m000

Not sure what you are looking for. What's wrong with stash? What ceremony are you referring to? `git stash` - `git stash pop` is as simple as it gets.

Then you can also do `git diff > changes.diff`. Or simply `rsync -avPh repo/ repo.snap/`, if your repo isn't huge. Or consider putting your repo in a filesystem that can do CoW snapshots.

+1 for poor quality. New Nikes seem to be blatantly made to wear out in a short few years. I got a pair of Air Max 270 in mid 2021. By 2025, the outer sole was so worn off that the air-sole was exposed to the ground while walking. That happened with very light use: COVID + WfH + not used when away + not used at sports + not my only pair of shoes.

I still buy Nike, but I go for classic models like Air Force, or Air 180, which are a bit more rugged.

Nobody was ever fired for choosing Debian.

Hey! It’s not just me! The other day, someone at work decided to throw away a large drawer worth of HDMI, DP, USB cables that I had neatly organized a couple of months ago. This was to make room for like 5 spare power strips that take up <20% of the drawer and while we had like 3 empty drawers in the cabinet. Needless to say, I was livid. Especially because I found out while looking for a USB cable to charge my mouse that we had at least x4 in the drawer.

Thank you for listening.

Also, the definition of what a "reasonable person" is capable of understanding varies from case to case, depending on the interests of the companies involved.

E.g. meat and milk industry want us to believe that a "reasonable person" is dumb enough to be confused by labels like "soy milk" or "vegan burger".

Don't do it Fedon!

It's malice. Compliance tends to not "maximize the shareholder value". Why pay millions/year to maintain a compliance team when you can get away with paying a small fine from time to time?

Would a multi-stream archive format make sense at this point? I.e. store several compressed streams in the same file and use heuristics to decide where each file (or portion of file) goes.

And will leave "Letmein" unredacted. Two birds with one stone.

Conspiratorial? Like lobbying is something I came up with this morning. Also, you don't need to feel threatened to push for something like this. Pure corporate greed is enough of a motivator. You're giving corporations a free pass, like they collectively have a spotless track record.

And, sorry, I don't buy into the law of triviality. Most things are trivial when considered in isolation and you are not affected.

I've been following the PPWR in news and social media. Everybody is lamenting about the micro-enterprises that see their business squashed, but mostly because they are involved in one. I do empathize with them and really want to see these small business surviving and thriving. But then, in the context of discussion, nobody asks what matters: Cui bono?

To me, this looks like a direct handout to Amazon and similar (big) enterprises: Pay a % "Amazon tax" to have your fulfilment handled by them, and your PPWR problem goes away.

And PPWR comes a short month after another Amazon-friendly legislation: The €3 per item-kind customs duty for items shipped from outside EU. Obviously, direct shipping from China had been undercutting Amazon-and-similar prices, were you willing to wait for a couple of weeks for your package to arrive. The new duty drastically changed the balance in the delivery time vs price calculation.

So, we have a streak of 2 legislations in a matter of a couple of months, benefiting a specific business model, and conveniently timed just before (€3 duty) and during (PPWR) the European Parliament recess. Coincidence much?

Especially vaping devices. Cigarette butts were at least easier to dispose of than these plastic encased tips and single use vapes.

Yes, hardly anyone notices that TEMU is the downstream result of corporate greed over many years.

Western brands outsource production to China to maximize profits -> less jobs, stagnating job market -> depressed wages across the board -> people no longer able to afford paying a premium for buying a Western brand (still made in China) -> TEMU comes and offers comparable quality at a fair price -> Boo hoo! TEMU bad! Evil China!

I.e. boomers holding everyone else back again.

There's definitely nothing that makes a published paper automagically correct. But the papers you mention were probably shown to be wrong by further published research, not with blog posts.

Trying to discount published research with a blog post is just intellectual laziness. Those loudmouths should put their research money where their mouths are.

The Christian version of Monkey Island insult sword fighting?

If you watch the news coverage for any kind of elections in the US, you would assume they are not determined by votes, but instead they are fundraising competitions: The one that raises the most money gets elected.

I can't recall any situation where the news report that someone is bound to win because people view their platform as superior, and not because they raised the most money.

I believe that such cases do exist (Mamdani would be one), but it seems that the traditional media intentionally insist on only reporting the money raised (i.e. promote the establishment-sponsored candidate) to make people give up on their vote.

Isn't trying to discount published research with a glorified blog post the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action?

Yes, the ending was kind of lame. Worse, it has been done before, again by Ron Gilbert. It is practically a rehash of the Monkey Island 2 ending, which got us nowhere in the long run.

May I ask how did you try to publish, and if you have done this before?

Tier 1 is HARD. Universiy labs (where publishing is their bread and butter) and have multi-year streaks of Tier 1 papers, still seek out collaborations when publishing. Because you still need this extra angle on your work that will make it stand against the proverbial Reviewer 2, or that extra evaluation paragraph that will make it stand out. And don't forget that each Tier 1 publication is probably the life of at least 1 PhD student for several months.

So if you don't put the time and effort in it, forget Tier 1. This is like believing that because you have excellent voice and singing skills, all you have to do to get a top 10 hit is to send your demo tape to a recording company.

This just doesn't make sense. EU regulations are already making progress in improving online privacy: (a) No cookie banner required for functionally necessary cookies, (b) there needs to be an option to refuse tracking cookies in the cookie banner, (c) the dreaded cookie banner appears only the first time you visit a site.

I would say, we are like 80% there. Yes, there are still some dark patterns employed by cookie banners, trying to trick you into accepting tracking. But they are not too hard to make out. And they can be fixed by tuning the regulation a bit: Require the opt-out to be the first choice and the only one with highlighting.

Ad tracking is not going away tomorrow. If we ever are going to get rid of it, we first need legislation to defang it so it stops being a cash-cow. "Tracking prohibited by default" is a great end-goal, but we are not there yet.

Reading between the lines, it appears that there is some new solution proposed to "automatically communicate your privacy preference". That's nice, but when e.g. the Do Not Track header was tried, it just fell flat. So until this new solution is implemented and adopted, I'll take my websites with a cookie banner, thank you.

It is an unfortunate choice that the campaign obsesses over the cookie banner, instead of trying to actually advance the solution that would make it obsolete.

I think that's only the excuse the car makers use for being lazy and not taking design risks.

Because homogeneity also extends to the interiors (which are not affected by regulations). And of course the offered colors, where we have almost full-circled back to "any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black".

> almost nothing is truly organic anymore, or at least you can’t tell if it is, and I suppose that’s what you’re getting at

Yes, but over time, even pre-Internet generations have learned to be skeptical of everything watched or read online. Children growing up in this environment will almost certainly adapt and learn to do the same.

So, at best, laws restricting Social Media are a nanny state overreach, and at worst dystopian Big-Brother-style narrative control.

We have witnessed a similar overreach in the distant past with printing-press regulation laws [1]. But at the time, they power structure was different so they could instate an outright ban without hiding behind "think of the children" or the Red Scare.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licensing_of_the_Press_Act_166...

Culture has been rapidly regressing to a mean long before AI.

See e.g. modern cars. Until the mid 00s, you could tell different brands apart from far away. And you could perhaps also tell a few things about the owner from the color.

Or movies. The past 20+ years of high-budget film-making has been mostly rehashing franchises and remaking what has already been made.

AI is perhaps accelerating the trend and eliminating many opportunities to witness something original (e.g. a quirky amateur wedding video). But the trend had already begun.

God forbid an individual makes a profit from shorting. What would be left for hedge funds then? /s

I agree that the positive effects of Social Media is understated, and probably on purpose.

Social Media allowed ordinary people to challenge on a global scale the oficially-sanctioned narrative. A generation has already grown with full distrust on what they learn from traditional media.

With that picture, addressing the (undeniable) negative effects of Social Media is only the sales pitch for introducing new legislation. The true goal of the legislation however is not to "save the children", but rather to ensure that the next generations will be obedient and meek.

Win the war, lose the empire.

I think they can already sink any US ship that comes in range if they want to. And the US knows it too. But for different reasons, it's in neither's interest to go there.

Personal rule: Whatever you are asking (question or action), make it easy to spot. Place it either at the start or the end of its paragraph. Never ask >1 things in a paragraph, to make responding inline easier.

This is especially important in multi-recipient emails, where different people need to address different issues.

> My boss taught me this.

And it shows. If you are not the boss, you can't just write something and expect the recipient to figure it out.