So the idea is you set the playing field with this subject, with zero intent to actually play ball.
Become inscrutable. It’s hard to find the percentage of an unknown quantity.
They’re off thinking about percents but you’re about to become the equivalent of Andy Kaufman. One minute they’re convinced you’re Elvis, the next they’re wondering if the breadcrumb trail you’ve left about faking your death is a joke or something you’re real about.
Yeah the idea that somebody has a percentage rating of quality is genuine lunacy. It’s also sociopathic to overlook that being fond of someone despite their flaws or “lower rating”.
This seems to be the whole point. Neg the other person and make them question their own worth. "Oh, no! I'd better keep them happy. Is THAT GUY 10% better than me!?"
If they chew open mouthed and are not amenable to change that is a straight up deal breaker, sorry not sorry, my misophonia doesn't leave room to compromise on that.
Wow, it’s so amazing that the price of gold remains forever consistent. If we had a resource-backed currency inflation could never happen because we never adjust the cost of silver. Scarcity and psychology have no power here!
Taking the time to learn how git works on a conceptual level and then how to resolve merge conflicts effectively is a worthwhile investment. Highly recommended
You don’t. One of the core aspects of Git is that it fully expects conflicts to be inevitable, and it gives you tools to resolve them.
I will say that if you learn to aggressively rebase branches, you can at least occasionally reduce the complexity of conflicts.
If you are working on a long branch and three other branches that conflict with your changes land in the meantime, a simple merge will force you to reconcile all of those conflicts in one big stinky merge commit.
If you instead rebase after each individual branch lands, you resolve the same number of conflicts but in three smaller, focused steps instead of one big ugly one. You also don’t get a merge commit full of redundant deltas that serve only to resync your branch to master; all the conflict resolution becomes baked in to your individual branch commits.
Spreading out the problem is not reducing the problem. But it can make fixing the problem less daunting, which has a similar effect.
It’s kind of difficult to explain in the same way git is difficult to grok on the first try.
Perhaps it’s convincing enough to just say:
Git is the fundamentally better at resolving merges/rebases without conflicts than older VCS that don’t maintain a commit tree data structure.
Even within just git, using one diff algorithm vs another can mean the difference between git successfully merging vs failing and showing you a conflict
Software is flexible – there are endless permutations to how it can be structured. Everything else being equal, some code/commit structures are more prone to conflicts than others
I.e. whether a conflict will happen is not some totally unpredictable random event. It’s possible to engineer a project’s code & repo so that conflicts are less common.
I can think of some “programming best practices” that can help with reducing merge conflicts, such as making small functions/methods, but I see it as a positive side effect.
I don’t think avoiding merge conflicts should be a goal we actively try to reach. Writing readable code organized in atomic commits will already help you get fewer conflicts and will make them easier to resolve.
I’ve seen too many junior and students being distracted from getting their task done because they spent so much time “coordinating” on order to avoid these “scary” merge conflicts
No, not like that – you misunderstand. I’m not talking about actively avoiding conflicts. Coordinating to avoid merge conflicts is the same work as resolving a merge conflict anyway, just at a different time.
I’m talking about creating practices and environments where they’re less likely to happen in the first place, never incurring the coordination cost at all.
One example at the individual level is similar to what you mentioned, but there’s more to it. E.g. atomically renaming and moving in separate commits, so git’s engine better understands how the code has changed over time and can better resolve merges without conflict.
But there’re other levels to it, too. A higher-order example could be a hot module where conflicts frequently occur. Sure, atomic commits and all that can help “recover” from conflict more easily, but perhaps if the hot module were re-designed so that interface boundaries aligned with the domains of changes that keep conflicting, future changes would simply not conflict anymore.
IMO the latter has an actual productivity benefit for teams/orgs. Some portion of devs just aren’t going to be that git proficient, and in this case, good high level organization is saving them from losing hours to incorrect conflict resolutions that can cause lost work, unintended logical conflicts (even though not lexical conflict), etc. Plus, it implies abstraction boundaries better match the changes demanded by the domain, so the code is likely easier to understand, too.
I’m pretty sure the context of the fed saying that is inflation was partly due to there being too many people who have jobs with disposable income. I’m pretty sure nowadays there unfortunately more people with underpaying jobs.
That’s not how a professional company rejects an applicant. Judging by this grammarless email (and this email alone), it sounds like you may have dodged a bullet. I am sorry that you’ve been rejected, though. That’s never a fun experience, and their lack of compassion in their “cute” (but actually rather insulting) email is incomprehensible. Just because they didn’t see you a a secret recipe, doesn’t mean you’re not. KFC has gone down hill more than almost any other chain in terms of flavor and quality, and their email here is a testament to their decision-making skills they seem to still be lacking.
Keep the fediverse weird and invite more theater kids. They pair surprisingly well with the tech dorks that make up the majority of the current fedi population.
Different fandoms would congregate in different home instances – Which is ultimately just an aesthetic difference but still.
It’d be a lot more resilient due to decentralisation. I’m old enough to remember when the entire concept of fanfiction was something considered litigious and anyone who wrote it felt they were skirting on the edge of the law. People forget how easy it is for those times to come back. All it’d take is 1(one) corporately-backed author making a stink about it. Decentralization would make it harder to curb.
Doubled on FA. Great repository for artwork but their moderation is just terrible. If you’re in the 3rd world you can get banned permanently with no warning for a single mistake, yet there’s known groomers on there who the admins routinely protect no matter how many times they fuck up. And the alternatives aren’t any better, with most of them dying on the hill of allowing loli shit and AI art so that’s all that ever gets posted.
EDIT: and after they moved their forums to discord the entire website became radioactive causing tons of people, including myself, to leave.
lemmy.ml
Active