expr

You don’t share feature branches. So you always know precisely what is shared history: the commit you branched from.

The workflow is branch from shared history, rebase your branch as many times as necessary during development to craft a quality history, then merge back.

I rebase dozens of times a day and have never had a single issue with it.

If you’re bothered by repetitive merge conflicts (which, in my experience, are quite rare if you’re doing things correctly), that’s what git rerere is for.

Rebasing is for crafting a quality history of your own commits (or getting your branch up to date with the trunk). Merging is for integrating your commits with the shared history.

Rebasing is not dangerous. You can always go back if something is not to your liking.

You don’t rebase shared history, you use rebases to craft a clean, quality commit history for your own branches before merging. If everyone does this, then squashing is unnecessary, because garbage commits don’t exist. It is the far superior way of doing things if you actually care about having good commits.

Keeping a quality history rather than squashing also makes many other git tools much better, such as git blame, git revert, git bisect, and so on.

It’s fine if the changes belong in a single commit. Otherwise, an interactive rebase to craft a clean, quality history before merging is much, much better.

Obviously not, because that’s not possible.

Not sure why, seems just like useful advice. It sounds like the author does contracting of some sort, so having tools to quickly orient around a new codebase makes a lot of sense.

Except, unlike computers and the internet, AI is not essential, unless your whole business revolves around it (in which case, good riddance).

That’s all it’s about. I was never disputing your claim, but your methods.

No, I’m saying you should link to actual sources instead of whatever an LLM decided to barf out (which may or may not be rife with inaccuracies).

Posting garbage like that is both a recipe for spreading misinformation (and we have strong evidence that LLMs greatly increase the potency and spread of misinformation), as well as devolving intellectual discourse into users just tossing slop back and get forth at each other. It would be trivial to make an LLM say the opposite of what you claim. So why should one trust the text spewed out by your LLM vs the text spewed out by someone else’s? Regardless if what you say is true, giving us the garbage from an LLM as “supporting evidence” completely undermines what you are trying to say.

Find real sources and link them. It raises the quality of discussion and makes the internet an ever so slightly better place.

LLM slop is not welcome here.

He’s murdered a bunch of Iranians, including schoolgirls. So it definitely fits.

As far as gods go, his god is himself, so that counts too, imo.

I stated an assumption and was contributing to the conversation. Even if that assumption is incorrect, there’s no need to be a dick about it.

It seems like a larger atmosphere would result in a longer duration exposed to atmospheric drag, thus requiring more fuel to overcome it.

I assume it’s not just about the gravity, but also the much larger radius of the planet would mean much larger distance from the surface, and thus much more fuel needed.

Pair programming is kind of a weird thing to rail against. Sure, it would be terrible if it was mandated for everything, but there are many times it is a useful tool, especially for complex tasks where it is useful to talk through options as you go. Also invaluable for mentorship. I have regular sessions with juniors where we pair program on work tasks as a teaching tool.

If you take such a broad definition of social media, then nearly the entire Internet becomes “social media” and the term loses its meaning, IMO.

I mean, social media should be banned for everyone, not just teenagers. It’s a great evil in the world today, and in a functional democracy that wasn’t braindead, we should ban them outright for the mass harm and destruction they have caused.

That being said, I fully understand that the motivations of countries for these kinds of bans have little to do with the harm of social media and are much more about surveillance.

Nah, microslop is a great name, especially because they throw tantrums about the name. It’s very descriptive of what they have become.

Ever heard of AB testing?

if you sleep at the same time consistently, changing that is a big change for your body. It takes time to adjust a strong routine, and it takes a physical toll to do so.

We have lots of evidence of it causing all kinds of problems: increased numbers of heart attacks, car accidents, and more. It very much is a detriment to society.

Who are these mythical “real chiropractors” that you speak of?

It’s pseudoscience, and always has been.

I mean, it sure is taking a lot of jobs by dumbass execs who think it makes sense to cut a bunch of people off of payroll since they have AI now.

It certaintly can’t do the job by any stretch of the imagination, but that doesn’t mean a ton of fools aren’t bought into the grift and convinced that it can.