> Having no such thing as an uncommitted change seems like it would be a nightmare, but perhaps I'm just too git-oriented.
Why? What's the problem you see? The only problem I see is when you let these extra commits pollute the history reachable from any branch you care about.
Let's look at the following:
Internally, 'git stash' consists of two operations: one that makes an 'anonymous' commit of your files, and another that resets those files to whatever they were in HEAD. (That commit is anonymous in the sense that no branch points at it.)
The git libraries expose the two operations separately. And you can build something yourself that works similarly.
You can use these capabilities to build an undo/redo log in git, but without polluting any of the history you care about.
To be honest, I have no clue how Jujutsu does it. They might be using a totally different design.
The problem is git's index let's you write a bunch of unconnected code, then commit it separately. To different branches, even! This works great for stacking diffs but is terribly confusing if you don't know what you're doing.
…says every charlatan who wanted to keep their position. I’m not saying you’re a charlatan but you are likely overestimating your own contributions at work. Your comment about feeding on data - AI can read faster than you can by orders of magnitude. You cannot compete.
"you are likely overestimating your own contributions at work"
Based on what? Your own zero-evidence speculation? How is this anything other than arrogant punting? For sure we know that the point was something other than how fast the author reads compared to an AI, so what are we left with here?
>you are likely overestimating your own contributions at work
That’s the logical fallacy anyone is going to be pushed to as soon as judging their individual worth in an intrinsically collective endeavor will happen.
People in lowest incomes which would not be able to integrate in society without direct social funds will be seen as parasites by some which are wealthier, just like ultra rich will be considered parasites by less wealthy people.
> People in lowest incomes which would not be able to integrate in society without direct social funds will be seen as parasites by some which are wealthier, just like ultra rich will be considered parasites by less wealthy people.
Your use of the word parasite, especially in the context of TFA, reminds me of the article James Michener wrote for Reader’s Digest in 1972 recounting President Nixon’s trip to China that year. In an anecdote from the end of the trip, Michener explained that Chinese officials gave parting gifts to the American journalists and their coordinating staffs covering the presidential trip. In the case of the radio/TV journalists, those staffs included various audio and video technicians.
As Michener told it, the officials’ gifts to the technicians were unexpectedly valuable and carefully chosen; but, when the newspaper and magazine writers in the group got their official gifts, they turned out to be relatively cheap trinkets. When one writer was bold enough to complain about this apparent disparity, a translator replied that the Chinese highly valued those who held technical skills (especially in view of the radical changes then going on in China’s attempt to rebuild itself).
“So what do you think about writers?” the complainer responded.
To that, the translator said darkly, “We consider writers to be parasites.”
That's a trope easy to fall into for any human, probably.
All the more as part of the underlying representation is actually starting from a structuralist analysis. We try to clarify the situation through classes of issues. But then mid journey we see what looks like an easy ride shortcut, where mapping ontological assessment over social forces in interaction is always one step on the side away. Goat scape is nothing new.
So we quickly jump from, what social structures/forces lead to that awful results, to who can be blamed while we continue to let the underlying anthropological issue rules everyone.
Was experimenting with something similar... working on a modern QWK reader, and this is kind of a core thing to deal with, rendering ansi in messages as html. (synchronet color codes don't work right and renegade color codes untested).
Was an initial experiment with Claude Code, but kind of a cool result that's pretty close to what I want.
Author here, yeah I apologize for the misnomer. I could render it with actual ASCII but it was too slow because of needing to process it on the CPU. My method here is actually done all on the GPU and draws glyphs similar to how fonts are drawn. Well actually I'm using signed distance functions to draw the glyphs, but the glyphs are ASCII-esque.
I think we all need to respond by being very, very flexible and open minded about how to contribute to society going forward. I'm on the back end of my career but I imagine it's terrifying for newcomers. Stay agile! We're all in this together.
How about just be punctual, respecting the time others have agreed to meet with you? Simpler solution than what this article suggests. People will abuse that system just the same anyway.
How do you plan to show up on time if one of your meetings ends at 2pm, the next one starts at 2pm, the meeting rooms are 3 floors apart, and you need to go to the restroom because you've been in meetings since lunch and need to pee? You're going to clone yourself?
Tell the people in the first meeting at the start that you’ll need to leave a few minutes early, to set the expectation and make sure any important stuff is done early. Then when it hits your transition window, politely tell them you have to run and leave.
The thing is, a lot of meetings start with presenting evidence of a problem, then have some discussion of the problem and potential options, and only in the last 10 minutes do the proposed actions turn into firm decisions with names against them.
And often if I'm in a meeting it's because I think the problem is important and I want it solved. Getting permission for my team to fix things, or getting other teams to agree to fix things, is the point.
In my experience, this is a time management problem. Meetings tend to fill the time available. Rarely are there meetings that have to last a full hour and could not have been over after 50 minutes.
Or what makes 60 minutes so magical that you can wrap up a meeting quickly once that marker approaches? People need to leave, that's why. If it had been clear from the start that people will leave after 50 minutes, you can wrap up by then, same way you wrap things up at 60.
There is a lot of slack in meetings. What you need is someone to manage the available time and move things along, make sure that there is room at the end to get to a conclusion. You will have these last 10 minutes after 40 minutes instead of 50 if you pay attention to time and keep things moving.
This can be done, even with time to spare for pleasantries. I know this because I've been in meetings and I have run meetings like this. It helps if you can start on time and don't have to wait for stragglers in the beginning who needed a break between their back-to-back meetings.
I'd rather have a 5-minute break built-in for everyone by starting 5-past and actually enforce meeting end-times. Behaviors would change if people knew they had 25 or 55 minutes for a meeting and that folks would just leave when the time is up.
Seen from within the meeting, it does not really matter if you start 5 minutes late or end 5 minutes early.
I think the point is to reduce meeting time from 60 minutes to 55 or even 50 and be firm about it. People need to expect to start and end on time; giving them a natural break between helps make this happen even for people whose job requires them to be in back-to-back meetings.
Personally, I think starting on the hour (or half-hour, etc) and ending "early" is better, because it tends to sync well with the calendars of external folks.
But in the end, moving start or end time is only part of the solution. This is a time-management problem, and in addition to constraining the available time, it also needs proper management of the available time within the meeting.
> Seen from within the meeting, it does not really matter if you start 5 minutes late or end 5 minutes early.
It matters because there sometimes are meeting where it is very important to know how much time you have to prepare appropriately. As long as the expectations are set beforehand, it matters less.
I roughly agree with the rest of your post. "Just be punctual" is a cop out that ignores the fact that I need to have enough breaks between meetings before I can even think about being punctual. Make space for breaks and enforce the time allocated is imo the solution, it matters less where exactly the 5-minute break fits (but I tend to agree that people would more likely end on the full hour, so that would mean we need to start 5 past).
I suspect a lot of the traffic shift is from Google replacing the top search result, which used to be Stack Overflow for programming questions, with a Gemini answer.
reply