shandor

Which in the end is precisely the reason why we want to understand the intentions behind the actions, right?

This is a good take, and I agree that habits can do that to people.

On the other hand, the intention behind the habit/action easily twists it in actuality to something else.

I think the “fake it till you make it” I brought up upthread a great example of this. Yeah, it might end up with the fake becoming something valuable, or you building character, or whatever.

Or, the habit that is getting built isn’t positive hustle and tenacity, but just a habit of outright lying, constantly reinforcing itself.

Sometimes it’s impossible to see from the outside what is which until it breaks down.

I think it is also possible to just acknowledge the emotions in the heat of the moment, "process" them quickly as unproductive for the situation, and let them go their way.

Like the grandparent comment, I agree that this naturally requires training and effort. I also find that to be a more constructive way than to "suppress" your impulses/emotions for an unpacking later. Not saying you were necessarily directly advocating for that, just something that your comment made me think.

concordance of action and "intention" .... must be united in ethically good action

Yeah, I had to disagree with how TFA brought "fake it till you make it" into this very discussion.

Yes, one can have "faking" that ultimately ends up creating the thing it promised....but I fear that for each such benign or constructive "fake" there are so many cases of Theranos et al that I could ever remove what you called intention and ethically good action from the calculation.

Why on Earth would these be in any way incompatible?

I’ve been using git for 15+ years,and definitely share the sentiment that basically everyone needs to learn it well as it is just that entrenched.

…but I love that people are coming up with potential alternatives that have a meaningful chance of moving the whole VCS space forward.

Not sure if I'm ready to buy into the "be afraid" mentality yet.

But what articles like this often seem to just completely gloss over is that while, yes, AI might not today be the force that makes every single short-story writer redundant, tech like this seldom goes backwards in capability and instead tends to get better... Cumulative small improvements for, say, 10-15 years does wonders, like the advent of the Internet showed.

Aaron Ross Powell isn't an expert or even a highly informed amateur

Yeah, it was a embarrassing how hard he missed this mark while at the same time lashing out at "tHe TeCH BRos" and their inadequacy in taste two times in every sentence...

This same phenomenon seems to happen often. My go-to explanation is that the "serious middle ground" you mentioned is actually using the new tools doing some actual work, just a little more efficiently, without much fuss.

That usually does not make it into the headlines, and doesn't "drive engagement metrics" or whatever, so it also isn't in the interest of the news to push that middle ground narrative, and so we get the ridiculous polarization.

In my humblest of opinions, you are probably spot on about the autopilot vs. actually experiencing things.

As a concrete example, someone in this thread mentioned their older relative spending a lot of time with puzzles daily. I too watched my grandpa doing sudokus and crosswords, but in the end if there’s nothing much else, those too will quickly become uninspiring routine.

I really believe truly experiencing life does require some introspection so that you have agency.

Damn. Every time someone mentions Jujutsu I learn something awesome about it. I really need to give it a proper try one of these days.

A commit is literally a snapshot :) It is also very easy to make.

Stop worrying about titles and content and commit to your heart’s content.

When ready, restructure those snapshots into a coherent story you want to tell others by squashing commits and giving the remaining ones proper titles and commit messages. I use interactive rebase for that, but there are probably other ways too.

Thank you, kind internet stranger. That was an awesome dive into the matter!

So how about NATS compared to RabbitMQ? If building from scratch, what would drive a design or team towards NATS?

It also explains why acyclovir and valacyclovir dramatically reduces the risk of developing dementia.

Sounds fascinating, where could one read more about this? I don’t think I’ve come across this before.

Yeah, you're right.

FWIW I was trying to convey the idea of "not rolling your own", in that instead you could just encrypt twice by using established implementations instead of rolling your own.

But as you and less_less rightly point out, it's not at all that simple for the majority of cases we usually mean (or at least wish for) when we say "encryption".

Lesson learned, hopefully.

I think you can mostly achieve this by using the ciphertext from the quantum algorithm as the plaintext to the classical algorithm (or vice versa).

I wouldn’t trust any solution that combines the algos in some more ”clever” way, as the whole point like you say is to guard against the risk of unproven new algorithms.

No, you got it exactly backwards.

A thing has shape and form and so many other aspects just by the virtue of being.

Giving a name to it doesn’t change the thing in the slightest, and mostly tells about the namer, not the namee.

One of the most infuriating things today is large swathes of people getting this wrong like you, and then acting on their limited view.

I read Make It Stick [0] recently, and it seems to agree on almost everything on the science side that the top answer here brings up, if anyone is interested. It discusses many of the mentioned themes (spaced repetition vs. "blocking", mixed practice, testing effect, desirable difficulty) in more detail.

[0] https://www.amazon.com/Make-Stick-Science-Successful-Learnin...

Just to make sure your TIL is complete, do note that Linux containers are VMs also on MacOS :)

This resonates so much with my experience.

I think it was Jim Collins in Good to Great starting with the idea that it's super important to "get the right people on the bus...and the wrong people off the bus". Which he expanded to the idea that motivated, skillful people don't actually need that much management, and that it is the mediocre and worse performers that do.

Regression to the mean.

All companies start small. Only the absolute best survive, so there is tremendous survivorship bias for the remaining companies to comprise of fabulous people.

Naturally, when the company starts growing, it is insanely hard to be able to keep on recruiting only such fabulous people. If nothing else, it would slow the growth, snd as such is usually not prioritized.

That’s when the regression to the mean starts. Then, you start needing more process and more bureaucracy so that the middling people have any chance of keeping up.

Unfortunately, there is no deus ex machina at the end of this path, like in TFA.

Ok, so is it ok if I run the whole thing on my own hardware, and never distribute?

If not, how does that differ from me making an unauthorized pencil drawing of Mario?

As I mentioned in my comment, I'm unaware of the effect of the nonprofit status on this. But like the parent commenter mentioned I mostly was thinking of laws prohibiting destruction of shareholder value (edit: whatever that may mean considering a nonprofit).

It just seems ludicrous that the board could run a company into the ground like this and just shrug "nah we're nonprofit so you can't touch us and BTW we don't even need to make any statements whatsoever".

There have been many comments that the initial firing of Altman was in a way completely according to the nonprofit charter, at least if it could prove that Altman had been executing in a way as to jeopardize the Charter.

But even then, how could the board say they are working in the best interest of even the nonprofit itself, if their company is just disintegrating while they willfully refuse to give any information to public?

I’m confused how the board is still keeping their radio silence 100%. Where I’m from, with a shitstorm this big raging, and the board doing nothing, they might very easily be personally held responsible for all kinds of utterly nasty legal action.

Is it just different because they’re a nonprofit? Or how on earth the board is thinking they can get away with this anymore?

But it’s still surprising the other three then haven’t sacked D’Angelo, then. You’d think with the shitstorm raging and the underlying reasoning seemingly so…inadequate, they would start seeing that D’Angelo was just playing them.

I guess U-boot, uclibc, and busybox is quite common starting point.

Of course, this varies immensely between different use cases, as ”embedded Linux” spans such a huge swath of different kinds of systems from very cheap and simple to complex and powerful.

The trouble with suppressing negative thoughts in the long run is that, eventually, reality may force you to confront them all at once and under far more difficult conditions.

I guess the whole point, and better way of putting the original idea is to resolve the negative thoughts. If the thoughts are trivial, just suppressing them is mostly resolution enough, since trivial thoughts are most probably not going to come back.

If the underlying reason for the negative thought is major and has staying power due to reality (e.g. you lost your mother when you were young), I think it's probable that the thought pattern is not going to go away if the reality underneath is not resolved (e.g. to actually learn to cope with your loss).

Because eventually, reality will force you to confront these things at some point, because it's, well, reality. If you just keep suppressing these negative thoughts, they will just keep coming back and you're not really winning that much.

Sounds awesome for your use case!

…but this sounds so much like the legendary Dropbox release thread’s ”just use FTP, SVN, etc” that it made me smile :)

Hah, thanks for that mental image.

As I said the positivive sentiments I heard came from developers, and TFA is about CI (rather than boards etc. that JIRA handles, so is there maybe anything remotely positive in how AzDO implements CI, git integration, testing, etc? Or is it just rotten to the core?

Hard to imagine someone would hate it more than Bitbucket Pipelines or, god forbid, Bamboo. Buuut I’m more than open-minded if need be.

Is there an actual technical point beyond ”MS bad” for this sentiment?

Honestly asking, as I’ve been mostly hearing positive things about AzDO, and from developers of all people.