so that comes quite right. Im currently working on a codebase that has evolved over 30-ish years. The makefiles are quite a mess and since ages, the software has been built sequentially which results in build times beeing much longer than required.
Of course the project consists of multiple module which you should be able to build seperately, thus recursive calls are quite common amongst the makefiles.
First test with only a hand full of jobs (-j) already failed in the beginning, i could fix these quite fast (missing makefile targets).
Now i have the situation that on some build systems (with faster CPU) i still see races, where the same makfile target for a subproject runs at the same time and overwrites each others target files. On other build systems it works without any issue. However, ive still failed to reproduce the failure manually, it usually happens during automatic build invoked by jenkins or gitlab.
Is there a way to make "make" simulate those builds so one could tell where the cause for the races is in detail?
The meme/troll issues were edgy teen style humor and not that funny, but the legitimate ones that tried to gently explain what rebase does and went completely ignored were funny because they felt surreal and hyperreal at the same time. Office-Space-esque comedy.
That's just the reality of any platform that doesn't gatekeep who gets to participate. Eventually assholes are going to join, that's simply unavoidable.
> Good online communities die primarily by refusing to defend themselves.
> Somewhere in the vastness of the Internet, it is happening even now. It was once a well-kept garden of intelligent discussion, where knowledgeable and interested folk came, attracted by the high quality of speech they saw ongoing. But into this garden comes a fool, and the level of discussion drops a little—or more than a little, if the fool is very prolific in their posting. (It is worse if the fool is just articulate enough that the former inhabitants of the garden feel obliged to respond, and correct misapprehensions—for then the fool dominates conversations.)
Pacifism only works if there is someone who can protect the pacifist.
In the Christian religion, God ultimately protects the virtuous pacifists by putting them in Heaven, away from bullies. In an online forum, there's no transcendental force to render such a service, so...
Certainly, not all Christians are pacifists, and not all pacifists are Christians.
But, to my mind, pacifists choose to not fight back by definition, or that would be violence, so their prolonged existence is only possible because other social mechanisms hold back violence which would destroy them. Interaction with these mechanisms may be the point of holding a pacifist position: say, a monk or a nun may have a higher moral authority because of a declared personal abstinence from any violence, and hence indirectly incentivize lay people to protect them.
Of course there are people who call themselves pacifists but admit a right for self-defense, but only not organized or military; such a position again is only possible when someone else would partake in a defensive warfare and protect them.
Abstaining from aggression while being ready and willing to respond to aggression with full force, lethal when required, looks to me like the most logical "lawful good" position. It has a chance to produce an equilibrium when multiple parties live in peace for a long time, and any violent deviations are quashed.
"But, to my mind, pacifists choose to not fight back by definition, or that would be violence, so their prolonged existence is only possible because other social mechanisms hold back violence which would destroy them."
Again, this is a valid, but narrow definition of pacifism. One that is more often found in misguided Christians who take Mathew 5:39 literally than serious scholars. The willingness for self defense does not preclude pacifism at all.
A good example is Mahatma Gandhi who is widely recognized as a pacifist, yet argued that it is better to fight than to be a coward in the face of injustice.
Mr Gandhi was smart and used the social mechanisms of the British empire. The enlightened citizens of the metropoly, with their heightened sense of fair play, would strongly disapprove of police / army brutality towards peaceful and outspoken protesters.
The classical thought experiment replaces the British Raj with a German, or, better yet, Soviet occupation administration. With them, peaceful protests spectacularly won't work, and would be insane to try.
(Right after the independence was achieved, the land descended into a brutal war that claimed 20M dead, the death toll similar to that of WWI.)
say, a monk or a nun may have a higher moral authority because of a declared personal abstinence from any violence, and hence indirectly incentivize lay people to protect them.
To take that a step further, making the pacifist definition even narrower, wouldn't such a pacifist be a hypocrite?
Abstaining from violence at the expense of others putting themselves in harms way to protect them?
Shouldn't they try to make these "lay people" abstain from violence as well?
But then who is left to defend the pacifists?
Does that mean in the face of outside aggressors all pacifists will die soon or live horrible lives under oppression from the aggressor?
Which I guess is OK for them if they believe that something better is available for them in 'heaven'?
Not necessarily, or even not likely a hypocrite. If keeping the ritual cleanliness is important for the monk's job, that is, having a better contact with the divine for the benefit of those around him, this is just specialization. The monk likely also abstains from other things, like eating meat, or having sex, which is a part of the same self-sacrifice for the sake of his service.
It would be hypocrisy if the monk commanded others to fight instead of him, while also declaring that he finds violence morally debasing and thus unacceptable for himself. But I don't think that laypeople would respect such a figure.
That’s rose coloured. Maybe people were more intelligent, but even 10 years ago people would absolutely flame each other in GitHub issues on public projects.
I suspect the author is thinking back to more than ten years ago.
But yes; even newsgroups, BBSes, etc. were subject to this kind of stuff. People have always been people, even smart people with money to purchase computers.
>I suspect the author is thinking back to more than ten years ago.
Yes, "good ol' days" types will always move the goalposts further and further back when you point out that things were exactly the same in the mythical time period they want to return to
But OP was talking about humans' behavior toward each other - I'll grant that SEO-spam maybe falls under that, but I don't think that Google's leadership fucking up search results is the same.
GitHub doesn't provide nearly enough tools for moderation though. Like restricting issue creation, comments, and discussions to only certain folks (beyond the per-issue controls).
> GitHub doesn't provide nearly enough tools for moderation though
Which in itself would summon the vitriol of the super-trolls. "Moderation is censorship" is the most absolutely ridiculous mantra to gain traction in the last decade.
Moderation is censorship, because moderation is an editorial choice. The fallacy is that all censorship is bad, not that moderation is censorship. Not all content needs to be given consideration in all contexts. In fact, if that were somehow an inherent good, actual communication would be impossible as noise overtakes signal.
It's fine both to "moderate" your own repo, as well as to "censor" your own repo. No need to play word games or demand that strangers that you owe absolutely nothing to can't be upset. They can be upset, and you can ignore them until they go away.
That is not true. Censorship is the suppression of expression. Full stop. Anyone who controls a medium can do it. Only the U.S. government can violate the First Amendment to the Constitution.
People often conflate the two. That censorship and First Amendment violations are one and the same. They are not.
And the reason the U.S. government saw fit to restrict its ability to censor its public is because they recognized that that ability could be used to censor legitimate criticism of the government.
No. Censorship is when the government kicks down your door to arrest you for your wrongthink. People getting banned from some site or project because of obnoxious behavior is not censorship, it's just normal social activity and group homeostasis. They can always seek other ways to express themselves. They can buy a domain and blog about it.
Dang rate limited my HN account because I got into too many controversial discussions. Arguments just like this one. Did I call him out for censorship? No. I asked him to keep it rate limited. Because the truth is sometimes I see things and I just have to reply.
> No. Censorship is when the government kicks down your door to arrest you for your wrongthink. People getting banned from some site or project because of obnoxious behavior is not censorship, it's just normal social activity and group homeostasis.
The word 'censorship' is clearly defined to include actions by many groups, not just governmental entities.
Now, I think there is a line between moderation and censorship but it is not based on who is doing it. That line is can get real fuzzy, but in my opinion (and it mirrors some supreme court decisions) the most significant difference is in what they try to control. Moderation tries to regulate how people communicate and censorship tries to control which ideas get expressed. Almost all moderation also includes some amount of censorship.
Because none of those things have the force of law backing them.
Academic censorship? Start your own journal and publish there. Religious censorship? Start your own church and gather your followers. Forum censored you? Start your own website where they have zero say about anything and write about whatever you want.
Government censorship? You are screwed, and you go straight to jail if you try to break free and start your own.
Because not everyone who can write an academic article also has the ability to establish and run an entire publishing business.
Just because they technically could doesn't mean they realistically can.
>Which in itself would summon the vitriol of the super-trolls. "Moderation is censorship" is the most absolutely ridiculous mantra to gain traction in the last decade.
Even worse is "moderation of this kind would disproportionately impact disenfranchised LGBTWBIPOC+ users since they're more likely to have new accounts", "gatekeeping" is therefore racist, etc. ad nauseam.
That's for sure is the most absolutely ridiculous mantra to gain traction in the last decade.
Sure, but then there's also the reality that people who don't want to deal with assholes and trolls will pack up and leave. So IMO it's best to combat it and not normalize it, so that we can have more nice things.
Use the report feature. I've gotten so many accounts removed from the platform for abuse.
Sometimes I wonder though why GitHub allows like an anonymous account with no projects and no followers to do things like upload executables to my issue tracker, or file a dozen new issues on a project with 160+ watchers. Then there's the people who use AI to fill their profiles with fake content to look less sus. It's particularly spicy when you work for a non-profit that puts a lot of oversight into decisions like banning people. I think Microsoft could be doing more to make sure the people who participate in the GitHub community are openly original and have good intentions.
The net all over made it clear well over a decade ago that we won't get any serious moderation past a certain critical mass. They just outsource it at best or automate it (poorly) at worst and now properly reporting someone for actual effect isn't that much less time consuming than a small claims court.
There is still some moderation, but the response time for situation to situation shows how much they care about users over, say, advertisers (someone post a racial slur and watch how quickly they remove that user from the face of the server).
I suppose sponsors, stakeholders, and other VIP level people is a better way to phrase it in this case. Anything that can explode to a huge PR issue will put all those off.
Putting anything to a public environment, always assume an actively hostile environment. No matter how many well-meaning users you may have; if it's more then a handful, there will always be enough jerks who would try to ruin the show for everyone.
To my mind, premoderation is the way. Any new user's submissions go to the premoderation queue for review, not otherwise visible. Noise and spam can be rejected automatically. More underhanded stuff gets a manual review. All rejections are silent, except for the rare occasion of a legitimate but naive user making an honest mistake.
What's passed gets published. Users who passed premoderation without issues for, say, 10 times, skip the human review step, given that they've passed automatic filters, so they can talk without any perceptible delay. The most trusted of them even get the privilege to do the human review step themselves %)
One thing I wish the tech companies would do is to use LLMs for junk moderation. At least to flag potential junk.
Meta uses they LLMs to summarize comments already and can do this, yet they choose to allow obvious crypto scammers, T-shirt scams, “hey add me comments”.
A simple LLM prompt of “is this post possibly a scam”, especially for new accounts, would do wonders. GitHub could likely do it too.
I run an app that Serves a small, specific demographic.
We get about 50% [obvious] spam/scam signups (only 5 or 6 a day).
That’s pretty sobering, when you consider that it’s a very low-profile, unpromoted, region-locked (US, Canada, Ireland, and India), iOS-only native app.
Same here. I run a tiny Wordpress site that organizes private poker games for a local ~40 person league. We get maybe 5 signups a year from actual new members. We have it so that only admins can create new user accounts.
Once, that option got turned off accidentally and anyone could sign up. We got about 10 signups a day until I reverted the change, all spammers and bots.
The server logs also show that we get hit by script kiddies dozens of times an hour. This is such a tiny scale operation, with no meaningful commercial activity going on, but anything exposed to the public internet should be considered under attack 24/7.
That's the fundamental platform with all online platforms. It's their own form of carcinization.
The problem is that to outsiders, the initial set of gatekeepers who arose naturally in the early community as "the people that knew what it was about" will themselves appear to be "the toxic assholes", so every community will naively eventually cut out its gatekeepers to be more inviting to newcomers.
Only to have the actual toxic assholes flood in, become the new gatekeepers, and dominate the discussion, and suddenly your Faces of Evil speedrunning Discord must have a stance on the war on Gaza and the US election because we clearly need to keep out the neo-Nazis according to our CoCs, right?
And no, I don't have an answer to this other than to largely disconnect from online platforms and start engaging in your local community. Something I myself am not guilty of doing.
Most people aren't trying to be "useful". They're trying to be funny or get attention. For something as mainstream popular as this was, you can bet you'll get more jokers than aces.
You'd think "clout" would matter less to a community of tech, especially on a place dedicated to communities (hopefully) bettering the tech we use. But alas, people doing this probably don't think much farther than 15 minutes.
there is the AuthorizedKeyscommand feature that allows for a command to fetch keys not yet existing on a system. Gitlab uses it to fetch keys from a database, for central user and access management. They also ship a own sshd implementation which does kinda neat lookup things for very big databases.
theres already projects solving central ssh key management, for example:
It's just such a low-effort peace of mind. Just a few clicks and I know that regardless what happens to my disk or my system, I can be up and running in very little time with very little effort.
On Linux it's always a bit more work, but backups and restore is one of those things I prefer is not too complicated, as stress level is usually high enough when you need to do restore to worry about forgetting some incantation steps.
it depends. Doing a complete disaster recovery of a windows system IMHO can be a real struggle. Especially if you have to restore a system to different hardware, which the system state backup that microsoft offers does not support afaik.
Backing up a linux system in combination with REAR:
and a backup utility of your choice for the regular backup has never failed me so far. I used it to restore linux systems to complete different hardware without any troubles.
For my cases it's been quite easy, but then I've mostly had quite plain hardware so didn't need vendor drivers to recover.
While I've had to recover in anger twice, I've used the same procedure to migrate to new hardware many times. Just restore to the new disk in the new machine, and let Windows reboot a few times and off I went.
Of course the project consists of multiple module which you should be able to build seperately, thus recursive calls are quite common amongst the makefiles.
First test with only a hand full of jobs (-j) already failed in the beginning, i could fix these quite fast (missing makefile targets).
Now i have the situation that on some build systems (with faster CPU) i still see races, where the same makfile target for a subproject runs at the same time and overwrites each others target files. On other build systems it works without any issue. However, ive still failed to reproduce the failure manually, it usually happens during automatic build invoked by jenkins or gitlab.
Is there a way to make "make" simulate those builds so one could tell where the cause for the races is in detail?