deleted by creator

No one’s disputing the utility of wireless. But it’s not harming anyone to have a device with both mini-jack and bluetooth; the way it was for nearly 2 decades without any complaint.

or a adapter at greater than 20x cost

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.

Cool now I can actually check it out. Tried to previously but my connection failed about an hour into the clone. --depth=1 --shallow-submodules --recurse-submodules should really be given its own command in git. Not really sure why’d they choose MS as their host though.

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.

deleted by creator

It reduces the probability that a drive by scanner is going to detect a vulnerable service. Camouflage isn’t a guarantee that you aren’t going to be sighted on a battlefield, but it’s still a good idea to reduce the probability of becoming a target in whatever ways you can.

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.

7 years, 1st lemmy post. Hi everybody!