> At best, they're effective at presenting people who don't know they're sick from infecting others.
I don't have numbers, but I'm pretty sure the number of people infected by people that didn't know they were sick is significant. Imagine if all those sick people wore masks (or some substitute, like a scarf over their mouth/nose).
If we can agree that wearing a mask (or substitite) if you might be sick is a good idea, but you don't know if you might be sick, that seems to translate to wearing a mask (or substitute) is a good idea.
> that only works if you can mask a significant portion of the population without a shortage of masks for people who we know need them.
I agree it's important to reserve masks for those who need them most, but that doesn't mean we have to teach people they are not effective. We could instead teach them how "non-masks" can make very reasonable substitutes. And let's not forget that reducing the spread has a real impact on the need for healthcase workers to have them.
> I don't have numbers, but I'm pretty sure the number of people infected by people that didn't know they were sick is significant.
Look at the number of asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic cases (approx 50%) there are in the two full population studies on the Princess Cruise ship, and Vò (in Italy).
How so? Everything I've seen from them, including the Gov't site only say to self-isolate. They said that in the near future they may tell households to isolate, but right now only the person with symptoms.
> "people with confirmed or possible coronavirus (COVID-19) infection"
Using browser extensions to block ads is much higher risk than doing DNS blocking. Most ad blockers have full access to all web pages, which essentially means they could trivially scrape your usernames/passwords for your email/banks/etc or perform actions on your behalf.
There's room for this to go bad (AdBlocker dev turns bad, or sells extension to a bad guy for a wad of cash, or extension has security vulnerabilities, or keys for publishing extension are not propery secured) so while DNS-level blocking might not work as well, it's definitely not an obviously-worse solution.
(though FIWI PiHole in the past had some really agressive default lists which stopped my from using it - though I set it up again recently and it's been much better - I haven't had any broken websites besides Amazon's own sponsored product links at the top of their own search results pages).
Reminds me of a bug in PostSharp.. After making some changes our app would throw a NullReferenceException Mondays. It turned out to be a bug in some optimisation, but it only occurred on Monday because they skipped licence checks unlocking "full functionality" on a Monday (Happy Monday!) which enabled the optimisation.
We had a bug that would pop up only when we weren't working (at lunch breaks, meetings etc) but when we were at our desks it never reproduces. It ended up related to the screen saver starting up. It took us too long to find that out but that was a very good laugh.
Monday-only bugs and similar are not unlikely with code dealing with weekday ordinals, when moving between locales with different conventions (is Monday or Sunday the first day of the week?). Or can cause any number of confusions if different bits of code make different assumptions.
I'm not sure why that would affect something like webpack though (unless the problem was specific to a date manipulation library).
Edit: spotted the post that arrived as I typed the above. Looks like an advertising related function that only ran once per week using something not available on all sorted OS builds for that code, so not a locale related problem. Advertising causing unexpected problems yet again!
It's fairly common to do `git push --force` (or hopefully `--force-with-lease`) after operations like rebasing. This overwrites the remote history, so can easily lose work. Many people set some branches as protected, so they can't be force-pushed over accidentally.
Isn't it a pretty bad idea to have a workflow which involves --force? If it's to keep history tidy, why not just develop on a separate branch and do squash merges?
I'll admit I haven't used git in extremely complex circumstances, but I've always viewed --force as something you do only if you really mess up, such as pushing secrets (and that should obviously be in addition to invalidating those keys and generating new ones).
Working on a separate branch may still require periodically bringing in changes from master (eg. to resolve conflicts). The options are either a) a merge commit or b) a rebase. A rebase will require a `--force` push. Some people prefer merges, but personally I prefer rebasing - I like to keep my full history even when merging back to master, since it's not a lot of extra effort and it can be useful when tracking down issues in old code :)
the rebase strategy involves force-pushing to your topic branch and then ff-merging to master (or develop, or whatever). some people love it, some hate it, but force pushing is a necessary part of the strategy if the master branch has had new commits since you created your branch.
yes, force pushing can be dangerous, which is why (when you use the rebase strategy) you usually protect certain branches. force-pushing should only happen on your short-lived topic branches.
People aren't talking about force pushing to master, they're talking about force pushing to another branch, but with master unprotected, and therefore, by accident, force pushing to master as well.
> i will communicate a force push on master to the whole team and will disable protection temporarily
Isn't that exactly what this point was about? You have branch protection enabled for master because you think it's a good idea to avoid accidental force-pushes. These comments were exactly about not having the ability to protect branches.
I'm not really sure what you're arguing for/against.
I downgraded too, and noticed GitHub Pages stopped working (the content is still there, but they don't rebuild - although they did for a little while after downgrading). It is clearly marked as a Pro feature, I just hadn't considered that the free private repos would be more restricted.
It's not a big deal to me, I'll probably just make the repos public.
Just private repos. When you look at the GH pages section it says "Make this repo public to enable GH Pages" or something. Your existing site still serves, but it doesn't build anymore.
I posted an answer on SO but may be worth repeating here. The screenshots show "reddit.com" as clear-on-exit and "www.reddit.com" as the owner of the cookie.
When adding a site to the clear-on-exist list, the box shows
> Because the app is open source, if it was doing anything shady, it would be found out
This is a little misleading... Just because there is source code on GitHub does not mean the random APK you're downloading from the internet and side-loading is safe.
If you're paranoid (and you probably should be - if I was a bad person and wanted to get malware onto your machines, I'd be making some useful "open source" app and publishing "its source code" on GitHub too), you'd want to build the app yourself! :)
To be honest, most people wouldn't even bother to know if it was open source, they would install it anyway. Actually most people probably don't know what "open source" means.
My colleagues (and probably twitter followers) are always sick of me ranting about stuff like this. A few years ago I decided to compile screenshots I'd posted on twitter in the previous single month:
I don't have numbers, but I'm pretty sure the number of people infected by people that didn't know they were sick is significant. Imagine if all those sick people wore masks (or some substitute, like a scarf over their mouth/nose).
If we can agree that wearing a mask (or substitite) if you might be sick is a good idea, but you don't know if you might be sick, that seems to translate to wearing a mask (or substitute) is a good idea.
> that only works if you can mask a significant portion of the population without a shortage of masks for people who we know need them.
I agree it's important to reserve masks for those who need them most, but that doesn't mean we have to teach people they are not effective. We could instead teach them how "non-masks" can make very reasonable substitutes. And let's not forget that reducing the spread has a real impact on the need for healthcase workers to have them.