justinlaster

12 ms·

61.
by justinlaster 10y ago
Did you miss OP's example? Why would spellcheck give you the same word you just typed in? It's manual intervention. They are clearly able to modify search results based on a rule system.
62.
by justinlaster 10y ago
If you can't trust your developers to write acceptable commit messages, why are you trusting them to write code?
63.
by justinlaster 10y ago
It's specific to that search term, and has absolutely nothing to do with the Google's general functionality. How is it not "manual"? They clearly are able to create result sets crafted by their employees for specific sea
64.
by justinlaster 10y ago
Why not? It may not be searching the web, but it certainly is still doing a search of possibly related words that you had intended to spell.
65.
by justinlaster 10y ago
Could it be argued that spelling suggestions are still a search result in and of themselves?
66.
by justinlaster 10y ago
I've recently been using Hexo for blogs: https://hexo.io/
67.
by justinlaster 10y ago
Yes you can. What in the world? You can definitely say something that is partially true. That's what conspiracy theories are built off of: a tinge of truth. "The sky is blue because other stars reflect blue light onto our atmosphe
68.
by justinlaster 10y ago
He's not being clever. The incoming administration's own statements back his sentiment up. There's going to be more show than science. The incoming administration -- or those making up the incoming administration -- want to u
69.
by justinlaster 10y ago
> it would seem to be easy to have multiple threads, starting at key frames to decode the content. It's a resource issue (memory, cpu, etc; and meeting latency requirements between those constraints), versus the subtly different sta
70.
by justinlaster 10y ago
> a H.264 hardware decoder can decode all H.264 files and > video decoding is easily parallelizable At a previous job, I don't know if it was just the field I was in or just bad luck, but having to explain this over and over agai
71.
by justinlaster 10y ago
According to the epistemological principle of not being proved wrong while containing a reasonable amount of evidence to indicate that their report is in all probability true. Why are you asking such a vague, open-ended question?
72.
by justinlaster 10y ago
> I've never seen anyone give a good reason why Snopes should be trusted. Their impressive library of detailed articles in where they factually report on myths and conspiracy theories?
73.
by justinlaster 10y ago
That's not substantive, and certainly doesn't have any effect on the thousands and thousands of articles they've posted. Would you care to link that tenuous red flag to the investigate articles Scopes produces in some fashion
74.
by justinlaster 10y ago
You're going to give a Forbes article more credence than Snopes? I still haven't seen anyone point to a substantive example of why Snopes should not be trusted.
75.
by justinlaster 10y ago
> I would also like to see an instance where Mercurial hiding information from you and giving misleading answers to your queries. A branch with two heads. Two branches that have the same name. Which commit came from where? What happens i
76.
by justinlaster 10y ago
>to answer questions like "What feature was this commit part of, originally" Neither system will answer that. If you're relying on branches to tell you what feature sets changes belong to, you should be adding that to your
77.
by justinlaster 10y ago
>It's for long-term branches. Please elaborate how this helps you in long-term branches, instead of just assuming long-term branches aren't something most people deal with on a daily basis. >you might be happy to have a tool
78.
by justinlaster 10y ago
>But for smaller projects, maintaining a truthful history is much more valuable. Elaborate. >Mercurial supports git's branching model and a lot of others. Except, it doesn't completely. >Are you seriously saying that usin
79.
by justinlaster 10y ago
>The codebase I'm currently working on has recent commits with description "review", "add addressDto" and "post rebase fix". I guess what I don't get, is that if you have people doing commit messag
80.
by justinlaster 10y ago
I'm sorry, in what practice are you in where your commit messages are somehow so lackluster that a branch name (not even a PR!) can give you more information about why something is being done? And to make sure no one responds with some
81.
by justinlaster 10y ago
There's no easy quick way to represent the actual state of the commit. It's far easier in git because it's the only way to do it. Furthermore, then information being "encapsulated" can actually become stale or misle
82.
by justinlaster 10y ago
> Which branch was commit `B` made on You can do some basic heuristics to figure it out, but I'm not sure what the point of knowing this is. >What did the `bugfix` branch look like one commit ago? `git checkout bugfix; git log bu
83.
by justinlaster 10y ago
You're right, it's not moved across remotes. I'm just confused to why the information would ever be needed. It seems to not have any real use case. You can recreate a branch any where at any point in the history, why would yo
84.
by justinlaster 10y ago
>Git does not do this. Because git does not have this concept of named branches. It doesn't pre-bake the information in the commit, because it's entirely useless information to bake into a commit; and even in the case of Mercur
85.
by justinlaster 10y ago
> If two branches have parent commits in common, it technically belongs to both branches. It belongs to both branches as well in Mercurial, it just hides that information from you. An astoundingly bad idea, no? I'm not sure how merc
86.
by justinlaster 10y ago
>One use case is given branch X, tell me what the branch looked like N commits in the past. What am I not understanding here? You definitely can go N commits in the past on each branch, and even any commit. And if you rewrite history you
87.
by justinlaster 10y ago
You asked what the following command did, and it will do plainly what you tell it to, but you're treating the fact that a/b can be anything you make it to be somehow a fault of checkout, and all because it decided to be nice and t
88.
by justinlaster 10y ago
>branches give you a way to track the branches a commit is a part of which is good for long-running branches I think you have a slight misunderstanding on the differences between git and mercurial, as git absolutely allows you to do this
89.
by justinlaster 10y ago
I had a comment written up, but I decided to test my claim in my original post about a "litany of literature", and sure enough this has been documented elsewhere: http://gitolite.com/git-pull--rebase I searched fo
90.
by justinlaster 10y ago
They actually didn't get flamed. There was no personal attack, even though he was well in the right to do so.

More ›