I’m no fan furries either, but I also don’t see what bearing someone’s personal life has on how to configure a git forge. Maybe you should grow the fuck up?
Cool, once again you still cannot cite where exactly on this particular blog post you saw them reference being a furry. I don’t really give a shit about anything else you have to say: make a citation. Or just, you know, admit you are wrong and did actually have to go looking for something to whine about.
I’m commenting about how “tHiS iSn’T ReAl!!!” comments are so hilariously off-base, so much so my own child and his friends comment on how absurd the number of 20 to 30 something cane people are everywhere
And you don't think, "hey this is a learning opportunity for them, I can teach them the value of minding their own business, not judging people based on how they look, not making assumptions about people based on what I see" ? I don't think you're really helping your point the way you think you are. You said yourself they call them derogatory terms.
I think it says something more about society that a significant chunk of our young adults have convinced themselves they have some sort of unspecific, incurable, un-diagnosable malady. It's actually super fucked up
I think it says a lot about you that you look at people and automatically assume your assessment of them is accurate. That you allow your child to talk shit about them.
I trust my eyes more than anything, and I see more vaguely-disabled people than ever, especially the 20-40 age group. I'm sorry you can't accept this, nor understand why this is not good
So your eyes alone tell you that these young adults have convinced themselves they have some sort of incurable malady? Impressive. You still also dodge answering why you think it’s acceptable for your kid to call people derogatory terms.
Having the house capped is also ridiculous. My rep is also the rep for 750k+ other people. One person cannot represent a district that size appropriately at a federal level. They also cannot really respond to constituents properly either when they have that many.
For 2020 it was 761,169 and Wyoming, Vermont and Alaska have less population than that. They still get a Member and then they get two Senators. And they get three electoral votes.
Having representation based on land/physical space will increasingly be seen as absurd.
Maybe we will have “youth reps” in the future. Or reps based on other organizing group (hunters? Musicians?). The problem is…taxonomical? People won’t have to belong to a single group but can belong to several “unions”.
> This idea that a large amount of representatives can’t govern is plainly false.
Design by committee is a well-known failure mode. I'd argue that once the size of the house (or maybe one party's seats) gets past Dunbar's number, the house becomes less effective.
I’d argue the opposite. Congress could use more members so that it can have more sub-committees to craft legislation with more detail and taking on a larger number of issues with more precision.
There could be sub-committees dedicated to a larger quantity of issues and addressing more industries.
Your argument would be like if you were expecting Apple to only hire 100 engineers to write software for the huge product line they maintain. Maybe 100 engineers is a good number to make one product, but Apple has a huge product line.
Sometimes you legitimately need more people in an organization.
And this reminds me of how flawed your argument is when we already have highly functional corporations that have hundreds of thousands of employees and thousands of managers and we know they function. Dividing and sub-dividing work is how it all gets managed.
Very few legislators have expertise in anything except demagoguery, pandering, and graft. Having more of them to form more subcommittees to mess up more areas of the law... no thanks.
We need merit-selected technical committees of non-representatives to advise politicians and tell them clearly, in as much detail as necessary, when they're wrong on something. If the politicians don't listen, the technical committees should be independent and able to make their case on the internet and social media.
Implementing that would be difficult. The metric for merit is a challenge, and is itself easily coopted by politics. For example, China's vaunted "political meritocracy" is ultimately controlled by party leaders in the CCP, so it's basically a meritocracy for the CCP-aligned, not a meritocracy for anyone else. If a government's goals contradict facts-on-the-ground, the government will find a way to skew an "independent" technical committee to suppress those facts.
The main reason I think this is wrong is that the sheer amount of different things the government needs to pay attention to in the modern world is staggering. In my view, it is well beyond what a few hundred reps can pay attention to. I think if you scale it, what you end up with is that representatives can be more specialized in ways that align with their constituency instead of being bad generalists.
I never said we needed 5k, if you have to pretend I said something in order to make an argument, you don’t really have an argument. You also provided no evidence that 5k reps can’t run a country either.
The U.K. has more than triple what we have. If we had 1500 representatives, that’s roughly 1 per 225k people. Not a great number, but much more reasonable at least, and also much closer to what representation was when the House was capped.
Smaller districts mean not just more accountability, but more similarity within the district. Right now, my district is 95% rural and 5% a slice of a city. I live in the city part, therefore my rep doesn’t care about what I have to say, as my wants and needs are different than the rural population that makes up the majority of who vote for him. Smaller districts are harder to gerrymander like this, and they also mean your rep probably lives a life relatively similar to yours - drives the same highways, experiences roughly the same tax burden, shops at the same places, participates in the same events. This will not be true for every case, but it’s still a better situation than what we have now.
I have a little script that does this automatically - lists out Jira tickets assigned to me, then when I select one, creates a branch with the ticket number and the title, subbing hyphens for spaces and truncating if needed. It’s handy for when I want to list branches, I can filter on keywords I remember from the ticket name.
Hard disagree here. GitHub does encourage this sort of thing, but even there for my PRs to be easily reviewable, I like to keep my commits organized and with good messages explaining things. That way the reviewer can walk the commits, and see why each thing was thing was done.
I also like it for myself, when I’m going over my own PRs before asking for a review - I will often amend commits to ensure the work is broken down correctly, each thing that should go together, does.
In a way, stacked PRs are just a higher-level abstraction of this too - same idea, keep work that goes together in the same place.
Fully agree with you here. Blunt squashing is a bandaid to the problem of lazy commits. Commits should IMHO be specific and atomic. Like fixing one bug or implementing one feature. Obviously there are cases where this ideal isn't practical, but the answer is still not squash everything, it's to think for 10 more seconds about the commit and do your best.
Yeah, I think over use of GitHub, which seems to encourage squash-merging, has led to this where a lot of people I’ve seen treat a PR as essentially one commit - because it ends up being one in the end.
If you keep your PRs small I guess the end result is the same, but even then I like things in individual commits for ease of review.
I want to see detailed atomic commits during PR review, and once it's reviewed I'm happy to have it squashed. If the PR produces so much code/changes that main branch needs detailed atomic commits for future reference, then the PR was too large to begin with, imo.
I do agree that this is a good compromise. For me, if I do a git blame and eventually can find the PR that led to change, if it has nice clean commits, that’s good enough.
Its not a if. it's necessary for the sake of people reviewing your code.
Unless you work alone on your pet project and always push to master you never work alone.
Most of the things I do with Neovim I could probably also do with VS Code (not sure about autocommands and macros though, I haven't used Code in years). I don't use a mouse much, I have a very keyboard-centric workflow. I was a Code user for years, but did most everything else in the terminal. I figured I would give it a try and I ended up just liking it. I like to tinker. I like to tweak my configuration. I like how I can set autocommands for things, pipe text into Vim and manipulate it, or record a quick macro for some repetitive task. I like that there are "Vim keymap" plugins for things like Firefox, so learning basic Vim keys has helped me outside of Vim. I like that I keep discovering new things Vim can do (and then promptly forgetting them most of the time, but still). I also like to spend 2 hours writing something to automate something that saves me two seconds.
It's absolutely not for everyone, though it looks like some of the pre-built configs (NvChad, LaZyVim, etc.) are decent enough of the box now that you don't need to go on the endless-customization journey if you don't want to. To me though, that's the appeal: tinkering, tweaking, refining. Generally when people ask if they should use Vim, I tell them probably not but try it for a few weeks and see if it clicks in your brain. I had a great VSCode setup, everything worked great, I was productive, but something about Vim just made more sense to me once I got over the hump of modes and all the keymaps you need to turn into muscle memory.
Edit: I also like that I can do abominations like:
("def" @keyword (#set! conceal "ƒ"))
("if" @keyword (#set! conceal "?"))
("unless" @keyword (#set! conceal "¿"))
("else" @keyword (#set! conceal "∶"))
("elsif" @keyword (#set! conceal "⁇"))
("case" @keyword (#set! conceal "⟨?"))
("when" @keyword (#set! conceal "→"))
("begin" @keyword (#set! conceal "⌊"))
to make Ruby look absolutely insane. Is it useful? No. Do people hate it when I share my screen? Yes.
I'll second the enjoyable parts of Neovim shared above, and add a few more of my own:
- vi uses most of the same default keybindings, which is available across most distros (in busybox). Meaning I can use the same keybindings in a docker container, appliance server, etc.
- With the conform[1] plugin, I can add any CLI code/text formatters that might not be available as a vscode extension. As long as it takes a file/stdin and outputs a file/stdout.
Beyond that, it’s buggy and inconsistent. In dark mode, text boxes suddenly become light mode when they expand to add a second entry line. Buttons aren’t aligned within their containers properly. Some times buttons are in light mode when my phone is in dark mode, or if I open an app, it starts out in light mode and then suddenly switches to dark mode after a second or two. There is a noticeable lag when I back out of a message before it loads the other conversations in iMessage.
I think I had tracked 15+ things I would easily qualify as bugs the first two days after upgrading my phone - this would be absolutely unacceptable where I work, and we aren’t a trillion-dollar company with psychotic hiring standards.
Was this even QAed? I don’t like the look, but that’s a personal thing, these are actual issues that are not subjective.
In my opinion Liquid Glass is still an alpha release. Nothing is really finished, it's conceptually unfinished, the changes are not well thought through, and it's really buggy.
I think they failed with Apple Intelligence (also a mess, without being useful) and needed something big. So they planned this big design change. When they realized they failed miserably, it was too late to undo it.
The recently presented ChatGPT apps are what Apple Intelligence (and Siri) should've been. Some chat/voice interface, that can access data from installed apps and trigger actions.
It should've been a home run for Apple. ChatGPT starts with zero existing apps, Apple has one of the biggest app ecosystem, and with (Siri) Shortcuts they already have most of the necessary interfaces available for years.
They have your context. OpenAI doesn’t know where you are. It doesn’t know what you bought or when you last called your wife, it can’t know your heart rate or your work schedule.
Apple can turn it around.
Great AI is a good model with lots of context. Your model can be the best, but if you need the user to provide the context it’ll never be a great experience.
After working with Claude code for a while now, I’ve become much more aware of how to convey context to a machine, and just how poor some humans are at doing it in conversation.
Your AI product is toast if you need people to make it work.
Yes, Apple still has the advantage over OpenAI. But OpenAI can also release some iOS and Android integration layer, that allows to connect with installed apps on the device.
If Apple doesn't get their act together with the next iOS release, it could be too late.
OpenAI can't, they're completely dependent on Apple and Google permitting such a thing. Unless you have a particular way in mind they could currently achieve this?
They can integrate into third party apps, if the publishers want to. A lot of them are going to do it.
It's already possible to connect Gmail, and many other services, this can extend even more. The connection of those services could be done by the iOS/Android apps.
I doubt this will be super successful because so many of the apps that people would want to integrate it are those made by Apple, Google, Meta and others whose goal is to be a direct competitor. I might be wrong though, we'll see.
I still find Apple Maps to be awful. It consistently gives poor directions. For example the exit you need to take from the closest major road to reach my neighborhood splits once you are on it. If you continue straight you reach a stop light where you can then take a left and then continue 1/8th of a mile to the turn for my neighborhood. Apple Maps will instead have you go to the right when the exit splits and then have you continue another 1/2 mile before taking a u-turn and heading back the 5/8ths of a mile to turn into my neighborhood. Google Maps does the right thing. I now warn visitors to use Google Maps or to ignore these directions from Apple Maps.
I also live near a large city and a couple of smaller cities with busy downtown areas. In each of them the main streets are virtually impossible to perform a u-turn on because of the large amount of traffic. Apple Maps will insist on giving directions which involve taking u-turns on these streets. Google Maps will instead route you the easier way around the block instead of insisting on an impossible u-turn which in the end is slower because of the difficulty in actually performing the maneuver.
Also I find the directions from Apple Maps when taking an exit which further splits into multiple exits to be highly confusing. The spoken directions from Google Maps is much better in these circumstances.
Every new release I try Apple Maps again just to see if it has gotten better in these circumstances and every release I am disappointed.
Well it's useable sure but also not very good/useful.
From a directions/routing standpoint it's pretty decent and I'm OK with how the route planning works.
But they miss many POIs and the data they have is often stale, and their version of street view, while smoother, is not up to snuff at all.
I think it's really annoying and a major reason I have stopped using it even though I was an advocate at first. Apple can't be bothered to invest as much as Google did to have a proper open map system, with a good web version where people/business can post/add data easily.
At this point the privacy stick is tiring because we don't get anything from it and they will comply/sell the data the minute they can profit from it anyway (as they have shown).
So, you just end up paying more for a product that is clearly worse and won't become much better because of Apple's ideology and how stingy they are.
They generate a lot of cash but are unable to invest it in proper competitive software.
There are many bad things to be said about Google, but at least they manage to serve pretty good software that is open to everyone...
A 'plot'? That must be some kind of weird online conspiracy theory. Apple Maps worked poorly on initial release for reasons that are entirely unmysterious (the lack of comprehensive and accurate geographical data). Forstall was of course fired as an eventual result of this, but the idea that the whole PR disaster was engineered as part of a scheme to oust him is just daft.
One of the issues is almost certainly that the app developers didn't add the UIDesignRequiresCompatibility = YES[0] item to the Info.plist.
Set that, and it doesn't use Liquid Glass in your app.
I set it for all my apps. One was designed by a professional designer, who absolutely defecated masonry, when I showed him what it did to our app.
I'm worried that Apple may end up ignoring that flag, and will force us to use LG. That would suck. It says that it's temporary, but I'll bet that Apple will be hating life, if they ignore it.
I'm not freaking out about Liquid Glass, but I don't like it. I completely agree that it is quite unusable.
I’m referring entirely to built-in Apple apps - Mail, Messages, etc. The in-house apps can’t even get it right, which to me means:
- devs are so siloed, nobody knows what’s going on
- product is not communicating anything outside of individual fiefdoms
- there is zero QA testing
- no designers are actually signing off on the final results
…which all seem pretty typical for a large bureaucracy, I guess I just had higher expectations of Apple, since we pay a premium for their products. Some of these bugs are frankly pretty embarrassing.
Such reclusiveness is not an obligatory property of large corporations. Say, Google around 2011-2015 may have had fiefdoms, but at least things were quite transparent, you could know what other departments are doing, and see all the code. Facebook circa 2020 was surprisingly transparent and peer-to-peer, at least in the area I touched, messaging and storage infra. I've seen companies 1000x smaller that had incomparably more reclusiveness and opaqueness.
What I hear about Apple sounds more and more like what I used to hear about Microsoft, especially Microsoft of Ballmer times, when teams inside it clandestinely warred with each other, instead of cooperating.
Apple has this vision-driven culture, and the inclination towards internal secrecy, so that competitors won't steal their thunder. It worked relatively well under Steve Jobs, and whoever he assigned. It worked far less successfully when Jony Ive's ideas of usability made Macbooks into visually more sleek, but less loved devices. Whoever came up with Liquid Glass, has some interesting vision, but the gimmick value in its current implementation seems to dominate, and the usability shortcomings seem to be ignored. Technology-wise, it's half-baked. This means to me that Apple internally not in a good state, the leadership has trouble hearing the voice of reason.
Apple of course has an immense inertia. But giants like Nokia or General Motors also used to have an immense inertia, wads of cash, and dominant market positions.
Search is bad everywhere. If I open Settings, and then search for application $X, no results. If I search for $Y, $Y shows up. They are alphabetically next to each other, and I can see them both if I open the Applications submenu and scroll down to access individual app settings.
Why does one show up and one doesn’t? The one that doesn’t is a built-in Apple app, too. They both have identical settings for “show app in search”. This worked fine before iOS 26.
It’s so bizarre. I wanted to use it for a menu extra and something as simple as animating the icon couldn’t be done. There are several of Apple’s own apps that use animated Menu extra icons and they’re probably doing the same hybrid AppKit/SwiftUI workarounds.
I won’t use UIViewRepresentable. I feel that it’s a kludge, and kind of negates the whole purpose of SwiftUI. I know that some of the “native” types are probably UIViewRepresentable, under the covers (like maps), but I feel as if it’s a “duct tape” solution. Also, some of the code gymnastics that I need to do, in order to implement “non-standard” functionality, are pretty crazy. SwiftUI makes it absurdly easy to do stuff that follows the intended workflow, but completely falls down, if you stray off the path. UIKit complains, but grudgingly goes along with you.
I actually want SwiftUI to work. I think they have a good idea, but it’s a massive undertaking, and really, breathtakingly ambitious, when you consider what it’s trying to do.
UIKit represents a mature tech that has been refined since 2008, and a lot of that is based on lessons learned, implementing AppKit, which has been around forever (especially if you consider that it came from NeXTSTEP, which probably started in the 1980s). With AutoLayout and UIKit, I can do pretty much anything I want.
> One of the issues is almost certainly that the app developers didn't add the UIDesignRequiresCompatibility = YES[0] item to the Info.plist.
Ah yes, let's require all developers scramble to try and fix their apps instead of spending time to actually fix and polish the design system we force down everyone's throats.
Oh sorry, I ignore any news about what Trump said. (I know what he’s up to mostly from news about how my government reacts to what he says, but the Epstein stuff doesn’t qualify so I was totally in the dark about that hah)
I think the cube rule should really be amended such that toast is actually "open-faced sandwich". Toast is just bread. Toast with toppings, such as pizza, is actually an open-faced sandwich.
