• 0 Posts
  • 108 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle
  • Anarchism is opposition to power hierarchies, specifically non-consensual or coercive ones. Wealth inequality without safety networks is a coercive power hierarchy, and so needs to be fought. Capitalism as a whole is almost always incompatible with anarchy, at least in the way we tend to do it now. In a system with strong social safety networks the choice to work for someone can actually be a choice, and so some schools of thought would view it as compatible.
    Others view exclusive ownership of property as someone asserting power over someone else’s ability to use said property, and therefore wrong. Needless to say, abolition of private property is not compatible with capitalism.


  • Depends on the anarchist. Many would focus on seeking the absence of involuntary power hierarchies. A manager who distributes work and does performance evaluations isn’t intrinsically a problem, it’s when people doing the work can’t say “no, they’re a terrible manager and they’re gone”, or you can’t walk away from the job without risking your well-being.

    Anarchists and communists/socialists have a lot of overlap. There’s also overlap with libertarians, except libertarians often focus on coercion from the government and don’t give much regard to economic coercion. An anarchist will often not see much difference between “do this or I hit you” and “do this or starve”: they both are coercive power hierarchies.
    Some anarchists are more focused on removing sources of coercion. Others are more focused on creating relief from it. The “tear it down” crowd are more visible, but you see anarchists in the mutual aid and community organization crowds as well.






  • In the sense that they have a manager? Sure. In the sense that there’s one individual dictating the design of the software? I’ve never even been on a team with that dynamic, to say nothing of the entire codebase.

    Modern software teams tend to eschew design by decree.

    What’s the dynamic that you’re thinking is typically what teams use?


  • I’m not sure I’d construe a manual you can find, or a variety of guides, as a negative. :) most days my usage of git consists of “pull, commit, push, merge” in different orders. You might be overestimating how much effort goes in to managing the tool.

    Most of my professional experience has been working on projects that consist of multiple teams of between 4-6 developers, and between 5 and 40 teams. I’m not entirely sure what you mean about git not mirroring the development patterns of most “real life” projects.
    “Real” projects are frequently developed by groups of people working on the same goal adjacent to other groups working on related but distinct goals.


  • We very clearly work in different professional environments. :)

    In no particular order: Administrating a git server is similarly trivial. A repository is a folder (easy to backup, easy to repair, easy to host), and setting up a new server usually a matter of ssh key management. Don’t even need to install sqlite or anything beyond the git package. Or, because the tool has wide support, you can install a wide selection of tools that manage it for you, or use a free hosting service, or a paid one.

    I’m startled that you would say you can’t think of anyone who would care. My entire professional experience has been developer stories about bad jobs often include details about using old or esoteric VCS systems, usually met with “ew” or “wtf” comments. Sets the flavor of the story.
    Personally, in a business environment, I would take using anything except git for the org as a red flag. It’s a sign that someone in leadership at the company values doing things unrelated to the core mission “their way” above doing it the easy or “paved path” way.

    The standard tool is indeed not constant. Before git existed, using CVS would have been the better choice, as well as for years afterwards until it had clearly been usurped. Most projects aren’t Linux when it made the switch to git.

    You joke that no one really “knows” git, but… This is literally the first time I’ve ever seen a fossil command. I just searched for “fossil manual” and I get analog watches. It’s not even available in any of my systems package managers.
    Developer familiarity is a big advantage that I think you’re downplaying in comparison to “there are metadata files in .git”, which I don’t know has ever been relevant to me in any significant way.
    (Also, I thought the different systems all work basically the same? 😛)

    I’d handily agree people should be using the best tool for the job. Familiarity and ease of use are significant factors in what makes a tool better.
    Ability to integrate with other tools is also a major factor. Setting up continuous integration or code review tools with git is trivial with any number of different systems.

    What are any of the tools you’re using doing better than git? The biggest selling point you’ve shared for fossil is that it’s functionally similar to git, and that it has better merging. I can’t find anything related to merge conflicts outside of years old forum posts, and barely anything relating to merges at all, so I’m not entirely certain what makes it “better”.

    If it’s biggest advantage is that it’s similar enough to git that you can pick it up fast, why wouldn’t I just use git?


  • Like I said, there are always factors.

    For a company starting from scratch though, the usage base factor becomes vastly more significant.
    Using a tool that radically limits your integration capabilities is a poor choice, to say nothing of most likely needing to onboard every new employee to an entirely new VCS.

    I don’t know that I’ve encountered anyone using svn that wasn’t interested in moving in recent memory, so “developer experience” would be a reason to move.




  • File1, file2, file_3.new, etc would be bizarrely stupid. A home rolled solution involving rsync, tar, gzip, crons or inotify would also be bizarrely stupid.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_version-control_software anything on that list that’s marked anything other than “active” as a more serious answer. So like DCVS, visual source safe, or bitkeeper. Anything that’s not getting bug fixes or maintenance.

    Anything that doesn’t have significant enough usage to give confidence that bugs or glitches are being caught by common usage would be risky, since you don’t want to be the person to find that edge case.

    There’s things other than git that aren’t wrong, but I see little compelling reason not to use the most ubiquitous tool.


  • There’s a difference between “can’t code” and “can’t work”.

    A lot of people use git for version control: super good idea, basically anything else is at best unorthodox, at worst bizarrely stupid.
    A lot of people also use github for repository hosting, continuous integration, code review, deployment, packaging, etc, etc. this is more of an opinion thing than a standard practice thing, and there are plenty of other ways to get the same tools, either all in one package or from a variety of different ones, self hosted, in the cloud, or some hybrid in between.

    If GitHub goes down, you can make code changes and everything to your hearts content. But you might not be able to run your full integration testing pipeline on it, get a code review, or package your software.

    If your local build process pulls packages from GitHub or refreshes a remote repository automatically, it can also powerfully mess that up, but that’s nothing to do with git. You can use “ctrl-c/v” backups and still have a build process that tips over when GitHub goes down.


  • I’m not sure I’m hearing anyone saying diversity is a bad thing.

    People used “diversity hire” as an attack on Harris, but no one is using it as an attack on Walz, even though everyone basically immediately knew that the VP pick was going to be an older white man if only to make the ticket less of a “leap”.

    That an all woman ticket, a ticket with two not-white people, or anything else not “default American politician” would face issue is kinda OPs point that we still have a long way to go to overcome those institutional barriers you mention.

    Needing to consider diversity or representation when picking people is a sign that something has already gone wrong.
    If the system were just and those barriers didn’t exist, people wouldn’t consider diversity, they’d just pick the best person and the diversity would just be there as consequence of demographics. (In a fair system, the top N% of the population will have a comparable demographic breakdown to the population at large).

    It’s a sign of a cultural hangup that we definitely consider diversity, and need to in order to have decent representation, when making these choices, and even more sad that it’s only used as a cudgel against minorities , even when they were the first pick and others are being used to offset their “riskiness”.


  • ricecake@sh.itjust.workstoMemes@lemmy.mlMeh burger
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    7 months ago

    Most of them are mediocre. Most burger places were mediocre, and then the American gastropub trend saw burgers being made nice as opposed to diner food or bar food. They could also charge more money because they were making nicer food.

    Eventually a bunch of the mediocre places shifted to try to also be nice, but mostly just increased prices, changed decor, and started using the word aioli more than mayo. Oh, and pretzel buns on burgers that got taller without being bigger and are cumbersome to eat.

    In the plus side, if you like a Swiss burger with a garlic aioli, a burger with a fried egg on it, or a burger with 2 pieces of bacon, a spicy BBQ sauce, and fried onion strings and you’re in the mood for some fries with bits of peel on them and a garlic Parmesan butter, then you know exactly what they’re going to put in from of you and exactly what it’ll taste like.

    Mediocre. Not bad, but definitely not the best you’ve ever had.


  • Someone near him has recorded it on their phone if he has, and is just walking around numbly aware that they have the Nixon tapes sitting in their pocket.

    They’re using tap to pay, and having the stark reminder that they just bought a sandwich with something that could change the election be on the news for 30 minutes because no one expects him not to drop a hard N in casual conversation so it’s not as noteworthy as a woman politician laughing in public.


  • I wasn’t mocking your argument, I was agreeing with you and clarifying that my feeling was about who I’m most “irritated” with, not about responsibility or legal culpability.

    My example was for simplicity, not mockery.
    The power going out is the power companies fault, so I’m most mad at them. The store didn’t have a generator because they trusted the power company, so my cake got ruined. I’m still mad at them but less so because they weren’t the cause of the problem, even though they could have done more to prevent this from impacting me.
    Culpability wise, I can only make demands of the store and hope that enough other people do so that they in turn demand answers from the power company.

    There are actually a fair number of certifications, including ones from government agencies, relating to software development, deployment, and related practices. That so many organizations didn’t have the ones relating to protection from supply chain issues is distressing, to say nothing of it slipping through quality control in the first place.

    Please, if you think we’re in a place in this thread where I’d be mocking you, re-read it with the understanding that I agree with you entirely on legal and structural issues, and at most just have a different opinion about where the balance of "fuck you"s go. I think I put more scorn towards the vendor because doing the thing is worse than failing to prevent the thing. Also, I work at a parallel company and so I’m more familiar with exactly how much you have to be fucking up for this to happen because I spent the last three days dealing with the more minor controls that prevent this from happening. Everyone has outages because you can’t prevent 100% of errors, but it’s on the vendor to build to the spec of their most sensitive customer and ensure that outages don’t keep a doctor from patient records.


  • Can’t fault you for feeling that way. I definitely don’t think anyone should be exempt from responsibility, I meant blame in the more emotional “ugh, you jerk” sense.

    If someone can’t fulfill their responsibilities because someone they depended on failed them, they’re still responsible for that failure to me, but I’m not blaming them if that makes any sense.

    Power outage or not, the store owes me an ice cream cake and they need to make things even between us, but I’m not upset with them for the power outage.