![](https://programming.dev/pictrs/image/15c9c78d-2924-41e6-b392-0dc0657ff24e.jpeg)
![](https://programming.dev/pictrs/image/8140dda6-9512-4297-ac17-d303638c90a6.png)
I use git log --graph --all --remotes --oneline
whenever I need to shell into another computer, but it’s still too barebones for regular use.
I use git log --graph --all --remotes --oneline
whenever I need to shell into another computer, but it’s still too barebones for regular use.
What specifically do you think is legacy in that comparison? The coloring? The horizontal layout? The whitespace?
Note: I’ve changed the first link from https://github.com/cxli233/FriendsDontLetFriends/network to https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/network. Still the same view, but just a different repo to highlight the problems
I’ll stop here at 10 reasons (or more if you count the dot points), otherwise I’ll be here all day.
The network view lays out forks and their branches, not only [local]/[local+1-remote] branches.
Yes, but the others can do that while still being usable.
I don’t know what IDE that miro screenshot is from. […]
It’s gitkraken
[…] But I see it as wasteful and confusing. The author initials are useless and wasteful, picking away focus. The branch labels are far off from the branch heads. […]
The picture doesn’t do it justice, it’s not a picture, it’s an interactive view.
You can resize things, show/hide columns, filter values in columns to only show commits with certain info (e.g. Ignore all dependabot commits), etc… Here’s an example video.
[…]The coloring seems confusing.
You can customise all that if you want.
The first link is a totally different purpose than the second two.
The first link is going to there because that’s the only graph view that github has.
I’ve got to say, seeing this:
https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/network
instead of something like this:
https://fork.dev/blog/posts/collapsible-graph/
or this:
https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:4800/format:webp/0*60NIVdYj2f5vETt2.png
feels pretty damn legacy to me.
I’d recommend removing as many variables as possible.
Try getting a single html page to work (no mongoose, no preact, no vite, no tailwind).
If you can’t get that to work, then no amount of tinking in preact/vite/tailwind/mongoose will help you.
Once you have a single page running, you can look at the next steps:
For scripting: try plain js, then js + mongoose, then preact + mongoose. If a step fails, rely on the step before it.
For styling: try plain css, then a micro css framework that doesn’t require a build step (e.g. https://purecss.io/, https://picocss.com/), then tailwind if you really want to try messing around with vite again.
Ubuntu is great.
The company that supports it (Canonical) usually makes an annoying decision that goes against the community’s preferences every 3 years or so, but they always eventually rescind it.
The last decade of annoying decisions is changing which desktop environment is considered “default”, and a bunch of developers time wasted on an ubuntu for phones which never released.
Their current “annoying decision” is pushing Snaps which are just a way to package apps. They’re okayish, but they run apps slower than the other standards (Flatpak, Appimage, or just installing through a package manager) and Canonical is in charge of the place where Snaps are downloaded.
Most people just download Ubuntu, uninstall Snaps then install what they want.
So yeah, ubuntu is great, the company that supports them usually puts one annoying thing in at a time every few years that the community turns off and ignores.
Mint is based on Ubuntu, so you could try Ubuntu itself without the Mint stuff bolted on.
Ubuntu asks you what you want pre-installed when you’re setting it up.
And since Ubuntu has all the same flavours that mint does (and more), it’ll look like what you expect it to. Modern Mint uses Cinnamon whereas old Mint uses Mate, so just choose the one you’re already familiar with.
There are some tools/libraries that act as a front-layer over regex.
They basically follow the same logic as ORMs for databases:
But there’s no common standard, and it’s always language specific.
Personally I think using linters is the best option since it will highlight the footguns and recommend simpler regexes. (e.g. Swapping [
for ]\d
)
At least once every few days while coding, usually to do one of the following:
Select multiple things in the same file at the same time without needing to click all over the place
Normally I use multicursor keyboard shortcuts to select what I want and for the trickier scenarios there are also commands to go through selections one at a time so you can skip certain matches to end up with only what you want.
But sometimes there are too many false matches that you don’t want to select by hand and that’s where regex comes in handy.
For instance, finding:
… which can be easily done by searching for a word that doesn’t include a letter immediately before or immediately after: e.g. \Wtest\W
.
Search for things across all files that come back with too many results that aren’t relevant
Basically using the same things above.
Finding something I already know makes a pattern. Like finding all years: \d{4}
, finding all versions: \d+\.\d+\.\d+
, finding random things that a linter may have missed such as two empty lines touching each other: \n\s*\n\s*\n
, etc…
Oh cool, yeah and you’re also using multiple repeating-radial-gradient
s to generate textured noise.
That’s exactly what I was doing while working on a new button style.
Some gradients and some noise sprinkled on top to remove some of the flatness, but while I was experimenting with the noise I happened upon that really cool pattern and thought I’d share it by itself.
There’s a whole bunch of pull requests and issues sitting there for a start.
Personally I’d also update the example in the readme and set an engine value in the package.json file.
Why not reformat and use a more open filesystem?
You’d get less issues too!
Post title is misleading as he’s not really the one causing the drama.
it’s simply false to say he’s continuing to cause the drama and problems when all he did was ask to get his commit access back …
No. When he realised he wasn’t immediately given access as he was asking for it he also made a post on the unmoderated reddit board with “Drama” in the title.
He inflamed drama during what should have been an otherwise fairly dull bureaucratic process, tried to hide his earlier posts, was called out on it with a timeline, then eventually half-admitted to creating drama.
… and tell his haters they’re being assholes
Engaging with haters is creating more drama, which makes more disruption, which makes more haters, repeat ad infinitum.
He just needed to ignore them and let the mods do their job, not make their job harder than it already was.
The drama comes from people who just hate the guy and are screaming about letting him back. His response to that was then very cordial and just calling out them for being to aggressive.
It definitely appeared cordial on his part, but the timelines of events comment showed he was cherrypicking and trying to change things after the fact. He was being deceitful and manipulative which of course made everything worse than it needed to be. He drove away more of the community.
All he needed to do was not be disruptive himself, let the mods sort out the initial haters, and let the boring topic of a commit bit be addressed.
Okay that’s good, spaces for hydro storage isn’t an issue.
The only problems/questions left are:
Thus, the expected cost of a 1,000 megawatt pumped hydro energy storage system with a head of 600 m and 14 hours of storage is about $1.8 billion.
1000 MW = 1GW : $1.8B
And your quote says we need 450 GWh of storage.
So 450 x 1.8 = $810B
(I’m assuming I haven’t made a mistake about the 14 hours of storage and the converting between GW and GWh).
Our current GDP is 1.6 trillion.
So we could do it, but it would cost us half of our GDP for one year (but we’d be spreading it out over multiple years).
I’m assuming economies of scale would come into effect, but how much more efficient can you be at making and pouring concrete.
I haven’t found any source on the fiscal cost of the Coalition’s plan (I doubt they even know, and I suspect that they’re just trying to extend the life of coal by relying on delays), but it begs the question:
Would their seven proposed nuclear stations be cheaper than $810 Billion?
The cost of nuclear is only at the commissioning and decommissioning of the plant. But during the runtime of the plant is remarkably cheap. People just balk at the initial price because so much of the cost is up front.
Another thing to remember about recycling is that we as a species were producing nuclear waste before we had reactors that could use recycled waste so globally speaking we currently have a surplus of waste. Recently the US had to restart a reactor because they didn’t have enough materials to use for powering deep space probes. It’s not implausible that we could run out of waste to use and have to produce more fresh fuel.
On the topic of safety though, modern reactor designs require power coming in to keep the fissile material frozen to continue the reaction.
As soon as the power is cut, the coolant is cut, part of the plant is destroyed, or something else goes wrong, the plant stops working. If the plant stops working, there’s nothing to cool down the fissile material.
The fissile material’s own radioactivity heats it up to the point that it melts and pours away over what’s essentially a pyramid plinko drain splitting up the liquid into many separate pools. (If it helps, think of your bath’s drain if the pipe splits into two, which split into four, which split into eight, and on and on until a bath tub’s water has been separated into an ice cube tray the size of a tennis court.)
Fissile material only reacts when it’s next to enough fissile material.
And since it’s separated and spread out, there’s more reaction.
If you cut the power for the coolant pumps, the fuel melts, separates (by the power of gravity) and the reaction stops.
If the coolant leaks, the fuel melts, separates and stops reacting.
If you crash a plane into the reactor itself, the cooling mechanisms don’t exist anymore and the fuel melts and pours out the nearest holes (either the drain or spilling outside the reactor into the containment structure, or even outside if need be), spreading out, separating, and reacting no more.
Modern reactors have more in common with an ice-cube hoisted above the great pyramid of giza than they do the fukushima or chernobyl plants. Both of those were designed to require power to prevent a dangerous meltdown which turn into a runaway reactions, whereas modern reactors make it so a meltdown prevents reactions.
That source doesn’t have a link to their paper that works.
But based on what was stated just in your link, they say if we build enough storage then we wouldn’t need any baseload generation, which is technically correct.
In particular, they’re relying on hydro and gas storage.
(specifically renewable gas and not natural gas, because natural gas is still bad)
But as far as I know we can’t build anywhere near enough hydro in Australia. Gas storage could technically work, but you’d have to build a ludicrous and economically infeasible amount of gas storage, or pump it into empty spaces underground (but I don’t think we have enough of those in Australia either).
I’m under the impression that modern nuclear plants as baseload production would still be cheaper than the renewable gas storage we would need to maintain power.
Do you have a working link to the original paper or a study into how much renewable gas storage we’d require and the costs associated with it?
Energy generation is not an issue at all. It’s a completely solved problem.
It’s energy storage that is the problem, and that’s why we need nuclear.
But Dutton isn’t pushing nuclear because he’s being responsible. He’s not actually pushing nuclear, he’s just pushing a pipedream doomed project designed to take time/money/effort away from renewables, storage, and actual nuclear, all to keep money flowing to the coal industry shareholders.
The problem of nuclear waste isn’t actually a problem, and the 1000 year thing is a bit of an outdated myth. I wrote more about it here: https://aussie.zone/post/10867702/9731416
Energy storage is actually the biggest problem in energy right now (save for a crazy discovery like perpetual energy, or cheap mass produced super conductors that could optimize the absolute shit out of our energy transmission infrastructure and reduce the amount of energy that we need to produce in the first place).
The energy storage problem is actually the biggest reason why we need nuclear with our renewables.
Nuclear can run our baseloads, renewables plus storage can run our peakloads.
It’s renewables AND nuclear, not renewables vs nuclear.
Nitpick: Nuclear isn’t obsolete, it’s as modern as the design you choose.
Nuclear isn’t a replacement for renewables (like the coalition tries to suggest), and it isn’t evil (like an internal faction in the greens tries to suggest).
We need:
Sidenote: Since whenever anyone suggests that nuclear isn’t to be abhorred whenever it’s brought up, here are the 3 common things brought up so no one has to ask it.
None of what you mentioned is actually about politics, it’s just a list of outrage-bait