brockers

Honest question. I love some of the additional capabilities and specifically the dependency commits, virtual branches, and JSON output...

BUT why not just work with the git community to add this functionality? It doesn't seem like the kind of thing that needs to "replace" git, as opposed to "improve" git?

ad hominem? Please explain what makes the regulatory burdens onerous instead of impossible.

It might be just my perception, but it seems like every single time anthropologist make statements to the effect that complex human development didn't start until XX they are proven wrong. It wouldn't bother me so much if it wasn't for the fact that those "estimates" are generally used as proof to dismiss alternative timelines for human progression. I'm certainly not trying to say the planet had Atlantis with flying cars 300,000 years ago; but it certainly seems plausible that there were large/complex societies beginning long before the advent of our current written history... an idea that is regularly dismissed as foolish.

Remote attestation requires a great deal of trust... I know this comment is likely to be down-voted, but I can't think of a Lennart Poettering project that didn't try to extend, centralize, and conglomerate Linux with disastrous results in the short term; and less innovation, flexibility, and functionality in the long term. Trading the strength of Unix systems for goal of making them more "Microsoft" like.

Remote attestation requires a great deal of trust, and I simply don't have it when it comes to this leadership team.

It seems to be, for most users who switch, that the driver is if they are primarily a consumer or creator. Unix systems have always been a preferred platform for some creators, but this effect seems to be multiplying as the focus for Windows become less and less creator friendly. Yeah, if you are a gamer and watch YouTube videos, then your path to least resistance is Windows; but if you are a software developer, web developer, music editor, video editor, et al... the ability to control, easily automate, and flexibility of your environment (not to mention the reduced system resources) become a huge advantage. There are reasons why MOST creators are moving away from Windows... and most consumers are becoming more and more comfortable with tablets and Chromebooks.

There is some strange irony in this. Apple initially used the khtml code-base to build Safari but it quickly became impossible to back-port the changes from the Safari branch of khtml back into Konqueror. Now, 20 years later, someone has made an open source version of Safari.

The vote will definitely demonstrate how seriously the employees are considering unionization but, in my experience, there are a certain sub-set of people that constantly push for unionization, regardless of the companies commitment to employees.

There is a cost associated with collective bargaining as well as benefits. While most of these costs (though not all) are carried by the employer to the benefit of the employee; I don't think dismissing these concerns by calling them "common anti-union talking points" improves the honest discussion that should be had by people considering collective bargaining.

There are literally two in my office right now under my bookshelf. If you have them, you don't find one of these, you find dozens.

Can someone tell me what possible value this has?

Fine particle pollution is entirely different from CO2 emission and would not be included as part of any carbon tax I've seen.

No this is simply bad implementation. As has already been mention, for internet services that also have websites for those services the www. subdomain makes total sense.

> How will you distinguish http://www.pool.ntp.org vs http://pool.ntp.org ?

In the above case pool.ntp.org is a decades old time service, while www.pool.ntp.org is a website describing the service.

I have to second this. CouchDB has a much better native interface than Mongo (pure HTTP/REST JSON) and automatic syncying.

Honestly, most of the time I think the real problem is developers not being able to cognitively handle changing from a SQL style declarative syntax to a functional map/reduce style syntax. It takes higher-order thinking, but the results are dramatically better.

Thank you. I always getting a little angry at these "We should..." posts that are posted by a modern philosophe who has some idealized way of seeing the world and is more than happy to limit other peoples choices to maximize that vision.

Or grunt, npm, gem, etc... etc... etc...

I don't know about brew and the MacOS ecosystem.

Why the obsession about energy consumption from mining bitcoin? It is because many people still consider it imaginary or non-productive? It is because, unlike many other markets, it is fairly straightforward to find upper and lower bounds for consumption?

I know Dev shops don't like processes and forms, but that "checklist" is exactly that. It simply shows that processes and procedures are tools that are useful if that use can be limited.

As several people have already pointed out, there is almost no argument that can be made against giving it to him that isn't invalidated by Obama receiving it. That is the problem with turning everything into a statement of political ideology; the thing looses it's value. Instead of centering our identities around ideas, we have started centering them around people and parties.

People forget, but there was a time people would be members of the NRA and the ACLU. Where a person could support gay rights, and support religious objections...

We have reached the point we're, in politics, we don't care how we occomplish our goals; only that we get what we want from the system.

Same here, out entire dev shop is X1 Carbons on Linux.

I cannot imagine that is is a good plan. I just don't see enough innovation coming from the processor space to justify the overhead of design, development, testing, and manufacturing while effectively re-inventing most of the underlying system. Unless they build them as x86 clones... but even then it seems like they would be playing catch-up to new innovation.

If Apple really plans on doing this, it MUST be because of some fundamentally new capability that they are either unwilling to divulge to Intel, or Intel is unwilling to invest in. Some kind of core change to the way that Macs interact with or behave with users; otherwise it just doens't make sense to me.

If something is carcinogenic is always a matter of volume. Most things are carcinogenic if consumed in quantities large enough. Most things carcinogenic if aerosolized and inhaled. Most things are carcinogenic if left on your skin long enough.

Yes, because the government has such a spectacular record for protecting privacy and NOT spying on its citizens. Of course, Facebook cannot come into your home with guns if they think something your doing is wrong, so governments have that to their advantage...

Laugh all you want, but I just got done talking to one of these NC pig farmers yesterday and he is in the process of converting the sewage into methane gas for electrical production. Local, community electricity, with a lower CO2 footprint than Methane!!?!

While I generally applaud the idea, I cannot help but notice that the most likely abuser of users personal data is the governments of the EU itself.

I agree, even with the often quoted "the inventor of 401(k)'s doesn't even like them anymore" it always fails to identify the primary concern as being one of personal mismanagement and not the vehicle itself.

There are some decent arguments that need to be made about investment education and regulatory simplification but this article doesn't make them.

I'm not a big fan of Apple, but this is one obvious side benefit to the company that writes your software being the one that sells you your hardware. User experience extend to more than just the feel of you keyboard.

I hate these "XXX found to eliminate cancer in mice" news blurbs. I really want there to be an easy, effective, and inexpensive solution to one of the worst medical conditions imaginable; but they make these kind of announcements 3-4 times a year and 99/100 times they don't pan out because humans are not mice... and medicine is hard.

It looks like the whole crux of the authors arugement rests on this paragraph:

"But cities are not machines that can be optimized, nor are they labs for running experiments. Cities are not platforms with users, nor are they businesses with shareholders. Cities are real places with real people who have a right not to live with whatever “smart solutions” an engineer or executive decides to unleash."

The reaction seems more visceral than thoughtful. Cities in many ways ARE machines that need to be optimized; and, regardless of our feelings, are always in a constant state of experimentation. Cities may not be platforms, but they are certainly businesses with shareholders called voters. Businesses are real places with real people; and while I agree that they should have the right to live without any "smart solution" that a business would like to unleash... my neighborhood covenant (enforced by city ordnance) already disagrees with my opinion.

I don't disagree with the intent of the author, but she failed to make any reasonable argument in support of her point.

I see what you did there...