adregan

It’s a double edged sword to be able to watch things whenever.

I downloaded every episode of Mr. Rogers and serve them from Plex. On one hand it does create moments where you have to limit your kids and that creates an outsized emotional response, but it also allows me the chance to watch the episodes too (as they aren’t on only at “kid show” times).

I appreciate the chance to show interest in something that they are interested in.

I have a small fish function that does something similar. It saves output to a file in XDG_CACHE_HOME. I wouldn’t use it for sensitive items like passwords or tokens in the examples, but I do use it for scripts that need to fetch some data from the network.

For example, I have a script for automating the creation of PRs which fetches the available labels for a repo from github and presents them with fzf multi select. I store the labels with a TTL of a week so that I don’t have to fetch them every time and the script compares the file’s age against the desired TTL to invalidate.

I find it useful for augmenting other programs, but I’m not typically using it on the cli directly.

I'm grateful for your framing of the issue from Brooks's perspective. I've been noodling on Conway's law in this changing world.

> organizations which design systems are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations.

With all business functions consulting the central hub of AI to carry out their work designing systems where the users consult that same hub, what system is left except for the central hub?

In that case, what happens to all of Brooks's wonderful insights on how we might work together when we are no longer working together?

I think that’s why it stuck with me.

I think you'll find your workflow is still required. `git history split` is really only focused on turning a commit into 2 commits, so if you wanted multiple, you would need to run the command multiple times.

Add to that, it's patch functionality isn't as robust as `git add --patch`. For example, you cannot edit a hunk, so if you intended to tease out atomic changes, you won't be able to.

I'd love to, but I keep/cut my grass on the longer side and my dog was eating so much of the clippings (and then throwing it up) when I mulched that I chose to compost far away from where she could get it.

I have a small yard and I'm not optimizing for the fewest moves, I'm optimizing for both the longest continuous lines (because I think they look nicest) and the shortest distance to carry the clippings at the end.

I have a different definition of optimal to this game.

My issue with DDG AI result is that sometimes I would accidentally hit the "more" button to expand the result and it would begin a painfully slow crawl of text that pushed the results I was actually interested in further and further down the page. It was usually preferable to refresh rather than wait. So this is a welcome change.

A decade ago I was working with an intern who wasn’t allowed access to push to any branch. As I wanted him to get experience with the development cycle, I set up a bare repo in a shared Dropbox folder and had him push code there.

Aside from that unique use case, I might consider this for storing code on a network attached drive (archival).

I apologize for taking the conversation off course as it wasn’t my intention, and I also thank you for providing examples of Dijkstra‘a writing. In asking for a recommendation, I was admitting a great blind spot, so you needn’t be breathless from the ignorance.

The only thing that I feel bears repeating is that I also compared Dijkstra to Ken Iverson—a mathematician who worked in the same time period and also taught in North America—who didn’t (as far as I have seen) muddy the waters of his writings/teachings with superfluous insults.

Note that Roger Hui here foregrounds the fact that

> Ken Iverson invented his notation as a means of communications among people

(Emphasis mine) and I think that it is important that this fact of APL is conflated against one’s desire to prove a program. A fact which Hui says has little to do with the correctness of the result.

One aspect of the original which I believe you are eliding over, but which I focused on and tacitly referenced (wouldn’t be an APL discussion without a little tacit programming reference), is that in conveying one’s ideas or proofs, one can distract from their point by introducing unrelated jabs or insults. I believe this fact is present in Roger Hui’s writing.

I suppose the thing that stuck in my craw is what I perceived as a personal slight:

> Your writings made me wonder in which discipline you got your doctor’s degree.

It’s ambiguous, so I can give the benefit of the doubt. However, if intended as an insult, I believe that goes beyond speaking frankly about one’s feelings about a programming language in a manner consistent with one’s culture.