making a social network where you have to pay to use it when no one else is using it (at the start)? That’s a complete dead-end.
> Indeed, because an oligarchy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the billionaires realize that they can bribe themselves largesse from the public treasury
There is always an equilibrium point. The oligarchs won’t suck the state’s teat to the point where the state collapses.
HN users: hold my beer
That my VCS is distributed is a goes-without-saying at this point. Nothing else is good enough. But a completely different dimension is integration. And I want to be as integrated as possible. And for everyone else as well. I don’t want three different cliques working on disparate things. And I warn against such things at work as well (i.e., hey let’s make a branch for this project which 3/9 of us is going to work on for a month...).
> But git was designed around the email workflow. Instead of a PR, you make a patch (or a group of patches), that you can share with others. For instance, you can share a patch with a colleague from your team, who will review it and incorporate it in their branch before it gets merged into main. That way they are testing it by using it. At some point your changes get merged into the main branch, and your coworkers can just apply their patches on top of it.
This certainly has merit. I mean peer-to-peer integration branching. But you can do the same with forges and branches. In fact it’s more difficult to keep track of patches via email, i.e. what comes from where, have I included this already, etc. Just consider the conversations that seem to keep coming up on how to deal with identifying patches.[1]
> We can imagine a workflow with a hierarchy of maintainers: devs at the lower level send patches to their supervisor, who after a while sends them up to their supervisor, up to the main branch.
I mean you should expect Whatever The Law about the org hierarchy being reflected in processes, not vice versa. Apparently there isn’t a process for this command hierarchy to be reflected in.
> PRs flatten all that. Devs typically never learn how to deal with patches, and the review process ends up being "rebase on main, run the CI, then I'll skim through your code, I'll complain about some variable names and I'll approve without even pulling your code" (I'm exaggerating a bit, of course).
Patches or not doesn’t really change that. If one single email thread becomes the focal point of a month-long development “PR” then that’s the same thing.
But yes. Getting out of that dang “fork” mindset is good. You can be more loosey goosey via email since you just inline your suggestions as patches (either with a commit message or without).
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/bdbe9b7c1123f70c0b4325d778af1df8...
Well, tradeoffs and whatnot with hosting your bugtracker on the most open code platform on the Web.
“Conversation limited to contributors until popular site calms down”I don’t think that’s amazing. What was amazing to me was back when I couldn’t set up a Subversion repository without a “server”.
Someone asks on StackOverflow about why `git push` behaves a certain way? The principle of Laziness dictates that you try to reproduce the issue with two sibling directories where one is a remote of the other one. Like they apparently do in one of Git’s integration tests:
git remote add $1 up ../mirrorGive me a fucking break. I meant as in: they fought the war because they had to, not because of being anti-fascist.
America thought Nazis were such an existential threat that they remained neutral until Pearl Harbor.
You called? I think it is very relevant, but somehow it never, ever gets brought up that the cartoonishly authoritarian regime was bombed to hell in that war. That Germany lost WWII is certainly relevant to its last 80 year history, for example.
> Also, Germany, Japan, Serbian conflicts, etc. You'd have to never have seen a world map to think history never "achieve[d] anything [positive]" from interventions "on the other side of the world."
You dropped “ideology”, liar.
In the case of WWII: I have never seen anything to make me believe that the allies fought the Nazis because they were anti-fascists (ideology).
Bombed North Korea to the Stone Age?