henshao

I have a 2 tier-ed personal response to this question.

For "basic math" up to high school algebra and such, having an intuitive understanding of this lets me quickly do back of the envelope math anytime I hear something that sounds off, or something matches a "pattern" of a type of math I've done before.

Two concrete examples of this are:

  - doing drop rate calculations in games (probability)..i.e. I've killed 500 of these, and it is interesting to note that I should've gotten this drop 93% of the time. I'm mathematically unlucky. 

  - trying to calculate how much it is worth to me to drive at 80mph vs 55mph to get to work, and the relationship between gas prices and my willingness to drive fast (algebra, physics, etc)

For more advanced math, I personally find my high level understanding of the topics enough to appreciate how much goes into everyday things. The algorithms that govern our understanding of radio signals, information theory to pack bits into a given bandwidth and frequency, algorithms and math to ensure what was transitted is what is received, and how hundreds people can be using it at once and still get their data where it needs to go. The amount of math that goes into this all makes me appreciate the beauty of it all.

I think in 2026 it's hard to make a video look this "bad" without it being a clear aesthetic choice, so not sure you could find this video in another setting.

I have trouble with code reviews because I can't run the code from the review GUI, so I usually look at the tests run in CI or pull and run it myself, if possible. Is this not a problem other people have? Is this a tooling problem?

By putting breakpoints in the code, and seeing what the changed lines do, I can compare the output line by line with my mental model of what should be happening, and this thoroughly helps me verify the changes.

For coordinate transforms specifically, I also like to run through the whole chain of available, implemented transforms and back again - asserting I have the same coordinate at the end. One method might be wrong, but they "can't" all be wrong.

Really interesting that nlohmann isn't fully compliant. What cases are these?

It seems to me though that if you're encountering the edges of json where nlohmann or simple parsing doesn't work properly, a binary format might be better. And if you're trying to serialize so much data that speed actually becomes an issue, then again, binary format might be what you really want.

The killer feature of nlohmann are the the NLOHMANN_DEFINE_TYPE_INTRUSIVE or NLOHMANN_DEFINE_TYPE_NON_INTRUSIVE macros that handle all of the ??? -> json -> ??? steps for you. That alone make it my default go to unless the above reasons force me to go another direction.

I'm going to assume you have about as many years of experience as me based on your profile, but if you're going to argue that maintaining this script - for the sole convenience of deleting a branch out from underneath you - is worth it, then there's nothing more I can do to help you.

Just for anyone else following along..you're right. Here it is.

    git fetch -p && git branch -vv | awk '/: gone]/{print $1}' | xargs git branch -d

Yeah I am just finding it hard to believe that there are so many people who don't.

Maybe we are 10x engineers w.r.t. git aliases. Congratulations

These should be aliases in your git config.

    git config --global alias.<cmd> <cmd>

I'm really trying to understand, and not to be too negative. I get coming up with a solution to a problem, and finding it neat locally. But before posting to HN, one might realize that these solutions that git provides existing tools for is better than maintaining this.

I'm also confused by all the comments just blindly commenting in the affirmative or providing suggestions. Are we all bots?

"git delete gone branches" is a one liner that you can google. first stack overflow result gives you the answer:

    git remote prune origin

Why would you use this 50 line script to do the same?

This was my first thought as well. This might be an indictment of how obscure/confusing some git invocations are...hence the alias to human readable names.

It is kind of interesting that there is much interest, work and maintenance on these over-complications...There seems to be a related repo - git-extras - that does the same as this repo, and has 17k stars.

As someone of asian descent, I find it interesting how so many of these comments have such a stereotypical software engineer's "why don't they just XYZ" statement and its pretty eye opening.

I know I'm guilty of this at times too, but this example is really funny to me, and I guess I'll try rein in my assumptions that people are irrational in the future.