I know it’s kinda off topic, but what I find even weirder are bands that are “one hit wonders” in one country, but have like 10 hits and a long career in another country.
They’ll have a whole wikipedia article of awards they’ve won you’ve never heard of, and tours they went on, and you’re like “they wrote more than one song!?”
Maybe I’m expecting too much from a shitpost… or maybe it’s an accent thing, but for me “cope-in-hay-again” doesn’t sound a lot like how I say Copenhagen…
It’s nice of this poster to ignore the $181m spent on “other projects” and conclude this is some kind of scam. If we include the Linux Kernel with the other projects part, that’s about 67%, or two thirds, of their expenses are paying for various and assorted open source projects. Among them the kernel. So if you’re a “cash and cash alone” person, then 2/3rds of your money is still going as cash to software projects.
And if we include things like community tooling and project services, which may help a project in ways beyond just cash that becomes about 78% in total, or over three quarters.
That’s pretty good, I think, but to each their own.
Yours is, I think, the only account I check in on by name on this platform. I’ll sometimes be like “what’s that wild girlie cookin’ today”!
So, like, don’t keep posting just for me if it’s not fun anymore, but block the haters and keep cruisin’!
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!
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?
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 -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.
Yeah, 2 was just 1 again, with all the same jokes but in reverse. But 3 was legitimately different and better, so it saved the whole thing!
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.
Also I really liked Glass Onion 😛
Doesn’t really look like an attack to me. He’s just chillin!
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…”
That would be a useful thing to appear in the pamphlet or whatever, but I do still think there’s some value in saying “expected value of 5 minutes” somewhere prominent.
Because the whole point of quick charging is that (most of the time) you aren’t charging to 100% when you’re also in a time crunch. You’re either slowly charging to 100, or you’re quickly charging until you reach the limit of quick charging, and then driving to the next quick charger.
So what matters in practice is “how long until quick charge stops” and “how much range does that charge get me”
Oh, so L could be “lead”! Or similarly “live”
“Nevermind” or “Next” would be pretty good.
L could maybe be “Lagos” because there’s two cities named that and they’re pronounced differently?
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 isn’t shit, you’re shit!
~Muhfuckin shitpost my ass…~