How can such a wrong answer get so many points? Clones and forge forks are unrelated. First, GitHub or GitLab cannot and could not link clones together without analyzing the remotes of each clone.
FFS it's a tech community...
Forks do not exist in git. It's a GitHub feature, and a massive blunder at the same time.
Try gimp.org.
Yeah. They only read textbooks to quiet kids, they do not have unpaid overtime at home for grading tests, and earn a million dollars every month. Lazy bastards.
200 MB modern application built on top of Chrome can’t handle a few files.
Emacs from the 70/80s can handle a thousand files. Something is wrong with computers.
It’s fake nostalgia of an era they never experienced. Vinyls always sounded like shit but we had no comparison except the better sound of movie theaters, but you couldn’t have that at home.
Then the audio CD appeared and it was like the second coming of Jesus. The sound was really a hundred times better than vinyls, even with the same set of amps and speakers.
One day they’ll tell us that VHS on a small black and white TV is better than a 4K movie on a giant screen.
Is there a downside? I’m confused.
I don’t understand the downvotes. You’re right on all points. If the task is too big, it can take years from testing another solution to using it for real.
I’m bored too, but not bored enough to post shitty shit like this.
Do you do it yourself with a European recipe? You would get the same result I guess.
Back when Nginx started, Apache was the only alternative and a big pain in the ass. That’s how it became popular.
That’s boring. Altman wants to save the world whatever that means, not solve the shitty problems that poor people have.
Permanently Deleted
Then don’t avoid him and be natural. That’s all.
This game was released 10 years after git, and we already had backups since the 80s. Why are they lying?
- Medium sucks
- Clickbait
- After reading a few pages, what is the point of this article? There are hundreds of pages of conversation, WTF?
Cheap and expensive at the same time. I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a product.
Only Americans seem to say this. Why? I’ve seen a lot of couples at work and no one minds.
EVs: too expensive, I can’t afford one. Chargers: there are no chargers where I live.
That’s it. Fix those problems and people will buy.
Having a “library” is already a crime in some countries so…
Is there a "markup language" to describe a debugging session?
cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/19440902
I want to document my debugging sessions in a text file but I don't know if anyone did this before.
I came up with this kind of "language" that is a mix between Markdown and C++, but I still wonder if something equivalent exists already.
undefined// When you click on the button # [click button] - A::f() // - ... other method calls, don't document if you don't need to # A::f() // "..." for "parameters" where you don't need the details - Stuff::g(...) - Stuff::h(...) // <Class> is a fake template thing to show the possible types of an object # <SubStuffA | SubStuffB> Stuff::g(...) - Stuff::g() {} // empty but I use v/=> for virtual call v/=> SubStuffA::g() v/=> SubStuffB::g() # SubStuffA::g() # SubStuffB::g() # Stuff::h(...)I document methods in the order of appearance in the code.
If you have any good idea about a reliable way to document a list of functi
Is there a "markup language" to describe a debugging session?
I want to document my debugging sessions in a text file but I don't know if anyone did this before.
I came up with this kind of "language" that is a mix between Markdown and C++, but I still wonder if something equivalent exists already.
undefined
// When you click on the button
# [click button]
- A::f()
// - ... other method calls, don't document if you don't need to
# A::f()
// "..." for "parameters" where you don't need the details
- Stuff::g(...)
- Stuff::h(...)
// <Class> is a fake template thing to show the possible types of an object
# <SubStuffA | SubStuffB> Stuff::g(...)
- Stuff::g() {} // empty but I use v/=> for virtual call
v/=> SubStuffA::g()
v/=> SubStuffB::g()
# SubStuffA::g()
# SubStuffB::g()
# Stuff::h(...)
I document methods in the order of appearance in the code.
If you have any good idea about a reliable way to document a list of function calls, I'm interested!