Mustard only?! I am definitely the dog in the hot dog car.

On “mutual ownership”. I’m not convinced that anything, whose agency has been removed through confinement, can be said to have equal weight in the decision to be owned, and thus be claimed “mutual”.

You give evidence of our like behavior with other animals, and claim that my position MUST operate from the belief of our “difference and superiority”.

Consider the inverse: Humans are not distinct and not superior. Therefor, all animal behavior is acceptable human behavior, for we are not but animals.

Its not exactly the society most would want to live in. People can and do use animal nature as means to justify horrible behavior. “Its a dog eat dog world, the villain proclaims”, as if the only surprise is that their victim would have expected it any other way. Mantises devour the male after copulation. Why then do you demand I not do the same?! Pointing to the way things are in nature as a means to find justification for human behavior doesn’t seem to lead to a useful foundation for ethics; maybe it even to to its dissolution.

So yes, I think we’re different. I think that in many ways our difference comes from our responsibility of stewardship. Because we do have knowledge, agency and control to the degree that we can destroy or restore environments.

Picking up wild animals which would much prefer to be left alone, so you can get your picture taken, is not loving them. Keeping animals in cages so you can have something on your shelf to look at, is not loving them. Most animal ownership is possession for the possessive, masquerading as caring.

I would advocate for using each tool, where it makes sense, to achieve a more intelligible graph. This is what I’ve been moving towards on my personal projects (am solo). I imagine with any moderately complex group project it becomes very difficult to keep things neat.

In order of expected usage frequency:

1. Rebase: everything that’s not 2 or 3. keep main and feature lines clean.
2. Merge: ideally, merge should only be used to bring feature branches into main at stable sequence points.
3. Squash: only use squash to remove history that truly is useless. (creating a bug on a feature branch and then solving it two commits later prior to merge).

History should be viewable from log --all --decorate --oneline --graph; not buried in squash commits.

and then turned it into a nostalgia delivery system for anyone that will buy anything with their favorite IP slapped on it.

You’re just adding more hyperbolic outrage fuel to the fire. None of this is true because things do change. Apathy is just as bad as ignorance. Repeal Citizens United. Champion ranked choice voting at your local level so we can kick out the extremists that are dead-locking policy.

People who let themselves believe the whole game is rigged are just making an excuse to not have to do the very hard work of maintenance. People who espouse that the game is rigged, and then convince others that all effort is futile are just as bad as Fox News. Man up you bitchy cunts. Get the fuck out there and vote.

lol yeah I guess it depends on the length of the sentence and the context. Context is usually pretty clear for questions, and maybe exclamations are typically short enough that the ‘!’ is already visible anyways. Definitely wasn’t considering periods and commas in that list.

I like the prefix marks. I wish we used them for all of our punctuation. They improve readability. Imagine if we removed the leading double-quote on our quoted lines.

I just use TF as i need it all the time for notes and stuff, but really wish I could use the 3 triangle dots, which I learned to use in logic. I wish the emoji picker (ctrl+period) could accept a searches for more symbols. On windows a search for the cucumber emoji works, but you can’t search for greek letters. sigh

You’ll be a hero at work when your coworkers see how efficient your commit messages have become.

right lol, feel like i have to wash my mouth out with soap just get some of the residuals out

As a millennial, I disagree. Plenty of my friends, whom used to be outspoken idealist have taken industry jobs for known bad actors. Not being poor, not living in squalor, and being able to afford a visit to the doctor, being able to afford housing, being able to afford to raise a family, these are not minor things. And at a certain point many will just give up, and give in to those who offer security and comfort. And also there’s just a ton of youth media whose only core value is wealth obtainment. I’ve several friends proudly proclaiming they can’t wait to be rich, will grind and hustle, but can’t be bothered to vote; including a couple with graduate degrees.

I think a lot of people put way too much weight on these terms: baby-boomer, genz, millennial etc. They’re primarily used for marketers to try and segment us into targetable demographics. And by lazy journalist to make very broad sweeping categorizations of huge groups of people. Sociologists and economists probably use the terms with a bit more specificity on average, but that gets lost when communicating with a general audience. I think we have way more in common then a lot of us like to think. I typically get down-voted for having this opinion, because a lot of people don’t want to hear that, no they are not actually special. There have been many amazing people that came from the generations prior to our own, there will be some from our own, but most of us will behave the same way humanity always has when put in similar conditions.

I’ve a female friend who has one just because she thinks its hilarious.

Lol my ssd’s are just hanging out of the case by their sata cables. I’m missing some hardware so its just guts-out until I find that ziplock bag full of screws (i remember seeing it a couple years ago). my wrist is killing me tho, that ergo mouse pad makes a lot of sense.

If it reaches that mass, it’s going to bring all of it, minus corporate control. But we could still end up with a corporate host hoovering up all the user base anyways, github style. Embrace, Extend, Monetize.

True, but I see this quote repeated so often that it kind of bugs me. It seems to be used in a thought-terminating way. As if we shouldn’t criticize languages. As if they aren’t tools that are able to be improved upon, or they’re all made equal. But I’m sure Bjarne Stroustrup needs to fend off hostility and unfair criticism as much as any programmer with a successful language.

Big enough for what though? Big enough to take advantage of the amount of destruction these weapons create? They could have chosen a single isolated, near coast warship. Or even just dropped it near coast on no target at all. The important thing would have been the show of force, in order to deter further attack. Knowing the US had that capability might have been enough to end the war. But we didn’t try to communicate that we had these weapons, instead we used them.

I don’t get the “needed to” argument. They could have chosen military targets, but went straight for cities.