While this does affect home electricity prices, doesn't this also affect costs in manufacturing? If trump's administration wants to promote american industrial manufacturing, the rust belt would be the place to do it, and this only makes it harder than it currently is.
Fossil is the SQLite one right? I would love to try alternatives SCM tools, but you run into the fact that associated tooling is so concentrated on git and its processes.
I was using bitbucket and mercurial for a while! If fossil had something similar (which off the top of my head, I think they do? Something wiki-like for the SQLite project) I would be willing to mess around with it on a small team or something.
IMO, it’s not the technology that matters but the authoring tools. Flash was easy to pirate, sometimes free with school, and easy to use. Thinking of applications as “animations with scripting” was a great idea because it let people only learn what they wanted to.
If you just want to make animations, skip actionscript entirely. If you want some extra Easter eggs, just turn any symbol into a button and you can trigger any movie clip you want. Want to make this a whole game, heres the whole action script editor.
So on the other side of this, I’ve also seen senior+ folk working on projects alone, with no collaboration at all, but still use a GitHub-esque PR/git-flow process. Almost feels like a professionalism-espousing self-flagellation.
Create a PR, self-approve the PR, then merge it to a develop branch. Then merge the develop branch into main. Then in main make a release branch, and tag it.
I sometimes do something similar, as it gives a chance for the CI to run more comprehensive tests on other platforms that's hooked up to the PR flow, and "reviewing" your own code can be pretty helpful.
I think I treat "PRs" on my own projects as pretty much the same as tags or commits - they require pretty much the same amount of documentation and description as a PR to a third party if they are meant to be meaningful to myself in a few years time, after all.
I can see doing this, stepping away from the change for a bit, come back and read the PR from a fresh perspective and see if you can make sense of the change and if there are any errors.
Yes. Because writing code is so easy a bot can do it these days. sets the everything else that goes into writing code that wants to be captured, so following process is about how much you love future you, who has to come in three/five/ten/twenty years from now and figure out wtf you were thinking when you wrote this. Did I mean to use > instead of >= or was I just careless?
Not to be annoying, but maybe one of the most useful things git does for me outside of the usual SCM stuff, is git-bisect. Its saved me many hours of debugging.
If you ever run into a case where something is broken (that you can measure, like a test or broken build) but it’s not obvious what change caused the fault, first go to a commit where you know the fault is present.
$ git bisect start
$ git bisect bad
Then go to a commit where you know the fault is NOT present. Go back far if you can! This can be in another branch as long as your start and end spots are connected somehow.
$ git checkout abc123
$ git bisect good
And after that bisect command, your HEAD will get moved to the mid point between the good and bad commits. Check if the fault is still there, and run either "git bisect good" or "git bisect bad" depending on if it’s resolved or not.
It will keep jumping you to the mid point between the nearest bad commit and good commit till you end up at 1 precise commit that caused your fault.
This works extremely well for configuration changes specifically, where maybe it doesn’t break in CI, but on your local dev machine it does. You can also use this for non-text files like images to find out when 1 part of an image was changed for example.
—
Also if you just want to make normal SCM stuff easier,
Out of curiosity since it’s not mentioned in the article, but what would receiving blood with a high iron content implicate? Is it something generally tolerable by someone without the condition as a 1 time transfusion? Would you have to mix blood to get the average hemoglobin iron content to some
target level? I assume your body can handle the spike in iron and slowly bring you back to your body’s normal level.
If so, wow! Honestly who would say “no” to donation? If I had this disease and someone was just tipping my blood into the dirt every 12months when it could be helping people, I would actually be pissed that no one gave me the choice before.
Iron is used by the organism to make hemoglobin, the molecule that transports oxygen in blood.
Many recipients of blood transfusions need it because they lost a lot of blood: car accidents with open fractures, gunshots, etc. A single blood transfusion won't restore their blood levels to normal; it's just a temporary fix to keep them from dying. When they're "out of the woods", they restore the rest of their hemoglobin levels on their own, in time. It takes a lot of iron to do that, so the extra iron helps a lot.
The problem with extra iron happens when the patient can't fabricate their own hemoglobin, and as a consequence consume almost no iron. Some of these disorders require repeated transfusions; the patient can't live without them: thalasemia (severe forms), porphyrias, refractory anemias (MDS), aplastic anemia.
If the hemoglobin is low, the body's chemical mechanisms assume there's insufficient iron. The body then absorbs more iron from food and does it's best to store it and not lose it. In these cases, hemochromatosis appears even if blood transfusions they receive contain regular iron levels.
Oh yeah I know. I think you might have misread my question. Thinking more so about someone without this blood condition, getting a 1 time transfusion of blood (exactly like your example, after some serious trauma.) from someone with this condition. What are the implications of that? I assume the risks are low (especially compared to NOT getting an emergency blood transfusion), based on how the article talks about it, but it doesn't go into details.
AFAIK, high iron in the blood isn't a problem for donatee. I think low iron in donated blood can be a problem, so most blood banks will do a quick screening and will turn donors away if your iron levels are too low.
The reason donations from known hemochromatosis patients have been turned away in the past was because of ethics. Blood and other medical donations are supposed to be of free will with no benefit for the donor. If you didn't know you had hemovhromatosis and gave blood regularly, you might never find out, and that would be fine. But once you know that giving blood helps you out, it's no longer of free will with no benefit for you.
Not all organizations have held this strict interpretation, and more and more blood organizations are accepting donations from people with this condition over time as generally they all would like more donations.
Huh, interesting to know! I can see the reasons for that rule pertaining to any medical donation generally, but in this case it does feel like a clear reason for an exception. (In my non-medical-ethics-trained mind.)
If my blood was withheld from people that needed it and instead destroyed, only BECAUSE I had a disease that benefits from bloodletting and does not affect the usefulness of my blood when transfused in any way... I think I would be rightfully angry by that.
The point isn't to cause you to be angry like that; that is an unfortunate side effect.
I believe the point is to stop predatory pressure to sell parts of your body because you need money or something and someone with more money or power than you wants it. We have to make laws like this to prevent some people from abusing inequality to create systems that put people in a position where they need to decide if they should sell some part of themselves.
In a perfect world people should be able to make clear, informed decisions about what to do with their body. In this world we have to set some baselines to prevent exploitation and permanent harm because we know SOMEONE will do it otherwise.
As an extreme example, imagine if, instead of stealing some money through gift cards, scammers got grandma to give up one of her kidneys.
I imagine it might be actually useful for patients that are anemic with all that extra iron. But it seems from this link that donated blood is processed and separated into standard units so many multiple donor blood is mixed together.
They don't mix it. Blood isn't interchangeable, as they explain on that link they sometimes need to destroy individual donations after separation if tests find a problem (e.g. you unknowingly have HIV) so if they were mixing the blood they'd need to destroy far more when this happens. Perhaps more importantly match checks can't work effectively except on a single donation. If you're a non-emergency transfusion patient you'll be cross matched with the intended blood, which means they know before transfusing that it's definitely compatible.
In fiction there are a handful of blood "types" and all the AB+ is identical, in reality it's more complicated than that, so if you've got enough time you always check and that means the donations must be from a single specific (even if anonymous) donor.
Not an expert, but the donating (and/or bloodletting) is scheduled frequently enough to keep their iron from deviating too high above normal, and someone receiving a transfusion is typically going to be low on blood. Put 'em together, and I'd be surprised if a hemochromatosis transfusion could be a problem for anyone who doesn't themselves have hemochromatosis.
But yeah, this does seem like a really mutually beneficial arrangement. They need to lose some blood either way, might as well put it to use.
The deeper I get into my career, the harder my bad decisions have bit me later.
For JS-in-the-browser at least, I feel like it’s less about which framework/paradigm you pick today, but more about how your choices will limit your options in the future. If you could predict the future, you’d just choose the framework with the longest maintained life, but you can’t, so just focus on maximizing abstractions in the framework built on the slow-changing parts of the web (HTML/CSS, browser APIs) and try to consider how it would integrate as the “legacy” application you’ll be bemoaning only 5-7 years from now.
Some of the most successful companies I’ve heard about have legacy applications. Aiming to make the perfect choice for all future problems up front seems like the wrong choice IF it prevents you from changing your choice without tearing everything down first.
Browsers sort of went from a network document viewer with forms, to a whole application platform. It's sort of like grafting on changes to Acrobat Reader so it becomes a PDF viewer with WinForms + DirectX.
The fact that we expect basic text-and-image websites to display along side full online 3D games using GPU acceleration and might even interface with a few web assembly modules... is sort of insane. It's all just an application platform now.
I think that just means that browser complexity grows with the complexity of software globally.
So maybe thunderbird isn't ideal for you because it keeps changing... but I do know for a fact you can disable auto updating in Thunderbird. I would much rather set up a 75 year old with something that will stay the same AND allow installing older versions, than something I don't fully trust will obey the "Disable auto-updates" checkbox.
reply