I am not aware of this setup, and so I'm musing and winging it, but I think what they're saying is that if you point at the paper and say "is this a sheet of paper" they'd say yes. And then you point to the crease and say "is this a crease" and they'd say yes, so it has identity, separate from the paper (as in creases and papers are not synonymous), but given that it's not counted when listing things in the room, it's also not a thing.
But I think for me it's not that tricky, because it's a feature of the paper. Like if there was a coat in the room with buttons, and you asked me what was in the room I wouldn't say a coat and three buttons, I'd say just a coat. And the coat has three buttons, but those are properties of the coat, not the room. And buttons are something that can stand-alone!
But if I had a sheet of paper with a button placed in the middle of it, but not attached, I wonder would most people say it was a sheet of paper and a button, or a sheet of paper with a button?
Interesting. Yeah, sounds like what git blame -C is for, so I've never made copies when splitting files, I've just moved lines between files naively. But I guess if one's tools are limited and doesn't have the ability to -C, then I guess I could respect the hack that is that solution?
I mean, I'm 99% sure git doesn't store blame or authorship info in the pack files, even as a convenience cache, and just guesses by traversing the patch log with heuristics live when you run blame anyway, so the history mostly doesn't matter there, but the way you've done it does seem to have tricked the heuristics into doing what you want without relying on an option, so that's neat! It's an interesting hack, and I like interesting hacks 😛
By the way, if there are down votes, they're not from me!
I don't know about this dude, but also not all monks are, like, born into a monetary and raised in it. So probably he played videogames when he was younger, and argued as an adult that they're not that bad.
Yeah, I'm with you. I mean, git isn't magic. You "can" squash anything, including a merge commit, by just being at the end result, running git reset <commit you want to be squashed off of> and then running a manual git add and commit there. That's basically all a squash is.
But what you'll be left with us a single commit that contains all of the code from the branch you're squashing and also all the code pulled in from every branch you merged, all written as though it all came from this one commit. And maybe that's what you want? But it feels like also maybe it's not?
Huh. I have never in my 19 year career using git, ever wanted to copy a file and pretend all of the history of that file is also the history of the new file. I mean, I don't think I've ever even wanted to copy a file? Why are you copying a file?
Like, maybe I'm just too familiar with git to see the forest for the trees, but what the heck are you doing over there? 😅
And just in case it's useful, a tip is that you can use git blame -C to have the blame algorithm use a heuristic to try and find a "source" line if it was moved, including from another file, during a commit, and then continue following the history of that line, to try and get the real commit where this was written, not just the last time it was moved around.
It really is a testament to the strength of Nintendo's (and Game Freak's) brand and characters that they can have so many fans, making so much awesome fan art and content, all while being the absolutely most abusive and toxic to those fans and artists.
Like, most creators and franchises would kill for a community to spring up, or for people to engage with their work outside of their work. They'd consider it free advertising, and in fact they sometimes even pay for contests and things like that to drum up some kind of fan community and momentum.
And then Nintendo is out here hunting momentum and affection wherever they can find it, and it keeps springing up despite that 😛
Lord of the Rings barely counts, because not only were all three books out and classics before the movies started (obviously), but the three movies were basically worked on at the same time. It's nuts, but somehow they managed to do it.
So it's not like they released the first, got crazy hype, and then phoned everyone up and said "electric Boogaloo, you in?". They'd already shot most of the second and third by the time the first came out, as I recall.
Yup, basically. Systemd is "the first program" that runs, and then its job is to start all the other programs that make up a modern computer, most of which run in the background and a user will never see. It's not the only such "init program", though, and some people are grumpy that it does too much itself, rather than simply starting other programs to do those things.
But unless you're involved in starting and stopping background processes, you can't really tell which one you've got. Users aren't "meant" to care which process was the one that started the power management daemon, or whatever.
It wasn't my first campaign, but it was a game I ran for a group that hasn't played before, and it was funny how unintuitive a lot of "player actions" can be if you're not used to it. Like, they didn't know what they could do?
I had an NPC slip something under the door, and when the players opened the door they could just barely see the NPC nip around a corner at the end of the hall. This was "meant" to be a chase. Instead they were basically like "huh... I wonder who that was. Guess we'll never know" 😛
Or when one of them talked to a witness of a crime and I described the witness as "eyeing you suspiciously and only barely nodding in response to your greeting" they were like "I don't think he likes me, I don't want to disturb him, I'll leave him alone" 😅
It was all fully my fault, of course, but I was used to playing with much more active and plugged-in players, and fully dropped the ball with players that were a lot more passive, either from lack of experience or just mismatch between players and game genre.
So for them, I think a few railroads would have actually helped them quite a bit. Or if not railroads, at least maybe some bumpers or training wheels until they start to figure out what it means to have agency in a genre story.
Sure, but RAG has a Wikipedia article about the specifics of the process, history of its use, links to papers and articles about it and its advantages and drawbacks. It's also useful as a feature on a matrix for comparing one tool or model's capabilities to another. None of that is true of the sentence.
Virtually all of computing could be reduced to voltages across terminals changing over time, but it can still be useful to give specific terms to specific applications of this process, so we have something to talk about.
Your situation is legit, and I honestly wish these things were better because I wish all things were better, but I do feel like these are specialized programs that "most people" never touch in their entire lives.
But yes, for people who have a technical or creative career based on a proprietary tech stack, the story is more complicated.
Maybe I'm just a dumbass, but I think your rule of thumb is busted?
X should be slower than A, but should not be faster than A + B.
Isn't slower the same as "not faster"? I think it should be slower than A, but faster than A + B. So between A and A + B.
Or "the bus should be faster if it's already here, but cycling should be faster if you'd have to wait for the bus". I think that's what you were going for.
I love the timing of this post, being right after the "I just had my first 3some" one. I like to imagine you finish getting plowed and being like "wow, that was amazing", and then one of the guys being like "oh, you think that was amazing? You know what's amazing is these pandas with bucket on their heads" and then the other guy being like "yo, after that there's this great video I've got to show you" and squishing you in the middle and you're like "nooooooooooo..."
Maybe I'm confused about the current state of things, but I thought we weren't 100% sure Will Shakespeare was even a real guy, or a single guy, but now we're testing residue off the inside of a clay pipe we know was his and attributing plays to that?
I am not aware of this setup, and so I'm musing and winging it, but I think what they're saying is that if you point at the paper and say "is this a sheet of paper" they'd say yes. And then you point to the crease and say "is this a crease" and they'd say yes, so it has identity, separate from the paper (as in creases and papers are not synonymous), but given that it's not counted when listing things in the room, it's also not a thing.
But I think for me it's not that tricky, because it's a feature of the paper. Like if there was a coat in the room with buttons, and you asked me what was in the room I wouldn't say a coat and three buttons, I'd say just a coat. And the coat has three buttons, but those are properties of the coat, not the room. And buttons are something that can stand-alone!
But if I had a sheet of paper with a button placed in the middle of it, but not attached, I wonder would most people say it was a sheet of paper and a button, or a sheet of paper with a button?