HN user
A workaround I've used sometimes to retrigger CI is to do `git commit --amend --no-edit --reset-author`. This changes the sha by changing the author timestamp. Then you can force push it to the PR branch
There's an item on their roadmap to allow commenting on unchanged lines: https://github.com/github/roadmap/issues/456
I think the person you're replying to is saying that "fully implement every unit test up front" does not describe TDD. With TDD you continuously alternate between writing tests and writing production code. It's not like you write a whole test suite up front.
There must be a typo somewhere in your comment, I don't understand how 350/week for 5 months is better than 500/month.
This seems to be covered by the new ability to extend issues with custom fields.
I guess you have to be careful not to return inside of these :)
I don't understand why you wouldn't be able to, especially given "a million years" to learn whatever you need to learn. Why does it feel inaccessible to you?
It makes sense to me that merge commits would "contain changes" (i.e. that a merge commit's tree would have content that is not in either parent's tree), otherwise how else would you represent the result of resolving merge conflicts?
ripgrep isn't a 1:1 rewrite of grep. It's a different program.
The government decides all the time that some people should be punished. It's the justice system.
What are these quotes from?
It's fine to take issue with charged language like the word "stolen", which can be interpreted in different ways; maybe you interpret that as "I won the vote count but the votes were changed", but it could also be reasonably interpreted as "I lost the vote count but I'm concerned people were influenced to vote that way through nefarious means".
I think there is a reasonable distinction between that statement and the specific claims of fraud we have been seeing for the last few months.
These aren't accusations of voter (or election) fraud in the same sense as was being claimed for 2020. From your second link:
During the tour's stop Friday in Seattle, Clinton pointed to FBI Director Christopher Wray's warning last month that Russia continues to pose a "very significant counterintelligence threat" and that efforts to influence U.S. elections with "social media, fake news" and "propaganda" has "continued pretty much unabated."
But in this scenario, the news station is not providing enough information for the citizen to develop an informed opinion. I guess there's room for a service like that that just has raw video (as one element of a wider media ecosystem), but it's also valuable for the news to actually explain events in a larger context.
If this hypothetical political candidate is saying something that's not true (or is disputed), and news station B just runs a raw video of their speech, you could argue it's favoring that candidate by allowing their message to spread without providing the appropriate context.
Has the comment you're replying to made you change your interpretation of the clip?
Just to clarify, Donald Trump called them "Clinton News Network". I think it's a little misleading to say they just "got the nickname".
Here is a question posed by the article:
IT’S HARD TO DETERMINE the extent to which Facebook caused this hyperpartisanship or simply stumbled into it. Did Facebook cultivate more extreme beliefs or simply take what was already simmering and thrust it into the open?
Mr. McGee argued that he always thought this way. Before Facebook, he said, he watched conspiracy-laden videos on YouTube. Facebook merely helped him find his people.
“People are engaging me, encouraging me to share what I think, but these are the inner workings of my mind,” he said. “I’ve been feeling this way for years. That’s why it’s so easy for me to make posts, because I’ve been suppressing this stuff forever.”
And yet when he talks about Facebook, he focuses on algorithms and optimization, not community or ideology. It’s worth considering: Would he be attempting to influence others so forcefully without Facebook’s incentives?
Which subreddit are you referring to? Based on your description, it surely can't be /r/fatpeoplehate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas
Just fyi, Project Veritas has a decade-long track record of intentionally putting out misinformation.
What would make it better for podcasts? Just curious, I use it for podcasts and have no major complaints. Any alternatives you suggest?
I've always read "a surge" as synonymous with "an increase", which could be expected or unexpected depending on the context.
The parent's point is about the metric of "death rate for severe cases", which is ambiguous depending on how you define severe. You could pick a definition of severe such that the death rate is 100%, but that wouldn't be super useful.
Effect is correct here.
You configure your editor to expand a tab into four spaces.
It's self, not __self__ (it has never been __self__). Double underscore names are used for special methods, which are typed relatively rarely, the most common probably being __init__.
There was a nice talk about feature toggles at RubyConf 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBBLMmr9e-k
Java Puzzlers spring to mind. There's a book [0], and some fun talks available on youtube [1][2][3].
[0] http://www.javapuzzlers.com/
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbp-3BJWsU8