It sounds to me like you are describing a good abstraction. This article does not claim that code duplication is better than any abstraction. It claims that code duplication is better than the wrong abstraction. I'm sure this author would agree that a good abstraction is better than code duplication.

I'm afraid this comment reads in a rather gnomic way.

Of course it's a truism if you just say any abstraction that works is a good abstraction.

That is not what I am saying at all. Bullshit abstractions at least let you control the problem. Duplication doesn't.

But it’s never going to be 1:1 duplication is it? Sometimes it’s better to copy code as a template for something new, rather than try to immediately force a new abstraction.

I agree with you that it’s a truism, but it’s useful advice for people who have a habit of trying too hard to DRY their code. IIRC the author comes from the Ruby world, where DRY was a big thing, and this talk was part of the pendulum swinging back away from this DRY obsession that sometimes just resulted in convoluted code.

It's in yesterday's release notes

It is buried in yesterday's release notes.

They have "highlight" links to "Remote control" and "Codebase search", but not to "Copilot added as a Git co-author by default" which is right between the two. Something, that alters how commits work, and if you skip the Remote Control section, you won't see it.

They knew what they were doing. This is like "Sent from an iPhone" levels of nuisance default advertising.

The fiddler landing page says it runs on Windows, macOS, and Linux, so maybe give it another try.

The original thing is now called Fiddler Classic and it is still Windows only. Not maintained anymore, sadly. It has first class scripting support.

I still use Fiddler Classic, at least once a week when I need to dig-in on a problem. It occasionally gets an update though I can't remember the last time it did.

It's so powerful, especially with the JScript scripting language. Such a powerful tool.

What things have you needed to change? Can't say I've ever needed to do that but of course I've only used it on a few projects.

In GitHub we use an OIDC token to access some AWS resources. Locally I need to populate tokens etc and so I have an `if: ${{ACT}}` and a not condition to populate it.

Don't get stuck in the either/or scenario. It's possible to be direct AND kind without being an asshole. Not giving someone critical feedback isn't kind, it's just being a coward. Giving someone critical feedback without regard to the human receiving it, is just lazy.

Last place I worked I was direct AND kind towards my team about a data leak related to PHI and they chose to sweep it under the rug and never addressed it while I was there. I think I should have been a bigger asshole. Some ORGs just can't deal with negative outcomes in a positive way.

If they don't care about a PHI leak it wouldn't matter how you presented it

Were you laid off? If so, the results suit them well, you didn't even need to be an asshole for their benefit.

Edit: sorry, my intention was to "diss" them, not you.

Not sure if you are dissing me or what. But, no I left for this reason and quite a few others. Healthcare IT is a cesspool of incompetence and grift.

The PR is still open and hasn't actually been merged yet. It'll be great when it is though.

The title should probably be "Forcing Windows to load a specific URL in a Edge" as the article only talks about Windows and Edge specifically.

Overall I think you can expect the responses this got based on the author talking about "The purpose of this URL scheme is to enable Windows and cooperating applications to invoke particular user-experiences in the Edge browser" while as a Windows user, the only time I hit this "feature" is when I click on a link and expect it to open in Firefox (my selected default browser) but instead for some stupid reason it uses Edge regardless.

Surely this will be used against Microsoft in some future anti-trust suit to show how Microsoft still tries to get rid of their competition by ignoring user choice.

Isn't it's purpose merely to provide a way to query a git repo's commit history? It helps answer questions like "who has the most commits in the codebase?" and "what times of the day are commits most active?". I don't think it's meant to be anything more than that.

Exactly. They only have SQL query and a fixed set of tables. No insert, update or changing database structure.

I find it amusing that in the same article it talks about how Spirit is struggling to turn a profit, and the reasoning for the justice department saying it a merger is anticompetitive is because it would remove the pressure that Spirit places upon the other airlines because of its lower prices.

Here's a thought. Maybe there's a reason Spirit is struggling to turn a profit. Maybe their prices are too low.

Sounds to me like the pressure from Spirit on the other airlines to lower prices won't last long anyway. If not a merger they probably can't survive as a business with their low prices.

They specifically say they will scrub any personal data before training the model. The title is disingenuous and misleading.

It's still user data and there is no opt-out. The title is correct.

As others have said, and I would agree, that title isn't misleading as any day is "user data" and your argument revolves around the semantics of what "personal data" is (or isn't).

Beyond that I think it's fair for folks using Sentry to be disappointed in the decision. It's very hard to classify data types to be excluded and much easier to go down the "inclusion" route. But in this case Sentry can later argue that, whoops, these data were incorrectly classified because the user interpreted our Rube Goldberg machine incorrectly. Par for the course with respect to anti-patterns.

Error messages can still leak proprietary info, or bits of confidential information inadvertently.

Which part of the title is misleading?