Ixio

This is kind of what Django does instead and I much prefer the Rails way. Though it might just be because I started MVC-dev with Rails.

I think I find it easier to find common abstractions on the {models/views/controllers} level than the resource level and that frustrates me with Django app-based dev.

We keep finding new ways to make fission safer and reducing risk of runaway scenario but I'm pretty sure we'll never reach zero risk. Sure we might reach it on paper but human error can always happen. Chernobyl operators thought their reactor design had zero risk of exploding, current reactors are much safer but I'm pretty sure the risk isn't zero.

I'm of the mind that randomness is only an approximation of complexity, if you're omniscient then randomness doesn't exist and everything is deterministic.

However it seems to me the deterministic vs randomness debate is of the same order as the existence of god(s) : we will never be able to prove or disprove it and we aren't able to make useful predictions out of the information one way or the other so we might as well just agree to disagree and move on.

Do you grow your own food ? Where does your zero trust end ?

Science is very difficult to cheat on such high visibility issues. There is a huge scientific consensus on climate change, from experts of all countries and diverse backgrounds. For it all to be a huge conspiracy seems like a pretty big leap of faith, that they are genuine is a simpler explanation.

Your blogpost might benefit from explaining further the following line: "Special relativity says that the rocket has a different coordinate frame than the space stations. In particular the x axis, which corresponds to all the points in space at the same rocket-time, is not the same as the x-axis for the space stations."

I'm on the lookout for an explanation of why FTL=time-travel that I'll finally understand. However in your blogpost my limited knowledge of Special relativity fails to make sense of the whole argument.

Exactly ! Why don't we suppose traveling/observing through the wormhole has the same time dilation ?

I've heard of FTL=time-travel a couple of years ago for the first time and I would love to be able to argue with someone knowledgeable about it to understand. I hoped this HN thread would have answers. However all the answers here seem to have holes in same.

I'm starting to wonder if FTL=time-travel isn't like Schrödinger's cat: a hypothetical thought experiment terribly misunderstood by the masses.

Perhaps like democracy it is the least bad option.

Thanks for the link, at the very least Jeff Kreeftmeijer in 2010 already used the name git-flow for that specific model. I somehow missed all of that.

Plus nvie.com updated its 10-year old post with a notice yesterday and also uses the name git-flow there.

I guess I'd better use the term git workflow in the future.

Are people really calling this specific model of git branching THE Gitflow model ? For me this was a gitflow amongst others, a gitflow being a git workflow.

In the original article "A successful Git branching model" I don't see a single mention telling people they should call this specific model Gitflow.

For me the word gitflow has the useful meaning of a git branching model, am I in the minority ? Using it as a noun for a specific model seems like a waste of the word.

In regards to the article, sure this gitflow is one of the most shared images on the subject. However I recommend that every team use whatever gitflow makes the most sense for them and their project. I was not aware that our industry had a problem with teams cargo culting that specific git workflow.

> There’s absolutely no use case out there, where I search for something, and then I say, hey, I believe my search result will be item #3175 in the current sort order.

I actually have a use case. When the search filtering functionality is lacking or overly complicated to use. For example with Gmail if I can't be bothered to look up how date filtering works, since I receive emails at a fairly constant rate I can sort of guess that item #3175 might be around the date I'm looking for.

I strongly disagree with anyone that thinks Facebook "got it right" with their timeline. As far as my experience goes it's very easy to see something interesting on the Facebook timeline only for it to refresh and lose it forever. It can be very frustrating not to be able to get a consistent timeline.

ainiriand said 'stop in safety conditions' which is also the law in France. The problem is proving you couldn't stop in safety conditions when you receive the fine.

> Article R412-31 du Code de la route. Vous devez obligatoirement vous arrêter au feu orange, sauf si cela doit vous conduire à un danger.

> if the employee responsible for firing the moderator did such acts repeatedly despite management warnings than perhaps it's a good idea to fire that person

> There are some people who refuse to behave in the best interests of the group, no matter how much direction you give them

I think we agree on this.

If an employee refuses to change behaviour despite multiple warnings he/her is fair game for dismissal. However I think firing someone without prior warnings is abusive unless it's for something criminal or malicious. You can probably guess that I don't care much for at-will employment...

One of my latest questions got as first comment : "Please use English punctuation when writing in English."

Certainly polite but a bit jarring as a non-native speaker that feels fluent. Also a bit nonsensically-bureaucratic : I made the mistake because I didn't know any better, after the comment I still couldn't correct the mistake because I still didn't know any better, I wasn't even sure what rule of punctuation I had wronged.

I would've preferred a direct edit instead of a comment prompting though I guess that can be seen as worse by some people.

I see firing in such a case as a cop-out, a cowardly way to appease mob-mentality.

In this case if the employee responsible for firing the moderator did such acts repeatedly despite management warnings than perhaps it's a good idea to fire that person. However this doesn't seem to be the case, the CTO correctly assumed responsibility in his apology of green-lighting the moderator's firing.

He does the right thing, in my opinion, by promising a better process that wouldn't lead to such a hurtful (and seemingly unfair) dismissal.

You don't fire an employee for mistakenly deleting your production database, you update your process so this cannot happen (at least not by accident).