That is Victoria Fischer. This part of the video is fun,

Customer Case: Mercedes-Benz with Victoria Fischer | #QtWS23

Ukrainian slider wears helmet despite IOC ban

https://www.bbc.com/sport/articles/c6274mgve33o

This is going to be a very important decision. IOC will have to expand and define the rule

Rule 50.2 of the Olympic Charter states “no kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas”.

This is because if IOC bans the athlete, then they are going to define showing the photograph of friends who died in a war is ‘political propaganda’, but showing the photograph of relatives who died in plane crash is permitted. The key point is the athlete did not use a phrase like “End War in Ukraine”. They just had a set of photographs. This is going to be very tricky.

Cut out the bottom of a plastic container, glue it to the floor, but around the screws, fill it with cheap oil and go on with your day.

I have no clue what was going on in the head of the people came up with this. Did they got dragged back to early 2010s where gamification was still a thing?

Main issue I have with the 80-20 rule is this. That 20% is almost always the people with disabilities. My answer to people who sometimes claim the product we are building does not need much accessibility features, because <insert stupid reason>, is “then you should find a differenr job”.

Key point is disability does not just mean people without a limb, or people without good eye sight. There are a lot of people with disabilities that are not easily visible as in the case of OP. It can be trembling hands, motion sickness, learning disabilities like dyslexia, ADHD, migrain, and the list goes on. If diversity disturbs one person, they almost always have very high privileges.

I guess we will never know whether they meant it as a sarcasm or it actual lunacy.

It is lowercase only. But lowercase in number case. The upper and lower case is distinguished based on alignment in this, where in text case it is based on shape and/or size.

Edit: my use of the words number case and letter case does not look like the standard words. But the concept still exist. Check this: https://totallytype.com/figures.php

As far as I know, that is the ‘number case’. Where the difference between upper and lower case is defined based on alignment of the numbers with baseline of typography.

I think the post is taking about ‘letter case’. Which we commonly use to yell at people through text. I don’t think there is an equivalent like that in case of numbers. Mainly because numbers came from languages which are unicase by default. Like the Indian languages and Arabic.

Please tell this is fake. I want to be ignorant about this.

I think it is because Chomsky’s name has been associated with Epstein before this, and when new information popped they reported what is in there. Mainly how Chomsky remained in contact even after knowing the issues of Epstein. I think they did a good job of reporting it properly, instead of sensationalising it, by just explaining the new stuff that is unsealed.

Aah… I see, I thought you were skeptical of the article. But you were actually expressing confidence in them.

Who own The Guardian?

Someone please explain what is going on. I have no clue what this is.

This reminds me that my Downloads folder is like the attic. I don’t fear ls -a in ~, but I fear what I will find if I wander into Downloads unprepared.

For those who are unaware, she leaked footages of war crimes committed by a set of IDF soldiers. Why? She was the top lawyer of the military, tasked with enforcement of rule of law inside IDF. When she started the probe, the far right harrassed her, and even attacked her. In an attempt to control the abuse she leaked the footage. But that didn’t stop the abuse. Later she had to admit she is the person behind leaking the footage, had to step down, and face the enquiry.

In no way I’m going to argue she was a guardian angel or someone standing up for human rights, because she did the investigation purely to avoid international scrutiny. The logic is if the internal scrutiny is strong then international enformant agencies (like ICC, which I found hilarious), will not interfere with the matters inside the Isreal. In other words create a bunch of scapegoats, so that the war crimes can be continued.

If they have measurable thickness in sideview then it is not 2D. 😎

The problem is not when I have to rebase. I know how to handle it. But with juniors they approach us only when things are in a really bad situation, where they cluelessly applied some commands they found on internet or from an LLM. Then it is very annoying to sit down and untangle the mess they created.

And regarding the pushing without fetching, it is usually a different branch. So they won’t incorporate the new changes in the main branch into their working branch, but just push their work into a branch. Again not a big deal. Just annoying.

That is a very weird setup. I have no clue why that flow is needed in the first place. Branches should be something disposable easily. What was the logic behind the setup? Any idea?

See all this is fine for someone with good experience in git. They know how to solve the screw up. But wih junior devs, who don’t know much about it, they will just get confused and stuck. And one of the senior has to involve and help them solve. This is just annoying because these can be avoided very easily. Until they understand the pattern of how everyone operates with git, it just creates issues.

To me first time causing this issue is completely fine. I will personally sit with them and explain then what went wrong and how to recover. Most of them will repeat it again, act clueless and talk like they are seeing this for the first time in their life. That is the difficult part to me.

May be I’m just old school, and a grumpy old person, even though I’m not that aged.

So this workflow is needed if you are working on a public, i.e. multiple devs collaborating on a single branch, scenario. But it is much better to avoid this as much as possible. Usually it is a ‘scoping’ issue, where you create a branch that is too broad. For example ‘api-for-frontend’, which is a massive thing.

But let us say you absolutely have to get multiple devs on same branch, then this workflow is totally fine. There is nothing wrong in it.

In our org we prefer to delete the branch after merge. In a way it says ‘this branch is closed’. This is to encourage devs to define smaller and more logically scoped branches.

I want to take this opportunity to say that, branch is just a label on a commit, with some additional functions. Once you start focus on commits and lineage of the commits, then branches become some what irrelevant.