I guess I also want to ask: are you making money on this? Like, how do you have this much time to spend on this project?
147 karma · joined December 30, 2019
I guess I also want to ask: are you making money on this? Like, how do you have this much time to spend on this project?
After reading that, I now understand your comment.
Can you give an example? I don't even think I understand what you're saying. You control your overall summary, so it's up to you to make it useful.
I would cite clarity as my reason for squashing! I think most people are just bad at organizing (& naming) their commits, so they make A LOT of vacuous ones, crowding out the forest for the trees. It's never helpful to see the git blame saying things like "Addressed PR comments" or "Resolved merge conflict", etc.
I do prefer a merge commit when the author has done a good job with their own commits, but that's rare. In all other cases, squashing is greatly preferable to me.
Don't get me wrong: Python hasn't overcome its tooling problem, so there's still that barrier. But once your team agrees on a standardized tool set, you should be able to coast A-OK.
This seems normal to me. (I'm in my late 30s) Dividends aside, you're saying you used to do a lot of voting and now, in 2023, you're not anymore?
Sorry, but this is such a sad statement to me. I mean, unless you absolutely love the field you work in, in which case that's amazing, go for it! But if you're like the rest of us, there's so much to see & do in life besides work! As an example, I'm reading, learning to cook, traveling, and trying to get fit. These provide their own satisfaction & meaning in ways that work doesn't.
This article focuses on the number of new things overwhelming our working memory, but I'd argue another big problem is the difficulty of leveraging abstractions even if you don't understand them.
In this exercise, both myself and the article get sidetracked in understanding the basis of all the abstractions as well, rather than just letting the abstractions be, with all of their uncertainty. But if I were better at the latter, I could see this approach working.
Edit: I just now tried Euclidea for the 1st time, and even tho its UX is a lot more polished, it starts off with lots of lines & midpoints. I appreciate that Ecocoru starts off with more circle-oriented problems, so that we can get a taste of using a compass. The 1st hexagon problem, though easy, was a joy to discover!
Edit: My bad, I missed a legit link in parent comment. That said, that link should have been front & center. (Edit 2: it now is. Good on you!)
Btw, your response implies that you deny this point, but I don't understand why that would be. Most activities are this way. People aren't born knowing how to play sports or use computers or make art, whatever. Cooking is no exception.
Anyway, thanks for the rec, I'll definitely check out Adam's recipe vids (I'm more familiar with his non-recipe vids)
Let's take your other comment: "just buy ingredients and follow a recipe". This makes no sense to me. Sure, I could just make the 10-20 guesses required to buy ingredients & get to the end of the recipe, it would probably result in something edible but bad. At that point, I'll have learned how to make it better next time, but not necessarily how to make it half-decent.
So, as OP describes elsewhere, whenever I'm trying to follow a new recipe, I end up looking up an average of 5 vids on prep or technique that I'm unsure about. It gets me something half-decent in the end, but it's a lot of work, and I never feel like I really "get it".
Also, your overall tone is so weird to me. You're talking about cooking like it has no fundamentals and it's just loosey-goosey & based on people's preferences, but there are DEFINITELY wrong ways to cook things, and lots of them. I learn more about those wrong ways every time I try cooking.
Just to clarify, I'm not defending their app, I'm defending the problem statement.
If someone murders your dog, no big deal to you? And sure, this dog was YOUR dog, but you would probably still agree that, in general, dogs shouldn't be killed, right? I'm not saying this line of thinking extends to all living organisms, but surely you can acknowledge there's SOME gray area between bacteria and "organism as smart as a human".
Another useful thought experiment: what would aliens who are way smarter than us think of us? Mightn't they think of us as so dumb that our lives don't matter to them? How would you try to convince them otherwise?