The patch for iOS is not to stopp the potential hijack via a Trojan software but to stopp the mesh of iOS devices to broadcast the find my messages around.
Good stuff here. But I don‘t like the auto pruning suggestion as a reasonable global default. Or at least this shows that users who really see this as useful see no real difference between git and let’s say SVN. The whole idea is that the system is distributed and that you don‘t follow blind another upstream. But I grant the fact that most projects are not developed like the Linux kernel for which git was created.
But there is another issue. I personally like the fact that I keep a history of old branches etc. This can also save me if I or another person in the team deletes a branch by accident. I assume that pruning would maybe not delete the objects right away. Need to check that.
What would actually happen if I have a branch under development and it gets deleted from remote? Will it remove locally for me then? I guess only when my local head is equal to what remote pointed to.
Because Git is distributed, there's no "a branch" foo or whatever; that's a very pointedly centralized-logic, non-DVCS way to treat Git. If Alice has a head named "foo", Bob can fetch Alice as a remote and get a remote-tracking head "alice/foo", which has no bearing on any head named "foo" Bob has; it's just a view of Alice's state.
You can see why you'd want to prune these on fetch, if you want your refs/remotes/alice state to mirror Alice's state; this means removing "alice/foo" if "foo" on Alice is removed. You also might not want to, that's fine. But if you use git fetch as though Git were a DVCS, this is exactly the natural behavior; it's only when you imagine Git is centralized that it starts seeming strange.
So the answer to your final question is "this is not how distributed VCSes work".
(Just don't ask about tags. Ugh, what a nightmare! To be fair, the idea is that you don't go around fetching tags.)
"What would actually happen if I have a branch under development and it gets deleted from remote?"
The remote reference would be deleted but your local one would not, and you could push your local right back up to the remote if you want. Pruning is totally safe.
Ok. Was late yesterday. I reread the passage and understood it wrong. Yes if it keeps the „tracking“ branch information in sync that’s ok. I assumed it autocleans local branches. The initial statement regarding history etc kept me off track.
Yea, I enabled those without thinking through all of my use cases and I lost some archived data I didn't intend to. I definitely should've been doing a better job of maintaining those archives, but definitely not an option for everyone.
I assembled a large collection of tools over the years. And I‘m always happy when a project has a surprise moment like described in the article and I have just the right tool for that. In the other case I tend to make sure it won’t happen again.
And on that note. I tend to buy professional grade tools. Not just because there mainly better, have more features or are more accurate it’s also that they come with a higher Garantie and being able to buy spare parts if needed is an added bonus.
The interesting part, which was also mentioned in the article, is that each individual seems unaware that they all look the same. A friend of mine once said, referring to people from Friedrichshain: „Die sind alle so individuell, dass sie alle schon wieder gleich aussehen.“ (They all have such individual styles that they end up looking the same.)
The sameness is just the carrier wave; the signal is in the details. To people immersed in the subculture, it doesn't look the same at all! You can experience the same phenomenon by listening to an unfamiliar genre of music: it will all sound the same at first, but once you've tuned your ears to the conventions of the genre, you'll start to hear where the variation lives, and the idea that it all sounds the same will come to feel absurd.
Not a US citizen but I know my fair share of bureaucratic processes from my home country Germany. That being said it’s one thing to start a process to limit overspending without simple budget cuts which can be more hurtful. That’s why you need an actual audit to figure out what is and what isn‘t waste or inefficient. Inefficient also doesn’t mean shutting things down. Maybe improving processes and leverage the people better etc.
Then comes the whole topic of who is in charge. It’s still baffling that an unelected person can conduct official government business. I understand how the system works in the US but one would think that in order to be granted this much power, that some checks have to fly by congress / senate (not that this would make a difference since there is only the party line no conscience voting) before this person can set out to dismantle US agencies.
For me that is not a start. Why not bring a person from big Pharma in to audit and reform the FDA. While at it let’s some Exxon guys evaluate the environment regulations etc etc. You can‘t let the wolf guard the sheep.
For me it’s still to feel under control. And the fact that I don‘t want to inject it into every workflow. I‘m open to AI and use it daily. But my terms may be different then others. I want to control what I share and how. People have secrets and other things in a project. I sometimes rename things because the AI should only deal with the big picture. Paint me paranoid but that’s how it is for me.
I didn‘t look too deep into Nix the last couple of months (> 12) and was wondering while reading: what the hell is fh now. Another abstraction? I share your views here!
Reminds me of a great translation I struggled a bit at first. Gimli from Lord of the Rings is named in English: Gimli, son of Glóin. In the German translation his name is Gimli Glóinssohn. So back to English it would be Gimli Glóinson
By the way, there are two German translations. One “original” by Margaret Carroux which is closer to the English original and who collaborated with Tolkien back in his days, and a newer one from the late 90s by Wolfgang Krebe which tried to transform the text to something closer to spoken German. In the original Sam calls Frodo “Master” or, I believe sometime “Sir”, which is to be understood in the gentry commoner relationship. There is no real equivalent to “Master/Sir” in German. Carroux used “Herr” which sounds rather archaic to post-medieval Germans; Krege uses “Chef” which sounds too modern for the text.
If I remember my childhood’s Carroux translation correctly she used “Gimli, Gloins Sohn”, so not the Scandinavian construction, but a grammatically correct, but still archaic sounding, German construction which is near the original and still got the vibe of Gloinson.
Yesterday I watched a Harry Potter movie with my GF. I was a huge Potter-head back in the days, she haven't read the books. So I tried to explain to her the huge discussions around the acronym RAB in the books, and how the Norwegian translator had guessed on RAS to match how other character names were translated. Led me down to this article which has a whole section on "difficulties in translation" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Harry_Potter_transla...
So how the mirror of Erised had do get a proper backwards name in Norwegian, the O.W.Ls needed a fun acronym as well, Tom Marvolo Riddle is translated as Tom Dredolo Venster to make a matching sentence akin to how it in English is I am Lord Voldemort. Gotta make the songs and poems rhyme, etc.
The Norwegian translation is a work of love, and the translator Torstein Bugge Høverstad got quite famous here for his work.
Some books I have read have left terms untranslated (typically rendered in italics) where the concept doesn't really translate. That might work quite well for master/sir.
I have mixed feelings here.
On the one hand yes. It’s a good introduction because the simple patterns and instructions mean you can only do X a specific way. But when you start to write real programs, especially from a mindset of a programmer from the post 2010 times its starts to feel weird because the patterns become harder to grasp. So I‘m not 100% sure myself here. I love the 6502 and the instruction set. But on the other hand I feel that basic c and unoptimized assembly give you a more real live introduction to assembly? The issue is that it’s hard to judge for someone who already got introduced and grasps the concepts.
reply