bulatb
You could do that to an internet-connected toaster with a JPEG. The system() function has nothing to do with it.
People driven mainly by self-interest are more likely to act without principle, and also likely to be outraged when that's pointed out—because it's not in their interest. Accusing them of bad behavior is the outage because, when sometime is not principled, in general or on some issue in particular, their interests and their notion of the moral good are one and the same.
It is very hard for people who see wants as normatives to have productive discussion with those who see them as descriptives. The gulf between the value systems is too wide.
git commit -m "Autoformat source files"
git log --format="# %s%n%H" -1 >> .git-blame-ignore-revs
git add .git-blame-ignore-revs
git commit -m "Ignore autoformat commit in blames"
cat .git-blame-ignore-revs
# Autoformat source files
0a1b2c3d...
git blame --ignore-revs-file .git-blame-ignore-revs code.src
git config blame.ignoreRevsFile .git-blame-ignore-revs
git blame code.src
I can't keep writing now but I will try to organize some thoughts and come back later.
My argument is that we don't have that capacity. The system that we have is what we have because it's what has self-assembled and would self-assemble every time if we ran it again.
I may be wrong, but that's what I'm claiming.
If we want a system different than what self-assembles, we should first admit what self-assembles, and admit it's not because of individuals not doing their part or whatever. The system is the way it is because the natural laws it follows lead it to that state. This is where the whole idea of coordination as a simple answer fails.
People won't spontaneously all accept an unappealing, morally unpleasant, complicated explanation of why things aren't better when a simple, pleasant, satisfying, even righteous explanation is available and fits their preexisting worldview.
I am tired of the moralizing arguments[0] from people sabotaging their own causes, blaming people who are doing something that might work instead of sabotaging harder. If I misunderstood and that's not you, I'm sorry.
I should have been less snippy at the top either way.
---
Ugh, this is like my catchphrase now, but: "If everybody just" is a description of a problem, not a solution. Specifically a problem that exists because they haven't justed and will never just, no matter what could happen if they just.
Coordination metaproblems where coordination problems that exist cannot be solved because of human nature are a consequence of human nature interacting with the laws of nature.
That doesn't mean it's possible for every problem. There's always a coordination cost. The larger your per-person cost times the number of people you need, the more unlikely the coordinated action is to happen. Spontaneous coordination is an oxymoron and improbable by definition. It's a situation where the system doesn't do what's energetically favored and instead does something else that isn't.
Ascribing agency to systems is a human bias. Ascribing it to groups of agents is both human nature and the fallacy of composition. Blaming individuals instead of looking at the system and the context is both human nature and the fundamental attribution error. This is one of many places where the bucket leaks.
Currently some groups with low coordination costs (and so high leverage) are coordinating to increase coordination costs for the groups that oppose them, using tactics that are independently high-leverage, multiplying their effect so much that they can make the opposition's costs effectively unbounded. Human nature makes the opposition wilfully, aggressively deny this and insist their costs are low and people are just bad and lazy. (Somehow, everybody being bad and lazy all at once does not reflect on human nature.)
The argument about coordination costs is more or less uncontroversial when projected into any other subject. It's only controversial here because of human nature. It's another leak.
Your opposition's agency is concentrated and yours is dilute. Human nature tilts the playing field, diluting yours and concentrating theirs. Accept this and adjust your strategy, or lose.
If I pour some water in a bucket and come back to find it's all leaked out, and do this every day for all of human history and always get the same result, I don't conclude the water wouldn't leak if it just tried a little harder.
There's a hole in the bucket.
Many of the people still rejecting climate change are scientists and engineers whose egos make them obligate contrarians.
I think "objective quality" can always be re-framed in terms of fitness. "Quality" is just not anything the fitness function measures, so it can't.
It's hard to really make the case because of course there's something real that people mean, colloquially, and it's totally valid. Lots of things objectively have properties most people would agree show quality. That's where it is, it's right there!
But all those properties can be described without the use of "quality" by just reciting every fact about the thing. The only thing that will be left, the only thing you can't communicate that way, is what the person thinks about those facts.
Quality does not exist until a (person, preference, subject) pairing happens. It's not real. It's literally not a thing. It's just a name for mixing up your is and ought.
When someone saying "quality" can point to the specific property that makes the subject quality, they're almost always pointing to what is, from the perspective of the fitness function, inefficiency, a waste of energy and effort, more spent than the system rewards.
Anyone who spends a lot of effort building skills to get particular results is going to believe those results are important, at least a necessary part of success, if not the whole definition. When people who did not put in the effort keep succeeding without those results, "quality" becomes the cope. It's shoddy work. They did it wrong. They cheated somehow.
And yet they succeeded.
Because "quality" is what a person says when is and ought don't match, a fact about the speaker, not the subject.
It's not some deep or interesting idea, but it needs to be repeated any time "git gud" is used as an excuse for Git's UX, which is always.
> all you have to do to make is pleasant
This is an assumption about what I find unpleasant and why. I take it you think "reading information" and "understanding instructions" are some of those things I don't like. Your conclusion that I must not understand is based on that assumption.
The assumption is wrong.
If you can grant me that, my problem looks different. If you can't or won't, my summary was right.
OP: No one should be worried about using Git to do a thing.
bulatb: I'm worried it will be unpleasant.
seba_dos1: Here is what will happen when you do the thing.
bulatb: I know, but doing it will be unpleasant.
seba_dos1: You must not understand what's going to happen.
bulatb: I do. The process is unpleasant.
seba_dos1: You must not understand what's going to happen.
None of that word salad should matter, but it does. Git will ruin everything with glee and there is always an excuse for why that's fine and it's the user's fault.
Anything you're working with is not a backup, even if it mostly contains backups. Your local .git and your remotes are data to back up, not backups.
The only thing that is a backup is a checksummed snapshot of your data somewhere that the normal workflow that creates it can't destroy it, pushed there and left there, hopefully to never see the light of day again, unless requested by a testable and tested process for restoring it if needed.
Meaning treat semantic markup as a principle. Most modern tools are not that interested in 2010s ideas about separation of design and content.
In theory.
In practice, no one cares about semantics and the choice of tags is based on how a target set of browsers happens to display them.
Your question about who interprets markup is exactly right. In theory, you have no idea. Maybe it's a browser, maybe it's assistive software, maybe it's a browser printing, maybe it's some custom knowledge base with different views of documents for different users. In theory, you're supporting all of that by only marking up semantics and allowing the consumer to interpret them, because there isn't one right answer.
In practice, your client is Chrome.
In theory, that's irrelevant because you're using CSS to style semantic markup so it works in Chrome and still makes sense to other clients.
In practice, you're writing a web application, using a framework, and nothing in the stack wants you to do that.
<ul> Players
<li> Alice
<li> Bob
<li> Carol
</ul>
<ol> Leaderboard
<li> Bob
<li> Alice
<li> Carol
</ol>What a world it is now.
In practice, almost everyone is held potentially or actually accountable for things they never had a choice in. Some are never held accountable for things they freely choose, because they have some way to dodge accountability.
The CEOs who don't accept accountability were lying when they said they were responsible.
If you don't want to be responsible for what a tool that might do anything at all might do, don't use the tool.
The other option is admitting that you don't accept responsibility, not looking for a way to be "responsible" but not accountable.