I completely agree. It also forces better commit messages, because "maintaining the history of each PR" is forced into prose written by the person responsible for the code instead of hand-waving it away into "just check the commits" -- no thanks.
> So I got married first and got a Dog later, right?
No. In one reality, you got married with no dog, and in another reality you got a dog and didn't marry. Then you merged those two realities into P.
Going "back in time to commit D" is already incorrect phrasing, because you're implying linear history where one does not exist. It's more like you're switching to an alternate past.
I don't really agree that it's harder to reason over in the sense that it's hard to understand the consequences, but I also agree that a linear history is superior for troubleshooting, just like another comment pointed out that single squashed commits onto a main branch makes it easier to troubleshoot because you go from a working state to a non-working state between two commits.
there are others tricky time issues with staging/prod parallel branching models too, the most recent merge (to prod) contains older content, so time slips .. maybe for most people it's obvious but it caused me confusion a few times to compare various docker images
> the most recent merge (to prod) contains older content
Can't that also happen with a rebase? Isn't it an (all too easy to make) error any time you have conflicting changes from two different branches that you have to resolve? Or have I misunderstood your scenario?
This is the second time in just a few weeks I see a post from some UX person complaining about how some major tech company doesn't "understand" design while themselves having a design that is absolutely abysmal. What made this person think that having gigantic snowflakes flying down a page serving only text and images would be a good idea?
_edit_: I'd also like to point out that I know it can be disabled, the question(s) I then have are 1) why is it enabled by default 2) black text on yellow background is yet another obvious mistake
It’s not obvious to me how black on yellow is a mistake. It’s quite readable, the contrast is broad enough for clarity but not so broad the background overwhelms the foreground. Yellow’s a recommended “light” background for visually impaired people so the choice has precedance (although I confess that many other examples of it I’ve seen use a softer pastel yellow which is more comfortable).
The huge area of intense yellow (or any highly saturated color actually) is very jarring. The eyes get tired quickly. It's really a weird choice coming from a person who is apparently into visual communication.
Btw, I'm using a desktop PC with a large browser window. Maybe on a small mobile screen the problem is less apparent.
Sure, but "white" has a pretty similar effect, especially on modern high lumen screens. "Dark mode" is popular for a reason.
Personally, anecdotally, I find the black-on-yellow easier to work with than most sites' black-on-white. I just tested it with my screen at two or three brightness levels, and it was more comfortable than similar content against white. I'm over-sensitive to glare because my eyes lack pigment. I _think_ this makes me more susceptible to contrast issues (it certainly feels like it, but I am only n=1 and I've not done careful study). I'm open to being challenged on this but you'll have to come with broad audience data to contradict a lot of lived experience.
It's fair that you might not like the black-on-yellow; you might feel it's a poor branding choice; but I still contest that it's not "wrong" for any technical, perceptual reason.
While it's cool, something about vanity keys in general stroke me the wrong way. I feel like in principle you should never use a very short part of a public key for ocular identification, and it attempts to solve something that should be solved outside of wireguard, i.e. the "friendly naming" of public keys.
> It has a hardware raid1 enclosure, with 2TB formatted as ext4, and the really important stuff is sent to the cloud every night. Should I honestly bother learning zfs...?
It depends on whether you’re interested in it or not. There are multiple benefits with ZFS over your current setup, such as snapshotting, compression and the fact that it’s a virtual volume manager similar to LVM, ie more control over the things I just mentioned on a subset of the storage.
I also avoid hardware raid controllers like the plague for the simple reason that you are then ”vendor locked”, which you wouldn’t be with ZFS, you could easily move the disk(s) to another chassi.
Boot environments are awesome but it’s worth reading up on what is _not_ included in the snapshot. It’s really only the ”base system” and a rollback will keep whatever is in /var, /home and many other directories, so it’s good to know what to expect.
I use ZFSBootMenu with Linux and in that setup, the entire root dataset is in the snapshot, so it’s a ”complete” restore.
Yeah, probably not. I'd also imagine that the significant show of force by the US would have forced many in the military to assess their options, even if they might otherwise have supported Maduro.
Holy whataboutism. Regardless of what you think about Trump the US system is nothing like that of Venezuela or Russia or any other actually authoritarian state.
The "whataboutism" accusation is absurd--that's not even remotely an example of it. All my comment was about was editorial insertions of biased loaded language into a supposed news report. And I didn't say that the U.S. "system" is "like" Venezuela or Russia--that's a blatantly intellectually dishonest misrepresentation ... a) "authoritarian" is broader than the most extreme examples, and b) the Trump regime is acting outside of the "system". And: https://www.npr.org/2025/04/22/nx-s1-5340753/trump-democracy...
"A survey of more than 500 political scientists finds that the vast majority think the United States is moving swiftly from liberal democracy toward some form of authoritarianism."
That's from April ... the move to a "Department of War" and the actual waging of unauthorized war pushes things considerably further.
reply