Mustard only?! I am definitely the dog in the hot dog car.

On “mutual ownership”. I’m not convinced that anything, whose agency has been removed through confinement, can be said to have equal weight in the decision to be owned, and thus be claimed “mutual”.

You give evidence of our like behavior with other animals, and claim that my position MUST operate from the belief of our “difference and superiority”.

Consider the inverse: Humans are not distinct and not superior. Therefor, all animal behavior is acceptable human behavior, for we are not but animals.

Its not exactly the society most would want to live in. People can and do use animal nature as means to justify horrible behavior. “Its a dog eat dog world, the villain proclaims”, as if the only surprise is that their victim would have expected it any other way. Mantises devour the male after copulation. Why then do you demand I not do the same?! Pointing to the way things are in nature as a means to find justification for human behavior doesn’t seem to lead to a useful foundation for ethics; maybe it even to to its dissolution.

So yes, I think we’re different. I think that in many ways our difference comes from our responsibility of stewardship. Because we do have knowledge, agency and control to the degree that we can destroy or restore environments.

Picking up wild animals which would much prefer to be left alone, so you can get your picture taken, is not loving them. Keeping animals in cages so you can have something on your shelf to look at, is not loving them. Most animal ownership is possession for the possessive, masquerading as caring.

I would advocate for using each tool, where it makes sense, to achieve a more intelligible graph. This is what I’ve been moving towards on my personal projects (am solo). I imagine with any moderately complex group project it becomes very difficult to keep things neat.

In order of expected usage frequency:

1. Rebase: everything that’s not 2 or 3. keep main and feature lines clean.
2. Merge: ideally, merge should only be used to bring feature branches into main at stable sequence points.
3. Squash: only use squash to remove history that truly is useless. (creating a bug on a feature branch and then solving it two commits later prior to merge).

History should be viewable from log --all --decorate --oneline --graph; not buried in squash commits.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Obligatory shout out to Blender, the most amazing community project ever. And GPL’d to boot! Suck it Adobe! obscene crotch tugging gestures

lol yeah I guess it depends on the length of the sentence and the context. Context is usually pretty clear for questions, and maybe exclamations are typically short enough that the ‘!’ is already visible anyways. Definitely wasn’t considering periods and commas in that list.

Maybe a Kremlin Bot? Wouldn’t be surprised if they’re over here already.

I like the prefix marks. I wish we used them for all of our punctuation. They improve readability. Imagine if we removed the leading double-quote on our quoted lines.

I feel the same about Mastodon. I just want to be social with my friends, not on broadcast to a bunch of randos. It makes sense for brands and I guess people who commercialize their identity. But I don’t really care about trying to keep up with the lives of brands or really people i don’t know, so i haven’t want or need for such a site. Also I prefer to catch up with someone for real. Like tell me what you did when we hang out next. I don’t want to sit there and pretend like your trip to wherever is news because i already casually saw all the pictures you posted a month ago. And if we are never going to meet again, then I don’t need to know what you do with the rest of your life. I like this format much better. Ego is much less in effect and people can just bounce ideas and jokes around. Reddit though… most of the user base is still over there. I’ve stopped posting and voting entirely. Full lurk mode.

I like the idea of referring to it only as “The social media site formerly known as Twitter” from here on out.

It reduces the probability that a drive by scanner is going to detect a vulnerable service. Camouflage isn’t a guarantee that you aren’t going to be sighted on a battlefield, but it’s still a good idea to reduce the probability of becoming a target in whatever ways you can.

True, but I see this quote repeated so often that it kind of bugs me. It seems to be used in a thought-terminating way. As if we shouldn’t criticize languages. As if they aren’t tools that are able to be improved upon, or they’re all made equal. But I’m sure Bjarne Stroustrup needs to fend off hostility and unfair criticism as much as any programmer with a successful language.

7 years, 1st lemmy post. Hi everybody!