This idea of everyone producing absurd amounts of git objects is much less fantastic now [1]. We're still far from these numbers, but an order of magnitude less far than last year [2].
Also an interesting bit of history here: apparently there was a time when people were already writing books on Git but "one enormous Git repository" wasn't yet the most common mode of using it.
> Hey I wonder if there is some situation where negative SEO would be a good tactic. Generally though I think if you wanted something to stay hidden it just shouldn’t be on a public web server.
At least once upon a time there was a pirate textbook library that used HTTP basic auth with a prompt that made the password really easy to guess. I suppose the main goal was to keep crawlers out even if they don't obey robots.txt, and at the same time be as easy for humans as possible.
> search still can't a.) rank the alert bot that is just spamming the alerts channel as "not relevant"
I find "Exclude automations" toggle to be good enough. But we might have very different workspaces, as I usually don't see the point of "sorting by relevance" at all: for my purposes, relevance is almost always better approximated by date than whatever Slack's ML team comes up with.
Most people writing any language without a linter are holding it wrong.
When a linter warns me about such an expression, it usually means that even if it doesn't blow up, it increases the cognitive load for anyone reviewing or maintaining the code (including future me). And I'm not religious — if I can't easily rewrite the expression in an obviously safe way, I just concede that its safety is not 100% obvious and add a nolint comment with explanation.
My point was that no matter the conceptual purity or implementation elegance, if a language design decision leads to most people getting it wrong–then that's a bad decision.
But it's not about that. I don't like this decision either, but the other side of the trade-off is not just about some abstract concepts or implementation, it's about complexity of the model you need to keep in your head to know what will a piece of code do. And this has always been a priority for Python.
Interestingly, I think this is one of the cases where both the "For context…" comment and yours add important context for the parent comment that some readers may be not familiar with. Although that second one serves this purpose better, not because of the subject but because it's more directly informative.
This one surprised me quite a bit. I think most people have A4/letter-sized folders. Why does anyone think that papers slightly longer than those folders are a good idea?
> Legal size folders exist and are widely used by people who use ... legal size paper.
Sure. But I didn't know I use legal size paper or even what it is before I asked the apartment complex to print the lease agreement, and it didn't fit in their own folder with the other move in papers. In my rank of weirdness discovered upon moving to the US, this is at about the same level as the different ounces.
I'm just about old enough to remember (in the UK) foolscap paper, an imperial size also a bit longer than A4. You never see it any more (at least I don't) but foolscap sized box-files are still readily available. I guess a slightly bigger box than you need is not usually a problem.
Huh, this explains why some of my older teachers would call a4 pads as foolscap pads. I guess the paper size had been updated by the time I got to school, but their terminology wasn't.
Many filing cabinets in the US are also sized so you can put letter sized folders in one way, or rotate the folders 90 degrees and legal sized folders will fit correctly.
Was it like a temporary assignment to another team? Did the manager at least know what team that was? Or have any idea when the employee is going to return full-time to the tasks of their primary team?
Apple uses functional organizational structure. Every product needs a cooperation of all functions to produce results. So engineer on os team working on drivers could be working on driver for the new hw part, but other team members including their manager are not necessarily disclosed on that hw.
Also an interesting bit of history here: apparently there was a time when people were already writing books on Git but "one enormous Git repository" wasn't yet the most common mode of using it.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47932422
[2] https://x.com/kdaigle/status/2040164759836778878
reply