In the Netherlands Signal is getting traction. I talk to most people via Signal, about 85% of my messages are via Signal. Which includes my parents, and I didn't even put them on Signal.
It doesn't make sense to me. I was diagnosed with ADHD at the start of the year. I've had consistently good sleep for several years prior to the diagnosis and I never particularly felt tired
I see what you mean. For me it’s not exactly about being tired without meds, but I would describe the effect of the meds as “awaking”, in the sense that their effect on my focus is similar to what I’d get taking caffeine on a day I haven’t sleep.
The “mental clouds dispersing” effect is similar, if that makes sense? So my mental model was something like the brain showing “lack of sleep effects” (without the feeling) when it shouldn’t.
As far as I understand, hashbrown already does this. Hashbrown is based on Google's SwissTable, and this project references that SwissTable already does this optimisation.
I've worked in several projects where running the tests locally automatically install pre-commit hooks and I've wanted to commit warcrimes because of it.
At my last job, we ran all of our tests, linting/formatting, etc. through pre-commit hooks. It was apparently a historical relic of a time where five developers wanted to push directly to master without having to configure CI.
The downside currently (although I've been assured this will be fixed one day) is that it doesn't support running static analysis over each commit you want to fix.
My git rebase workflow often involves running `git rebase -x "cargo clippy -- --deny=warnings"`. This needs a full checkout to work and not just a single file input
Yeah, to add some context for people reading this, jj fix works best for edits local to the diff, and it’s meant for edits mostly. With some trickery you could run some analysis, but it’s not what jj fix is meant for right now.
What I really want is some way within jj to keep track of which commits have been checked and which are currently failing, so I can template it into log lines.
Common wisdom is that pinning is a property of the place, not the reference or the type.
A type that might require stable pointers, like async{}, might want to be movable prior to use, so you don't want the type to require the value be pinned immediately. Or if you do, you need a construction like pinned-init that offers `&pin out T` - a pinned place that can be written to on initialisation of the type.
100%. You can use rendezvous hashing to determine the shard(s). The hash of a sequence should be randomly distributed as changing the LSB should propagate to 50% change in the output bits.
I might just not be following correctly but committing in git just carries the branch along for the ride, so there's nothing to do in git for this scenario.
IIRC forcing some specific branch name to point to my changes with `jj` was non-obvious and what made me give up and go back to git when I tried it last year.
You are mistaken. In the workflow I described, I am making changes on top of all branches at once and then deciding which branch to send the new commit to. This allows me to make changes simultaneously to both branches without friction.
reply