Tangentially related, but while we're talking about eerily prescient writings, I nominate "The MADCOM [Machine-Driven Communication] Future: How Artificial Intelligence Will Enhance Computational Propaganda, Reprogram Human Culture, And Threaten Democracy… And What Can Be Done About It (2017)"
"Heterogeneous democracies like the United
States devolve into perpetual conflict as
adversaries use MADCOMs to manipulate the
population, by exacerbating cultural differences
and undermining narratives that unify the
country. The social consensus disintegrates,
and political opponents are labeled traitors and
enemies...
"The US public believes that MADCOM
activities are just a more sophisticated
form of advertising, and reflexively relies
on appeals to free speech. In fact, there are
active manipulation campaigns pushing these
narratives to convince the public it isn’t being
manipulated at all. Any time people interact with
an electronic device—whether a smartphone,
augmented-reality device, or social media—their
data is captured, their behavior is tested and
recorded, and algorithms adapt to make devices
more addictive, advertisements more persuasive,
and propaganda more manipulative...
"Some individuals
flee to private social spaces online, but this
reinforces their filter bubbles, exacerbating
political polarization. A small number of people
flee online social spaces entirely, creating a
minor resurgence in offline, mass-market media.
These information-savvy individuals are the
least likely to be susceptible to disinformation
in the first place, so their absence simply
removes rational voices from the conversation.
The affluent pay for the luxury of privacy, as
brands emerge specifically targeting those who
wish to protect their data and their cognition...
"Agreed-upon facts become a relic of the past.
No one knows what is true anymore, because
expertise has been subsumed to the tyranny
of MADCOM-manipulated public opinion. AI
video- and speech-manipulation tools invent and
revise reality on the fly. The only truth is what
you can convince people to believe. The new
definition of a fact is “information that aligns
with preconceived opinions,” and any contrary
evidence is discarded as likely disinformation.
The story is all that matters. The three-hundred-
year-old Age of Enlightenment, based on reason
and a quest for truth, ends."
It boggles my mind that instead of this being a UI projection, git instead ingrains a process where developers habitually destroy their history (and bisection options, and merge conflict resolution), therein loading an additional footgun that goes off every now and again when it turns out a now-squashed branch was the basis of (or merged into) some other branch
It’s important to note that not all history is worth keeping, and keeping a dozen commits titled “fix” fixing build / CI errors from the original changes are a lot worse for bisecting than squashing it all into just one.
I very much prefer keeping histories by default (both my personal workflows and the tools I build default to that) but squash is a valuable tool.
> keeping a dozen commits titled “fix” fixing build / CI errors from the original changes are a lot worse for bisecting than squashing it all into just one.
How so? When I bisect I want to get down to a small diff, landing on a stretch of several commits (because some didn't build) is still better than landing on a big squashed commit that includes all those changes and more. The absolute worst case when you keep the original history is the same as the default case when you squash.
> Because they’re broken and their only purpose is to fix up the original change, so it’s functionally the same change.
Do you restrict yourself to 1 non-broken commit per PR? I don't, and nor does anyone I've worked with. If there were even 2 non-broken commits in the PR, then bisecting with the original history lands you on a diff half the size that bisecting with squashed history would, which is a significant win. (If you didn't care about that sort of thing you wouldn't be bisecting at all).
> No, now you have a bunch of worthless broken commits that you need to evaluate and skip because they’re not the problem you’re looking for.
What are you "evaluating"? If you want to ignore the individual commits and just look at the overall diff that's easy. If you want to ignore the individual messages and just look at the PR-time message that's easy too. Better to have the extra details and not need them than need them and not have them.
> Do you restrict yourself to 1 non-broken commit per PR?
No. To the extent that I can however I do restrict myself to only non-broken commits.
> If there were even 2 non-broken commits in the PR, then bisecting with the original history lands you on a diff half the size that bisecting with squashed history would, which is a significant win
It is not a significant win when the bisecting session keeps landing me in your broken commits that I have to waste time evaluating and skipping.
And splitting out fixups doesn’t save anything (let alone “half the size”), most commonly those fixups are just modifying content the previous commits were touching already, so you’re increasing the total diff size you have to evaluate.
> What are you "evaluating"?
Whether the commit is the one that caused the issue I’m bisecting for.
> If you want to ignore the individual commits and just look at the overall diff that's easy. If you want to ignore the individual messages and just look at the PR-time message that's easy too.
Neither of these is true. git bisect (run) lands me on a commit, it’s broken, now I need to look whether the commit is broken in a way that is relevant to what I’m seeking.
> Better to have the extra details and not need them than need them and not have them.
Garbage is “extra details” only in the hoarder sense.
Yes, a good Git log viewer that would auto-squash branches down to a summary, and allow "expanding" them, would be useful. But the way branching and merging creates confusing train-track graphs is IMHO one of the reasons why many teams end up using the squash-and-merge workflow. There's definitely room for improvement there...
Git doesn't do that. People needlessly destroying history do that.
Git will happily let you merge branches and preserve the history there. GP seems to like that history being in PRs only on github instead. I don't get why, that just seems worse to me.
That is an issue of ignorance, not laziness. It’s not obvious at all to an average developer that only uses `add/commit/merge/fetch/push/pull/rebase/restore/reset` that they can manipulate their change history.
I would assume most people who would enable an "auto squash" option also aren't carefully creating and curating commits. Bisect is useless if half your commits are broken. People regularly make commits that don't even build, much less pass QA and deliver a valid version of the software. These are works in progress, broken versions and should be deleted.
If you actually do like to deliver the correct number of commits then it's frustrating to work with people who don't care. In that case I would suggest making the squash optional but you could also try selling your team on doing smaller commits. In my experience you either "get it" or you don't, though. I've never successfully got someone to understand small commits.
> I would assume most people who would enable an "auto squash" option also aren't carefully creating and curating commits.
Or don't have a choice. Our department-wide rules were almost to require that for all repos, I had to push hard just to make it "strongly suggested" instead.
> Why carbon dioxide? Because everyone who exhales COVID (or flu, or RSV) aerosols also exhales carbon dioxide, and good ventilation removes both disease aerosols and CO2. Under many conditions, the concentration of CO2 particles in a space can give us an idea of how much risk there is of catching or passing on a respiratory disease.
> Unfortunately, the relationship between the numbers on a carbon dioxide monitor and the disease risk is complicated, so there are some things to know if you want to do your own monitoring.
That's what's different about this one. "Enter the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 Dual Edition, a mouthful of a chip that includes 64MB of 3D V-Cache on both processor dies, without the hybrid arrangement that has defined the other chips up until now."
Yes, it's true one needs to eat, have a roof over one's head, etc. Of course you can even like what you do, make friends at work. But never forget the nature of the relationship. It won't love you back.
> They tried to make Windows into a mobile OS, severely restricting the alowed actions of program
They already had Silverlight! For Windows Phone 7. Then they killed that off too and expected the "plethora" of WP7 apps to be rebuilt for WP8 (requiring the beloved Windows 8 desktop OS for this task). Then they again expected developers to throw that away in favor of UWP for Windows 10, which unified the desktop and phone OSes. By then it was too late.
Old apps still ran on the newer OSes but the SDKs became dead-ends.
It's such an interesting mission too, keeping the spacecraft synchronized enough with incredible precision so that one can cast a shadow in just the right place on the other, all while the orbital mechanics of gravity are constantly insisting otherwise
"Given the diameter of the occulter disk on the OSC and the intended corona observation regions, the CSC must be approximately 150 meters from the OSC and maintain this position with millimetric accuracy, both in range and laterally"
From Part II: The Implications Of A MADCOM World—Three Scenarios For The Future: https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep03728.5?seq=2
"Heterogeneous democracies like the United States devolve into perpetual conflict as adversaries use MADCOMs to manipulate the population, by exacerbating cultural differences and undermining narratives that unify the country. The social consensus disintegrates, and political opponents are labeled traitors and enemies...
"The US public believes that MADCOM activities are just a more sophisticated form of advertising, and reflexively relies on appeals to free speech. In fact, there are active manipulation campaigns pushing these narratives to convince the public it isn’t being manipulated at all. Any time people interact with an electronic device—whether a smartphone, augmented-reality device, or social media—their data is captured, their behavior is tested and recorded, and algorithms adapt to make devices more addictive, advertisements more persuasive, and propaganda more manipulative...
"Some individuals flee to private social spaces online, but this reinforces their filter bubbles, exacerbating political polarization. A small number of people flee online social spaces entirely, creating a minor resurgence in offline, mass-market media. These information-savvy individuals are the least likely to be susceptible to disinformation in the first place, so their absence simply removes rational voices from the conversation. The affluent pay for the luxury of privacy, as brands emerge specifically targeting those who wish to protect their data and their cognition...
"Agreed-upon facts become a relic of the past. No one knows what is true anymore, because expertise has been subsumed to the tyranny of MADCOM-manipulated public opinion. AI video- and speech-manipulation tools invent and revise reality on the fly. The only truth is what you can convince people to believe. The new definition of a fact is “information that aligns with preconceived opinions,” and any contrary evidence is discarded as likely disinformation. The story is all that matters. The three-hundred- year-old Age of Enlightenment, based on reason and a quest for truth, ends."
(Full piece: https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep03728?searchText=&searchU...)
reply