Right, but what I'm saying is that git doesn't store authorship information or line-by-line history, no matter how it's done. Figuring out which line came from where is an algorithm the git blame command does every time you request it, and that algorithm can give different results depending on which options you give the blame command. And so what you've found here is a collection of commits that produces a situation the default blame algorithm can follow, without any optional flags, which is neat! Maybe not great for git history, but neat!
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 204
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 204
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
And that was after this scene
Interesting. Yeah, sounds like what
git blame -Cis 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?
Right... for sure... but then if you don't want to squash, then it doesn't matter you can't squash a merge commit.
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 -Cto 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.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.
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
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.
I don't think "most users" care about systemd's design philosophy. Feels a little xkcd 2501
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
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?
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Physics tends to treat numbers as inputs, outputs, and sometimes constants which are also inputs, but more like calibration to make the math describe our world. Like,
ccould have any value and the math would be math, but in our universe there's a particular value that produces useful outputs and all others don't. So we use that one.As for whether or not it's worth studying, I think that depends on you. Basically no physicist in the last 50 years does any real calculating in their head. We have tools for that, and they do a fine job. So if you can't memorize your multiplication tables, who cares. Not important.
But the reasoning part is important. The problem solving part of figuring out how to put pieces together, or how to model something, is important, and also is a skill and mindset. Also, what I didn't cover is algebra, which is a set of rules for transforming an input into an output, transforming one tool into another, while keeping all the relationships intact. Still not numbers, but again, it is a mindset. Like a language, you have to learn it and become adept at it, and it takes practice to get used to it. And that is very important.
So! The good news is there's nothing stopping you! You can lookup a list of, like, highschool physics equations and constants, some highschool problems, and see if you can get some answers! Use a calculator, use Excel, whatever! Play around with stuff, get a feel for how it handles. The numbers aren't the interesting part, the equations are, and how they're used. For you, the numbers will just be something you punch in at the end to see if you got your reasoning right.
So yeah, give it a shot, there are no rules, and try not to get discouraged! 😛
Yeah, I had a teacher who had one and I thought it'd be cool to not need as many floppies. But that's the only time I was ever near one, and I don't think I ever held one in my hands. Then I forgot because better stuff came along 😛
- JumpDeleted
Permanently Deleted
Math, or at least this part of it, is all about relationships between values. Let's ignore numbers for a bit. If you take a long stick and put a big rock under it, then when you move your side of the stick down, the other side will move up. And if you were to measure how much you moved your side versus how much the other side moved, you'd notice that unless you put the rock right in the dead middle, the other side would move a different amount. This isn't because something is magically making this happen, it just a property of the construction of your system. The other side just does move more or less, and it's different depending on where the pivot point is.
Similarly, if you have two gear wheels with different numbers of teeth, and you mesh them together, and you turn one and count how many times you've turned it, and also count how far the other one has turned, you'll find a relationship there too! And again, this relationship is just built into the way these objects interact. It's just the way this system works.
Okay, so, stay with me now, saying
y = 2x + 5is the same. It's defining a relationship, it's building a system that's says the value we're calling "y", chosen arbitrarily it could be any name, is always twice as big as "x" (also chosen arbitrarily), and then 5 more than that. It's a system we've built, just like the levers or gears, that produces a relationship we want to express for some reason. And you can put them together in any way, and they'll always describe some relationship, even if it's not a useful one.Now, people have spent hundreds of years, depending on how you want to count, trying to find relationships that also happen to have predictive power. They've built systems where the relationship between "d" and "t" is modeled to be the same as the relationship between "the distance that rock flew from me" and "the time since I threw that rock". And what's nice about finding these relationships is that now that you know what the relationship is, now that you've built the system of levers and pulleys and gears that turn in just the right way, you can start guessing about the rocks before you even throw them, because this relationship you've got on the page is similar to the one you've seen in real life with the rock and the stopwatch.
Once you've got a bunch of these, picking the right one and combining them because more like a puzzle or a maze. I've got these things I know, like the weight of the rock, and the size of the Earth, and how stiff the metal in the spring I'm using to launch this thing is. And I'm trying to figure out its top speed. And I've got a bag of relationships I know are battle-tested. So all I have to do now is start finding relationships that depend on stuff I know to get me stuff I don't know. And if I can link them together like a Rube Goldberg machine, I can figure out something I didn't know using this one relationship, which is handy because this other relationship I'd quite like to use needed that thing I didn't know before but do now.
And so I can work through a chain of relating things to things until I can get to the point where I have enough to use one of the relationships I do know that predicts speed. And once I've got that, I'm done! I trust the relationships I've used, presumably I used them properly and didn't make any dumb mistakes, and so I followed a chain of things I knew, through tools that used those things, to tools that used the things the other tools produced, until I found a path to my goal.
The only thing stopping you from there is the complexity of the relationship, the accuracy of the relationship to the real situation, and how accurately you can measure the things you know.
Obviously for this case we need to add a signifier for the countdown so it's clear to the other parties that you are aware of the standard and adhering to it before you even begin the countdown.
Like "ISO three two one GO!"
This is semi-backwards compatible, but still confusing for normies.
Even better, just make up new words where the ambiguity never existed. No numbers at all, just "glarp dook peow" and we always go on "peow" and always have. No backwards compatibility, but you'll be guaranteed that a person who doesn't understand will need clarification, and won't go unexpectedly through imagined agreement.
Or, if backwards compatibility is required, we could count up from 1 to 3... and our signifier phrase could be something like "awnthree". As a label for the standard we're using! Like, "awnthree, one, two, three".
I think that could work 😛
This is one of those ones that's a tragedy. Biweekly "should" always mean every two weeks. Twice a week is "semi-weekly", aka every half a week.
But regardless of what it "should" mean, people use it wrong often enough that you have to check every time, not because the word is ambiguous, but because people are often mistaken.
It's a shame, but it's part of human communication 😅
But the middle part is, if I'm not mistaken "England French Toast" (in Japanese) not "English". But maybe that's how it's said and I'm just wrong.
"That'll still count as a wish though"
There are two ways to get a doctor faster.
The first is to increase the supply of doctors: more doctors, more nurses, more beds in hospitals, more clinics, more MRI machines. Any government with a public healthcare system can do this at any time by allocating more funds to the public healthcare system, either increasing the taxes people pay, or diverting tax money from something else. If a country isn't bankrupt and isn't doing this, it's a choice.
The second way is to have private clinics that use money as a way to skip triage. To allow wealthy people to pay their way ahead of poor people to the same small supply of doctors. This is the way most people who rail against public healthcare see the solution going, but the part they don't say out loud is "I want poor people to suffer more so I can suffer less". Because that's what that solution is, it's what it boils down to, but for some reason saying "I want to sell my suffering to the desperate" makes it feel less fun.