To the people saying that this is because of “laziness” or “lack of curiosity”:
I’m bombarded with so much information every day that it’s not feasible to fact-check it all. I have to pick my battles and take things I care less about at face value until I have a reason not to.
A tab of NTG is only 0.5mg, a drop of pure NTG (so around the size of the tab) would be in the ballpark of 125 mg, so the tablet contains very little NTG. Id wager a tiny pop if any.
As a bonus, if we already have a heart condition and an abundant supply of prescription nitroglycerin tabs, we can perform the aforementioned prank to give all our friends heart attacks too! 😄
This triggered a lost memory of watching bootleg MacGyver with some friends while getting blackout drunk celebrating Estonian reindependence after the soviet occupation collapsed. It was in German (None of us spoke German) and he was also doing something with some nitroglycerin on a truck.
Sounds like a great memory! Reminds me of watching Cheaper by the Dozen while the mortars walked toward us. Highly recommend watching Sorcerer, if you’re in the mood for some nitro-fueled tension.
A lot of those wacky screws exist solely to keep people from randomly messing with them. You have to really go out of your way the get the right tool for the job, and that’s if there even is one.
Like the one-way screws holding together bathroom stalls.
Yup, I’ve noticed that spanner screws (the two dots) are usually found on elevator control panels. There is no reason that somebody should be able to open those up with a Swiss army knife.
I understand this is c/funny, but fsb is neither capable, nor organised enough to pull this off. It used to be when this joke has been come up with, but a few decades of corrupt alcoholism has all but left it disabled.
I guess all I’m saying this feels like it has alternative agenda to glorify russian crap, and those cunts do not deserve it.
Definitely wasn’t the take away I got. It was much more “all 3 are useless in their own ways”. It honestly feels much more in the same vein as “in Soviet Russia we have the right to arm bears” kind of humor, than anything glorifying them to me.
You could use it if you had another one with a female headphone jack. You could play your music to a speaker in another room if you have Ethernet in both rooms. Copper is copper.
I’ve done this. I’ve made speaker wire to ethernet adaptors to connect speakers in a different room through the walls to an amp. Feels and probably is so wrong.
Hell, 10/100base-t only uses four wires so you could run internet through a 4-pole 3.5; though YMMV depending on the particular 3.5mm's specs. I don't know if drivers would be a problem, but perhaps a 4-pole 3.5 to USB would be handy.
While, as you said, both wires will conduct electricity just fine, they will have different AC impedance.
I would guess this wouldn’t make much of a difference if you go Audio->Ethernet->Audio, since sound is at fairly low frequencies. But Ethernet->Audio->Ethernet might have problems with really high data rates, like GiB/s.
I feel like I’m way more impressed by this than I should be, like you’re a wizard or something even though it’s probably just some simple prompt. I think it’s because you went to the effort to learn this, then it came up for the perfect use in this comment. Also im way too lazy to learn something like that so I think that’s part of why im so impressed. Anyway im on the internet so I thought I’d waste the time of anyone who’s reading this by typing some extra words. But I’ve genuinely never seen this before so it’s actually made a truely awful day much better.
I’m really tempted to make this an actual keyboard on my phone, and just have the corresponding letters in their normal place so I could still type quickly. That’d be a fun keyboard
I think the idea is both are adding new files and also making changes to various files but his commits to the non-new files caused the conflict. Also, if both new files affect the same deliverable (like a DLL) then that could create a conflict in some cases (though I think that all depends on the build system).
Git won’t let the second person push if their commit history doesn’t line up with the origin branch.
It should be trivial to do a git pull --rebase to move your new commit after the upstream version, but as far as I can tell, no one on my current project remembers this (or perhaps they’re using gui tools or something). Our log is full of “merge origin/main onto main”.
I’m guessing you don’t mean commits that actually bring updates from a different branch in? I’m responsible for a bunch of commits that catch my feature branch up to main and a couple that bring my branches into main.
If we were working on the same project, what would you want to see for those? This is hosted on a private gh repo, but it’s a small shop and we were working on a tight deadline for an MVP release and were not using PRs for the stuff I was working on.
The boss (co-owner of the business) is the Sr dev on the project and until recently was the only sr dev in the whole shop. I actually don’t think he has experience with using git in a team context.
One of my other tasks is working on internal docs (which didn’t exist before I joined the team) that would include git best practices for branching strategies and commit messages, so I’m interested in what folks who have more experience than I do would like to see as I try to nudge the team practices.
You’d hope so - and if one does, I have no concerns about whatever one chooses to do in the privacy of their own branch - but some people insist on directly merging to main (preserving two parallel histories), rather than squashing their change into a single commit. Savages ;)
Great question. I’m not the one you asked, but I can answer.
Yes, merge commits, though they get useful work done, cause challenges later. If you’re using GitHub you can actually disable the ‘merge commit’ pattern in the repository settings, under ‘branch protections’, and you’ll have a much nicer time moving code between branches in the future.
Since you’re working on patterns, if you’re using GitHub, here’s my best tip - it’s related but will also cause some other nice outcomes.
If you’re using GitHub, to get a much better branching experience, you can turn on branch protections on ‘main’ and specifically turn on ‘require linear history’. This will let GitHub know that you prioritize the quality of the history in ‘main’ over that of all other branches.
Related: If your team keeps a ‘develop’ branch, you’ll need to get rid of it at the same time as making this change. Using a ‘develop’ branch is not compatible with this setup. Code that used to merge to ‘develop’ should now merge to ‘main’ and git tags should be what indicates code is ready for production.
With these settings GitHub will nudge your team towards squashing and rebasing when merging, and operations to pull other people’s code into your branch will get dramatically easier. (Edit: You’ll start to see the keyword ‘fast-forward’ a lot more often, which is great.)
If you’re not using GitHub, you can still look for tools and setups to “require linear history” to get the same benefits.
I’m guessing you don’t mean commits that actually bring updates from a different branch in?
Yep, in part, I do. Say I’m working on feature which branched off from main. Time’s gone by, and there have been commits on both feature and main. I want to integrate (not I am very carefully not using the word merge!) the commits that exist on main into my feature branch so that I can use them. You can make a merge commit to do so, but there’s no point in doing so - a git pull --rebase will have the same effect (“My local branch contains both the changes from the upstream, then the changes that I myself have made ‘on top of’ them”) without requiring a merge commit.
But really, what one chooses to do in the privacy of one’s own branch is no concern of mine. I can advise and opine, but it doesn’t really affect me. What does affect me is when people insist on merging intomain. That really irritates me, because it results in horrible tangled non-linear history like this. Ideally, the history of main should be a linear history of changes which each follow on from one another, and a commit and a change are in 1:1 correspondance:
the question “which commit is the parent of this one?” should have one answer, not potentially-multiple.
there is no value in seeing the development history of the change (all the random “bugfix”, “maybe this will work lol”, “correct typos” commits) in the history of main. They are maybe useful in the PR, but the change as seen in main should only contain the finished polished-up result.
GitHub’s confusingly named “Squash And Merge” (it’s a “merge” in the git merge sense, but it doesn’t create a Merge Commit! “Squash and commit” or “Squash and push” would be more accurate) results, I think, in the outcome - a single commit on the HEAD of the target branch containing the result of the change. And if that happens, then I don’t care if you’ve been pulling in changes from main to feature via Merge commits or (correctly IMO) via git pull --rebase - because, whatever you’ve done, your development history will be (correctly) invisible from the commit on main.
(I say “I think” there because I’ve only recently started using GitHub in a professional capacity. For the decade prior to this I worked at a Big Tech company which had its own in-house Code Review tools which - probably not by coincidence - aligned a lot more closely with how I think about how Git history should be structured)
If you use vscode, try out the merge editor. It’s a lot clearer to me when the merge diffs are huge.
I would also say to check out the latest branch for each file you commit. If your file is file.tsx checkout file.tsx in the main branch to make sure you know what you’re changing.
Thanks! I’ve been tinkering with VS Code (migrating from IntelliJ) recently - I’ve found that they’re at pretty-much feature parity. VS Code makes it much harder to attach a debugger (IME, though I might just not grok it yet), but is more customizable and a lot less of a memory-hog. I think I’m comfortable adopting it as my daily driver. And, as you say, any IDE’s Merge Editor is usually clearer than the equivalent direct from the CLI!
However, I wasn’t complaining about Merge Conflicts - I do dislike them, but they’re a necessary evil (well, until AI can resolve all conflicts itself :P ). Rather, I was complaining about Merge Commits. See my comment here for more context.
sopuli.xyz
Top