Not actually a doctor.
which usually leads to someone taking a look
Nevermind the idea that one reviewer is somehow sufficient, this sounds like pure fantasy. Did you forget a "/s"?
Where do you work, and are they hiring?
I'm an old emacs warrior, tired of the war. I'm Church of Emacs, but why? I don't know what I don't know about the advantages of vi/vim, I only know that when I see other coders use them, they seem to weave the magic about as well as I do.
I know that I have a ton of built-up configuration code that makes emacs the perfect editor for me. I know that I can't imagine using git much without magit, or how I would organize anything without org-mode, or how I could tolerate the frustration of editing in a container on a remote server without tramp. I know that I have a huge familiarity bias.
I know that whenever I see anybody with with any of these flashy new-fangled editors, they spend most of their time futzing around with dials and buttons and other gadgets, and thinking about how cool it all is, rather than thinking about the code. They start projects really quickly, they handle some refactoring edge cases slightly faster, but they take forever to do any real work, and are completely unprepared to do anything with a new language or text structure at all.
I say: Vim and Emacs against the world.
Well, we could end capitalism, and demand that AI be applied to the betterment of humanity, rather than to increasing profits, enter a post-scarcity future, and then do whatever we want with our lives, rather than selling our time by the hour.
- JumpDeleted
#Vim #Meme
Even when Emacs had two GUI versions, the default keys were pretty much the same between them, as far as I recall, excepting features missing from one or the other. For a very long time now, it's all been reconciled as GNU Emacs, anyhow, whether CLI or XWin GUI, or even on a Mac or (shudder) MS Windows. I just use my local running Emacs, with my preferred configuration, to edit files anywhere, such as inside a running container on a remote server in AWS, so it's pretty consistent for me.
Ctrl+[ here
At the same time capitalism has built almost everything we have.
Almost everything I can see and touch has been delivered by a for-profit business operating in a capitalist society
There's a couple ways to interpret these statements.
Are you talking about innovation, progress, invention? Realistically, no. Occasionally capitalists put enough resources in the right hands that somebody working under capitalists manages to invent something good, but most real innovation doesn't happen without government funding. Capitalists are very hesitant to risk their capital on the kind of critical R&D that is necessary to make progress. Even when it happens under capitalism, there's no reason to think that capitalist control of the market caused it to happen - any system that gives creative people the time and resources to work on things will have as good results, at least, and it's easy to construct a system that gives that time and resources to more creative people, with fewer bosses interfering and squashing anything that's not seen as profitable. Capitalism is, though, very good at capturing and controlling innovation, sometimes even just killing existing innovations outright - see "embrace, extend extinguish".
Are you talking about manufacture and delivery of final products? Sure, under capitalist systems, of course it's all done by capitalism, as other options aren't available, or at least, aren't given any room. If somebody builds a fence around the lake that everyone fishes in, and takes over the fish and sells them to people who used to catch their own, do you praise that person for providing fish? Do you think landlords are providing housing?
Capitalism isn't just commerce. Capitalism is an antidemocratic economic trait, where the production and distribution of goods, services, and information is controlled by unelected, private owners of capital. Does it "destroy everything we build" as the person you were replying to said? No, not everything, but it does destroy a lot, and control and pervert most of what's left.
Good idea, but it would be much faster if you do the double-check on true instead.
Can I use AwesomeWM, XMonad, or StumpWM on Wayland?
Can I run a GUI program over ssh?
Does it support the X selection and clipboard protocols?
(These are not rhetorical questions, I'm really asking.)
I think I misunderstood you, when you said "manually", to mean as a human intervention in the process. What you're showing here is an extra processing step, but I wouldn't call that manual. Just want to clear that up, but I'm still down to play.
Instead of three greps, you could use one sed or awk. I don't think there's anything particularly wizardly about awk, and it would be a lot less cryptic, to me, than this chain of greps.
But a much better idea would be to use
sensors -jto get json output, intended for machine reading, and pass that tojq. Since I don't have the same sensors output as you, I'm not sure exactly what that would be, but I am guessing probably something like:sensors -j | jq '."nvme-pci-0200".Composite.composite_input'I look forward to seeing how you would do this in PS. As I said previously, I don't know it at all, so I'm not sure what you're comparing this to.
first grepping some output to get the line you want and then removing the leading and trailing garbage on that line manually
That's not what we do, though. Give me a more concrete example, and I'll let you know how I would expect to do it in a nix environment. I'd be curious to compare. Since I have zero experience with powershell, I am not really sure what to expect. The couple times I've glanced at a powershell script it looked awful, but I could be falling into Paul Graham's blub paradox there. OK, I don't think so, but maybe.
Wait did GitHub retroactively change existing master branches to main, or was your stuff insanely fragile?
The only reason you think "master" makes sense is because you're used to it. It's actually quite a weird connection to make, if you aren't used to it. "Main" is much more straight forward. And nobody is really demanding people stop using "master", so far as I am aware, it's just that people are making that choice themselves.
What shell is that? Bash and sh use Emacs bindings, C-y. Or if you meant terminal, urxvt and I'm pretty sure xterm use C-M-v. Maybe that's the gnome terminal?
Ah, I see you're a nerd of culture as well.
Weird.
Booleanishisn't a built-in, I'm pretty sure. I'd like to see the definition.Yeah, I'm not even a python dev, I knew what dropwhile did immediately from the name. Some people just don't want to learn anything new, ever.
I interpret it a bit differently. After all, a variable declared with
varisn't really more capable of being rebound, or bound to more values, than one declared withlet. However, it is possible, withvar, that setting a variable in one place could change it unexpectedly in another, so Rose Noble coming out as trans could cause Jordan Peterson to also suddenly be a woman.
I get the feeling you feel like I was somehow calling you out. I want to clarify the the intent of my message was more in the spirit of "wow must be nice" than "you're making that up". But also I'm just interested in how different your experience is from mine.
I must have misunderstood. You said "If no one has reviewed your change within 24 hours you are allowed to approve it yourself." To me, that sounds like, after 24 hours of no review, one self-approval is considered sufficient. That, in turn, seems to imply that before 24 hours, one non-self-approval is probably sufficient, no?
I've had team members in the past who are very self-focused, they tend to close a lot of tickets and look good, then get promoted out, leaving an unmaintainable mess behind. Allowing that is generally a failure of leadership. But right now, that's not our problem, and what you describe is pretty much how we operate.
I'd love to work on a team where everybody took code review a lot more seriously, believe me, it'd be nice, but my team does generally get everything approved, with at least two non-self approvals, in under 24 hours. If something is getting ignored because people are busy and it's a large change because we aren't perfect, and there is some reason to get it in soon, it just takes a quick request on Slack to get the needed attention.
What I found surprising about your description was more that the potential of a self-approval coming up would, in itself, get people's attention, rather than somebody reaching out personally and asking for a review.
Our big weakness is review quality, not quantity. It's crazy the number of times I look at something and see the two or three approvals already, start going through it, and find issue after issue. I see that on other teams as well, where there's usually only one or two devs who ever really make any comments on a review, it seems to be very common.