git rm -rf is only usable within the scope of the git repository and removes files in the staging area and working directory but doesnt affect untracked files or .git. rm -rf affects everything. For this case rm -rf probably would be the better option
edit: did a quick edit on the meme to change it to rm -rf since it makes more sense
rm - rf is the only version that makes sense, since the only reason to delete and re-clone is to recover from an unexpected .git/ state, and git rm won’t remove that.
There’s a bunch of game studios that think they need to use ring zero to prevent cheaters. And basically the user is just told ‘trust me bro’ that they’re not going to mess up your system.
I personally refuse to play any game that is ring zero. And this big outage is a clear example as to why it’s a bad idea to give random devs unlimited access to your machine.
The problem is if anti-cheat does not have full access but the cheat does, the cheat can just hide itself. Same for anti-virus vs viruses. It’s particularly nasty on free-to-play games where ban evading really just means you have to get a new e-mail. It’s the same reason why some anti-cheats block running games in VMs. Is it fool proof? Hell no! Does it deter anybody not willing to buy hardware to evade VM detection or run the cheat on completely separate hardware? Yes.
Personally, I’d prefer having a stake/reputation system where one can argue that they can be trusted with weaker anti-cheat because if you do detect cheating then I lose multiplayer/trading/cosmetics on the account I’ve spent $80 USD or more on. Effectively making the cost of cheating $80 minimum for each failed attempt. Haven’t spent $80 yet? Then use the aggressive anti-cheat.
Flashback to my first job. Coworker designed a giant complex web app with bazillion UI messages. Another coworker (in the Management) sent me the UI messages. As an Excel file.
I was tasked to manually convert the messages to a PHP data structure of some description (because this was 2002 and Excel files didn’t exactly lend themselves to scripting in Linux). Surprisingly, the management person did acknowledge my complaint that the conversion process was far more painful than necessary. Not that this helped, because soon after the startup got acquired and as far as I know the tech currently only exists in conceptual level in some big corporate vault or other.
This was so long ago that I can’t actually remember the actual reason why things had to be done by hand. Part of it may have been a conversion snag, but there were probably some other reasons why it wasn’t as simple as writing a script to do the job. Because I distinctly remember I wrote some scripts to help with other data conversion jobs.
l often get sent a long list of info/ criteria in excel. It’s often easiest (and traceable / maintainable back to their request) just to stay in the excel to generate large chunks of the SQL
programmer_humor
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.