astrsk @ astrsk @fedia.io

Posts

2

Comments

306

Joined

11 mo. ago

You don’t need to hide the book right before you die. The shinigami it belongs to will take it back and presumably leave. They might stick around to give it to someone else but that’s their choice and nothing to worry about in your upcoming purgatory. Even if you did cement it and bury it where no human will ever find it, the shinigami can just phase through and grab it any time.

Yup. Just select the text and the card will have an option.

Doing my part.

Ah, yeah, we shouldn’t try then.

Still waiting for Alive 2017 (I know…)

Can we report incorrect data until they fix it?

Edit: yup, easy process.

The pure dollar loss for the US in tax money from California alone, combined with Seattle’s import hubs, not to mention all the west coast tech sector would likely end with several remaining US state collapses in sheer funding weight alone. Several southern states only survive because of the critical mass of tax money from west cost cities.

The management, production / refinement, and transportation of nuclear materials are entirely monitored and controlled by DoE so it stands to reason the weapons are too.

Reminder for anyone using iCloud— enable advanced data protection. This will encrypt almost all your data on iCloud in a way that Apple cannot simply access because they don’t have the key you setup during the enable process. This includes encrypting messages, photos, phone backups, and more which are usually not e2e encrypted. Only some data such as health, passwords, and maps are e2e by default on iCloud.

We left her in Mexico!

Are these the Arizona chips?

That band name goes hard

Exactly. This is a non-story and they already have a built in integrations system for escalating / customizing requests.

Alternativeto.net is a good resource for finding alternatives by filterable tags including platform! Also wine and proton have come a long ways, many windows apps work just fine in a small wine or proton container.

Puzzles, traditional or unique, as well as physics and spatial-heavy thinking.

While it may be true that the master branch is more akin to a master record, not everyone knows the nuance and quite frankly it doesn’t matter, if it makes people uncomfortable then it shouldn’t be a problem to accommodate a simple change, most of the tech world has already done so. Computers used to have a literal slave/master relationship with hardware components and control systems and we moved past that just fine despite still having controllers and actors everywhere.

It was someone ranting about the many hours and days of lost productivity and cost of manually switching over 70+ legacy build pipelines all because of a branch name change. Also lots of condescending and insulting language from someone who thought their stubbornness and “standards” meant they were better than everyone else. Honestly I just probably set them off in my first message and they wouldn’t let it go, leading to increased levels of ranting and insults from them attempting to spout accomplishments while detailing their failings in the same breath. Admittedly that above description is a bit belittling from my end, I’m just annoyed they couldn’t keep their messages up for all to see.

I still stand by the opinion that changing branch strategies, names, or targets should not be a multi-hour multi-resource process and if it is, that’s a failure of the systems engineers / ops who put together such a plan. It’s possible to have CI/CD pipelines that run for years on end attached to critical infrastructure while being flexible enough for such simple config changes and maintained by one engineer.

Again, you’re conflating your own stubbornness with correctness and that just ain’t how it goes. Branch names are frivolous. So much so that changing the strategy or retargeting a branch one time shouldn’t be such a nightmare for your pipelines that you have to pretend like you’re the big dick on campus spouting accomplishments when someone mildly suggests there’s a mistake in your thinking. Look inward if you’re so upset by this that you have to make up irrelevant insults in a vague attempt to protect your own ego, then go fix your pipelines to make it easier to do for the next person after you’re gone.

lmao nothing you've said has anything to do with "Main is more concise and less problematic". Just because you created more work for yourself by having 70+ pipelines that need to be rewritten for a branch name change doesn't mean it's less concise or more problematic. It means you messed up by not having a pipeline capable of such a basic feature -- generalized targets with a separation of concerns. Standards change, requirements change, so do build pipelines. Being stubborn is not a reason against changing colloquial terms out of respect and growth in understanding.

The only statement in your ridiculous rant that has any validity is that of your legacy pipeline configurations. But pipelines need to be updated and validated semi-regularly and should be generalized to begin with, so it’s not really any good point that your legacy pipelines cannot handle a default branch name change like modern pipelines should.

Swap main and master in your comment and it reads the exact same with all the same shallow justifications.