I think the question is flawed and so are the responses. You all wrote far too much so I cba to read

The revolutionary aspect is the quantity of the satellites and the affordability of access due to reduction in deployment costs.

There are certainly more secure options but better is unlikely given how revolutionary starlink is.

Arms manufacturers would probably argue that guns are intended to be deterrent. And they shouldn’t be held liable that the cops keep executing unarmed suspects with them.

As someone who read a lot as a child I still find myself saying hyperbowl. I’d certainly heard the correct pronunciation but it wasn’t until very late that I made the connection to the word I’d learned by reading.

My mantra has always been to bring solutions not problems. Applying that to code reviews makes for a far more productive experience.

Rather than just pointing out errors in code help the developer with prompts towards the solution.

Or, if you’re too lazy to explain why something shouldn’t be done then why should another developer have to act on your criticism?

I wish this had been my experience. I pushed for so long in my last company for standards to be written, code formatters implemented and objectivity to be brought to reviews but it was always ignored.

Instead I had to endure every employee who claimed seniority (in a non hierarchical company) subjecting their opinion on style in reviews. It came up the point that I dreaded having to work with specific people because they kept triggering my PTSD with their moving target of micro management.

Only afterwards did I truly appreciate how poor a lot of their opinions were. Now one of my first questions when approaching a new project is what standards we’re following. If they look at me blank faced that’s a pretty solid red flag.

This was my experience too. At first I found code reviews to be an invaluable resource for improving my code. But I then reached a point where I’d learned everything I could from a particular reviewer.

I’d submit code that met every criteria, but the reviewer would still nit pick on tiny details that were entirely subjectective. It was no longer about the quality of code it became about the reviewer trying to put their mark on my work.

The only solution was to either ignore their nits or adopt the hairy arm technique whereby you include intentional errors for the reviewer to comment on so they feel their time had been valuable and you get away without yours being wasted.

jQuery was an essential stepping stone back when JS was lacking a ton of features that people take for granted these days.

Sure everything could have been done with Vanilla JS but it was verbose and difficult to follow. jQuery made it possible for any developer to quickly make a page dynamic

Yep. And three functions is better than one for legibility even if one would be fewer lines of code

That’s usually the case but with this and the Rwanda proposal I think they’re doing it because their voters enjoy the optics and indignity of migrants being treated as sub human.

I’ll occasionally

1. stash my changes
2. unstash them.
3. Revise the file in my editor so only the chunk I want to commit is present
4. Commit
5. Unstash the changes again to get back the uncommitted change

It’s clunky but it’s robust and safe. It does sound a lot cleaner to just use commit -p though

-p –patch

Interactively choose hunks of patch between the index and the work tree and add them to the index. This gives the user a chance to review the difference before adding modified contents to the index.

This effectively runs add --interactive, but bypasses the initial command menu and directly jumps to the patch subcommand. See “Interactive mode” for details.

The documentation is entirely meaningless? What does it do?

You’ve never used a graphical git client?!

I’m comfortable on the command line but a decent git UI is a way better experience.

git diff is so basic using a GUI makes it far easier to compare changes.

Same for merge conflicts. I’m not sure you can even resolve them on the CLI?

Any form of rebase: I think I used the CLI to do an interactive rebase a few times in the early days but I’d never do so without a GUI now.

Managing branches: perhaps I’m a little too ott but I keep a lot of branches preserved locally, a GUI provides a decent tree structure for them whereas I assume on the command line I’d just get a long list.

Managing stashes: unless you just want to apply latest stash (which admittedly is almost always the case) then I’d much rather check what I’m applying through a GUI first.

There are some things I still use the CLI for though:

git remote add git remote set-url because I’m just too lazy to figure out how to do that in a GUI. It’s usually hidden away somewhere.

git push --force because every GUI makes it such an effort. C’mon! I know what I’m doing - it’s /probably/ not going to mess things up…

You may want to re-read the comment I was replying to. At no point did I blame Windows. I simply provided an anecdote supporting that Linux has decent out of the box support for drivers.

We really should start a community specifically for bets on when a newly launched Google project will be shut down.

Yep. I’ve got a Logitech mouse that always bugged out on Windows. Tried downloading their app/drivers and the install indicator just kept going and going above 100%. Completely broken.

Same mouse on Ubuntu works perfectly.

What on earth are parking blocks? Are they like stabilisers for American drivers?

Why blame the parking space. Do drivers near you just have zero spatial awareness?

I’d be surprised if users routinely recognised one another, but perhaps I’ve just not participated much in the past.

Interestingl, linked elsewhere in this thread, there is a middle ground between global karma and existing mod opinion: https://lemmy.ml/comment/2377401

Effectively rather than considering the total upvotes/down votes you could consider only the votes cast by already trusted members. Although it may be a little too close to MeowMeowBeenz