That's maybe something I think is sus. If it's at all possible, make a before-rebase branch, and make a small change in a rebase, check that the results are the same, then do another. I wrote git-test specifically for this work flow. (it runs tests, but only if the tree is one or hasn't seen before)
I use the same setup with Syncthing and Obsidian. The git plugin sometimes gets confused, but nothing I can't untangle. I also use Syncthing for pictures off my phone, and ebooks onto it.
Actually, I think I do have a setup that might qualify as unusual: I use the scheduled backup feature of Podcast Addict to get a listing of listened podcast episodes, and then I inject them into my Obsidian notes.
Also, one of the machines is running the git plugin, so things get saved in my Forgejo as well. I guess I could set it up so they save to hit, but in different branches. 🤔
The second part sounds like a thing phones should already be capable of, if it weren't for trying to charge for something. Or snoop on me. Or something worse I just haven't thought of.
Enshittification is such a downer. Oh, well, guillotines will fix it eventually, I guess.
So close! Get one that does poached eggs. It's basically like an ice-cube tray, but the cells are bigger so they fit a whole egg. Only downside is that you need to be quite precise when filling the water. (We use a kitchen scale and measure it to the gram, but it's perfect every time)
The exact model we have is the Cuisinart CEC-10, but I'm sure there are others.
Yesss... You're not wrong, but I really do believe the solution we want is to be found somewhere in that direction. Considering the Google graveyard, the faang crowd isn't all that reliable either.
Sounds reasonable, but a lot of recent advances come from being able to let the machine train against itself, or a twin / opponent without human involvement.
As an example of just running the thing itself, consider a neural network given the objective of re-creating its input with a narrow layer in the middle. This forces a narrower description (eg age/sex/race/facing left or right/whatever) of the feature space.
Another is GAN, where you run fake vs spot-the-fake until it gets good.
Backstage has become quite misaligned to what we were originally trying to do. Originally, we were trying to inventory and map the service eco-system, to deal with a few concrete problems. For example, when developing new things, you had to go through the village elders and the grape vine to find out what everyone else was doing. Another serious problem was not knowing / forgetting that we had some tool that would've been very useful when the on-call pager went off at fuck you dark thirty.
A reason we could build that map in System-Z (the predecessor of Backstage) is that our (sort of) HTTP/2 had a feature to tell us who had called methods on a service. (you could get the same from munging access logs, if you have them)
Anyway, the key features were that you could see what services your service was calling, who was calling you, and how those other systems were doing, and that you could see all the tools (e.g. build, logs, monitoring) your service was connected to. (for the ops / on-call use case)
A lot of those tool integrations were just links to "blahchat/#team", "themonitoring/theservice?alerts=all" or whatever, to hotlink directly into the right place.
It was built on an opt-in philosophy, where "blahchat/#team" was the default, but if (you're John-John and) you insist that the channel for ALF has to be #melmac, you can have that, but you have to add it yourself.
More recently, I've seen swagger/openapi used to great effect. I still want the map of who's calling who and I strongly recommend mechanicanizing how that's made. (extract it from logs or something, don't rely on hand-drawn maps) I want to like C4, but I haven't managed to get any use out of it. Just throw it in graphviz dot-file.
Oh, one trick that's useful there: local maps. For each service S, get the list of everything that connects to it. Make a subset graph of those services, but make sure to include the other connections between those, the ones that don't involve S. ("oh, so that's why...")
I worked on exactly this for a while, a long, long time ago. It turns out to be an annoyingly difficult bag of problems. The record companies don't really care, they sell (sold, I guess) pieces of plastic. (Idk if they fixed it yet, but the same Turbonegro album kept getting sent with the same scratches, kept getting taken down a while later, for years.) So, good luck trusting them to label anything.
Puritans are so much more aggressive than sane people that making mistakes one way is much more expensive than the other way.
Anyway, we ended up trying to work out which tracks are actually the same song, (Easy for you, harder for friend computer, yes?) and then if one of them is marked explicit, they all are, unless marked "radio edit" or "clean", or whatever. If you think about this for a minute, if one track is labeled "radio edit", maybe the other ones should be marked explicit...
It's a deep rabbit hole, is what I'm saying.
And the people with the pitchforks are never happy.
Ok, TIL there's a thing called Required, but otherwise, one way to do this is to rename the other part/field/key(s), so that old code reveals itself in much the same way as using a deleted field (because it does, actually)
Another way is explicitly have a separate type for records with/without the feature. (if one is a strict subset, you can have a downgrade/slice method on the more capable class.
Lastly, I would say that you need static typing, testing, both. People from static-land get vertigo without types, and it does give good night sleep, but it's no substitute for testing. Testing can be a substitute for static typing in combination with coverage requirements, but at that point you're doing so much more work that the static typing straight jacket seems pretty chill.
They come in groups, in a way, but they also refer back any which way, anyway. I recommend just the order they were written, it's worked well so far. (about half way through, I think)
Yeah, but they didn't serve 'fresh' coffee, the whole point was to make a giant urn of coffee and sell coffee from that all day. I don't know what the boundaries of those rules were, it's entirely possible it's different if you serve it in an open steaming cup, but this was Styrofoam take away cups.
Their customers had had problems before, but they didn't care. I think that's what got them in the end.
Uh, no, that's O(n), yeah?