alsimoneau @ alsimoneau @lemmy.ca

Posts

0

Comments

241

Joined

2 yr. ago

Because they own multiple and plan to sell them and retire.

And 20

Please do. Fuck cars.

Branches are distinct.

Let's say you have a main and a dev branch, and you periodically merge dev into main. Because of fast forwarding (on by default) the main branch is completely gone from the history. If you then add bug fixes and project branches it becomes a tangled mess really quickly and it's nearly impossible to understand the structure by looking at the tree.

On mercurial every branch is named and distinct forever. You don't have to try to understand what happened to the project since it's obvious by looking at the tree.

Now there are ways to have a clean git history, but afaik you either need to make sure nobody ever messes it up or have everyone rebase everything and only keep the history of the main branch.

When working in a hyper structured organization that may work, but for more casual developers (scientists, students) that aren't system experts and where you have messy history, mercurial default settings are less confusing, easier to learn and produce better results.

It makes the history clearer.

Surely it could be rewritten in Fortran if performance is really a concern.

No, git has labels on heads of branches. Once the head moves you loose the information. It also makes for a more messy history, which I believe created the whole "rebase everything" philosophy to cope.

Method chaining ftw Input.then().doThis().lastly()

Also it formats better.

Care to explain your comment for a layman?

From my limited experience mercurial is way more intuitive than git. The big one is named branches are a thing instead of an abstraction.

Yes I would.

But not giving them money will limit how many they launch.

Get rid of that space junk.

Over half the total sattelites in orbit are Starlink. This has to stop now before we loose access to space.

And they're not ruining the night sky and radio astronomy.

I mostly worked on the physics side, being a physicist. But I did dug up a reference for you. You can start from there: doi.org/10.3310/phr03110

I did my PhD on light pollution. I don't have the references on hand but it is well known in the field.

It's not actually less safe. No study was able to show a link between light and safety.

People are afraid of the dark, and the more they chase it away the more afraid they become.

Light pollution is also a big contributor

LaTeX is your friend

The scientific method states quite clearly that you can never prove anything, only disprove. Failure to disprove warrants publication to try to get other people to disprove. But it's still rarely properly applied, especially when you get further away from theoretical research.

Then there's the metric cup at 250ml