theaino

3 ms·

1.
by theaino 7y ago
It wouldn't help your case since that's a paraphrasing of this quote from Max Planck: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually
2.
by theaino 7y ago
> They are very practical like that. Or not. "Science advances one funeral at a time." Related HN discussion from a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21911225
3.
by theaino 7y ago
> "The death of the working class reporter" This article is just standard journalistic myth-making. The journalists cited as examples of success without college degrees, Carl Bernstein and Walter Cronkite (who both went to coll
4.
by theaino 7y ago
Dropbox was replacing symlinks with the target file or directory tree in synced copies. This obviously breaks legitimate symlinks since the whole point of having the symlink is to have a reference to the target, not another copy of the targ
5.
by theaino 7y ago
No, because Dropbox is a file syncing utility so symlinks, which are special files that point to other files, should be synced as symlinks. Replacing the symlink with the target file or directory is obviously broken behavior.
6.
by theaino 7y ago
No, previously you were relying on a magic Dropbox hack that broke symlinks, whereas now the file system can be used properly and symlinks work like actual symlinks.
7.
by theaino 7y ago
Dropbox’s following of symlinks has always been magical, nonstandard behavior that breaks symlinks and is user-hostile for anyone who relies on proper symlink behavior.
8.
by theaino 7y ago
As another commenter mentioned, it is actually very common to symlink dotfiles like that and is how most dotfile management tools work. Dropbox’s magic symlink following has always been the anti-pattern and has made it impossible to sync sy