To be fair, back in the day you could get better results by relying on Google with site:foobar and the Boolean/“power user” stuff. A lot of built-in search boxes on sites were a bit dodgy, or at least less flexible than AND/OR/NOT and other “power user tricks”.
Of course, these days those seem to be ignored wholesale and even “verbatim quotes” are an utter crapshoot, this was back when Google didn’t fucking blow.
So don’t?
This doesn’t explain shit. It tosses a bunch of graphs at you with the feeling of someone suggestively waggling their eyebrows. Some of the graphs have completely valid points. Some are of unclear relevance. Most of all, the page busily works to correlate all these in your mind while carefully not actually arguing anything. That should basically always make you thoroughly fucking suspicious - no matter what the message is.
Maybe the site is completely right about whatever its carefully-only-implied point is: that’s the beauty of not really taking a clear stance at all, but just throwing information at people that is likely to allow them to extrapolate whatever you want them to. You also don’t have to do pesky things like providing citations, justifying your reasoning, or even explaining what that reasoning is.
I would absolutely recommend against using this as a teaching tool. It could (generously…) be used as a reference for yourself, sure, if you can otherwise back up the implied connections in a way this site did not even try. The fact that its implied point, “wealth hoarding bad” (I assume) is a fairly good one, does not mean this is a good way of communicating it.
“Finally”? Barf.
Lee-bruh. I don’t really see a problem.
This is on .ml, so I’m sure we’ll see some of it shortly. Or this post disappears out of a window.
Which inaccurate doomer myths? Because every time I hear this, it’s “well, I’m sure that’ll be ni-aaaaaaand it’s climate denialism”
Or any other amount of THE_[RANDOM CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL] accounts I’ve seen around. I think I confronted “one of them” with it and no, tOtAlLy NoT ThE sAmE PeRsON. Sure, buddy/ostensibly buddies.
Sure, that’s fine. I use interactive rebase for “cleaning” a lot. I’m just saying it doesn’t make a difference for diffing (as you can diff any commit against any other) and doing it as a matter of routine sounds like it could skip potentially useful history.
I mostly rebase but if a branch has things happen in a sequence that matters, I would merge it instead, for example.
Squashing seems like you’d potentially lose out on info and have a harder time isolating the changes you’re looking through. I guess it depends on how much has been changed and whether some of the commits along the branch were more important than others.
I also don’t think the reset is necessary, you should be able to diff the branch head against whatever you want.
Give some JS dev about fifteen minutes
That, or you’re met with “why on earth do you want to do that?”
To be fair, the XY problem is huge in anything coding related. Newbie wants to do X, has a vague and terribly wrong idea about how to do it (Y), then asks how to do Y instead. To give a “correct” answer to Y, assuming the question makes enough sense to have a correct answer, is less helpful than trying more or less tactfully to figure out what the actual goal was.
I think I misunderstood lemmyvore a bit, reading some criticism into the Lego metaphor that might not be there.
To me, “playing with bricks” is exactly how I want a lot of my coding to look. It means you can design and implement the bricks, connectors and overall architecture, and end up with something that makes sense. If running with the metaphor, that ain’t bad, in a world full of random bullshit cobbled together with broken bricks, chewing gum and exposed electrical wire.
If the whole set is wonky, or people start eating the bricks instead, I suppose there’s bigger worries.
(Definitely agree on “low code” being one of those worries, though - turns into “please, Jesus Christ, just let me write the actual code instead” remarkably often. I’m a BizTalk survivor and I’m not even sure that was the worst.
the “playing with legos” mental model
??
It already sort of is, it’s just that people don’t always even necessarily know which community things are from, let alone care how that community might dictate that they vote.
People just won’t, for any number of reasons.
Because you can’t escape labels. Even if you don’t depend on them (you very likely do) other people do. In reality you are perfectly right - which bits you have and whether you feel manly, womanly, both or neither, consistently or varyingly should not matter. But apparently they do.
Since the labels are going to be there, they might as well be applied in a way that doesn’t hurt people.
In that case, it’s a bit weird that you keep registering new accounts so you can be here.
Also, it’s a link aggregator, your complaint is the entire point lol.
“site” does work still, I think, just plus a lot of irrelevant drivel - standard Google fare, you see it on Youtube too.
I’d consider the most basic case to be, specifically, the “quotes for verbatim results”, which definitely do not work anymore. Neither does + for a positively (hue hue) required term, a close second.