To be fair, back in the day you could get better results by relying on Google with site:foobar and the Boolean/“power user” stuff. A lot of built-in search boxes on sites were a bit dodgy, or at least less flexible than AND/OR/NOT and other “power user tricks”.
Of course, these days those seem to be ignored wholesale and even “verbatim quotes” are an utter crapshoot, this was back when Google didn’t fucking blow.
Disproving them can work
No
Then what’s your counter?
Arguably best way to counter misinformation is non-platforming it. Mere provable facts and impeccable logic have a dogshit success rate.
This is on .ml, so I’m sure we’ll see some of it shortly. Or this post disappears out of a window.
Which inaccurate doomer myths? Because every time I hear this, it’s “well, I’m sure that’ll be ni-aaaaaaand it’s climate denialism”
I mean, you may think it’s a long way down the road to the chemist, but that’s just peanuts to space.
Or any other amount of THE_[RANDOM CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL] accounts I’ve seen around. I think I confronted “one of them” with it and no, tOtAlLy NoT ThE sAmE PeRsON. Sure, buddy/ostensibly buddies.
No. Rabies is destroying neurons, causing the symptoms. The hydrophobia is not literal fear of water (like phobias so often aren’t) but a result of your brain being fried to the point where you have issues swallowing. If it were an issue of hydration, just IV fluids would be a given, and you would probably want IV access anyway.
Not a doctor or anything, though.
Sure, that’s fine. I use interactive rebase for “cleaning” a lot. I’m just saying it doesn’t make a difference for diffing (as you can diff any commit against any other) and doing it as a matter of routine sounds like it could skip potentially useful history.
I mostly rebase but if a branch has things happen in a sequence that matters, I would merge it instead, for example.
Squashing seems like you’d potentially lose out on info and have a harder time isolating the changes you’re looking through. I guess it depends on how much has been changed and whether some of the commits along the branch were more important than others.
I also don’t think the reset is necessary, you should be able to diff the branch head against whatever you want.
Give some JS dev about fifteen minutes
That, or you’re met with “why on earth do you want to do that?”
To be fair, the XY problem is huge in anything coding related. Newbie wants to do X, has a vague and terribly wrong idea about how to do it (Y), then asks how to do Y instead. To give a “correct” answer to Y, assuming the question makes enough sense to have a correct answer, is less helpful than trying more or less tactfully to figure out what the actual goal was.
Cool finding (replication, rather?)
It’s a shame that potassium thing (or whatever else is in there) tastes like butt.
I think I misunderstood lemmyvore a bit, reading some criticism into the Lego metaphor that might not be there.
To me, “playing with bricks” is exactly how I want a lot of my coding to look. It means you can design and implement the bricks, connectors and overall architecture, and end up with something that makes sense. If running with the metaphor, that ain’t bad, in a world full of random bullshit cobbled together with broken bricks, chewing gum and exposed electrical wire.
If the whole set is wonky, or people start eating the bricks instead, I suppose there’s bigger worries.
(Definitely agree on “low code” being one of those worries, though - turns into “please, Jesus Christ, just let me write the actual code instead” remarkably often. I’m a BizTalk survivor and I’m not even sure that was the worst.
the “playing with legos” mental model
??
I’m almost sure they were joking, but your username does resemble a certain high profile name, known for being a heavily misogynistic twat and (alleged, but, y’know) rapist and trafficker.
No! What?
Salt or no salt can hugely affect how things behave and “eat”, by drawing out moisture or a bunch of other mechanisms.
That has the problem of blocking genuinely stupid questions
It sure does. If only people would avoid trying to slip shit under the radar, there’d be no reason to consider genuinely stupid questions with such suspicion.
“site” does work still, I think, just plus a lot of irrelevant drivel - standard Google fare, you see it on Youtube too.
I’d consider the most basic case to be, specifically, the “quotes for verbatim results”, which definitely do not work anymore. Neither does + for a positively (hue hue) required term, a close second.