100% agree, when I see something I disagree with on its face I try to default to “I probably don’t get something they’re saying, given that it’s only a couple sentences of written word, and a different person’s brain who wrote them”.
It always makes for more useful conversation than defaulting to “ha what a dumbass”
I think downvoters are just expressing disagreement with your opinion. Personally I don’t hate git but I wouldn’t call myself a “fanboy” either - I just don’t think “distributed” has to be mutually exclusive from “decentralized”, which is a term not rigorously defined in this context anyway.
But thanks for informing me about patch theory, that’s something I’ll probably make a small hobby out of studying.
Isn’t decentralized itself since it’s not a platform
I think I see your definition of “decentralized” a little better now, if you only want to apply it to platforms.
I think your definition may be too strict, and that “decentralized” and “distributed don’t have to be mutually exclusive, but eh, that’s just my take.
What version control software in particular do you find better than git?
Your point about users often managing git projects via centralization is taken and valid. I was just pointing out that you don’t have to use git that way - different clones can separately develop their own features - so the earlier claim someone made that “git isn’t decentralized” is still wrong, imo.
Git itself isn’t decentralized is about people copying it and sometimes mirroring it.
Not sure what you mean. My understanding is that git itself is decentralized insofar as each clone can develop its own history without ever needing to push to the origin, but that what OP is referring to is actually the “distributed” nature of git, where i.e. it’s easy to copy the entire history of an instance.
Yeah , on top of how ad-infested and vague the article is and on top of the discussion I’ve seen about this paper elsewhere, it looks like at least one of the authors, Adrian David Cheok, doesn’t have any physics training according to his ORCID bio or his his wikipedia page, but has dabbled in AI according to the latter.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this is just some AI schlock.
deleted by creator
Considering that this is an xkcd comic, I think it’s fair to suggest that most people who see this and know where it’s from will recognize that it’s mostly a joke.
The spirit of the comic is still pretty nice, though. I think that’s what really matters.
Putting aside that your first “if” statement is only believed by religious extremists, if sex is consenting to making a person, then does that mean that those who are raped are also “consenting”?
Look, if the guy was doing 80 on a backroad in pitch black, you’d probably be right, fair?
If the guy was driving a little too fast, so maybe 15-20, and couldn’t imagine GPS would successfully guide him over an un-barricaded, warning sign-less cliff, I think he deserves a little more slack. If you disagree, then take the stand as a character witness in the trial, for all I care.
I’m not talking about the level of responsibility he has as the driver of the vehicle, I’m talking about the degree to which it’s okay to mock him (post-mortem, I might add).
It sounds like you’d argue that Google Maps and the bridge managers should win this lawsuit (assuming this even goes to court) under ACDA laws. Maybe you’re right. But there’s a large gap between just saying that, and then also saying “this is natural selection taking its course”.
Say that about the dude that sticks his dick in an electrical socket, or the guy that shoots himself because a magic 8-ball affirmed that he was bullet-proof. Don’t say it about a guy who probably just drove a little too fast, with visibility a little too low, a little too confident that a GPS system wouldn’t guide him over a literal cliff.
As far as I’m concerned, this was a preventable tragedy, yes preventable by more cautious driving, but also by better GPS, or by barricades, or by so much as a visible warning sign.
Feel free to correct me, but I’m reading “Darwin applies here” as “the guy was too dumb to live longer”, which I think would be pretty insensitive. Regardless, I don’t think it’s fair at all to invoke Darwin here.
This article paints a better picture of the driver’s perspective. It was late at night and rainy, so vision was obscured and allegedly “pitch black”. Furthermore I’d argue the average driver doesn’t have a reason to believe that Google Maps would direct them over a collapsed bridge, much less one that’d collapsed 10 years ago, so it’d be easier to say “Can’t see a damn thing, I’ll trust Maps”.
I obviously don’t know the guy at all, and the details above were taken from the lawsuit afaik so they can make any claim they want, but with so little other information I think it’s fair to paint this more as a tragedy than as “natural selection”, even if you don’t want to hold Google or any of the bridge property managers responsible.
Plus, the guy had a wife and 2 kids, and was driving home late from cleaning up from his daughter’s birthday party; I think he deserves a bit more respect than that.
Relevant link for those interested in what OP is talking about.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-microreactor-experiments-watch-starting-2026
I’m not yet convinced this technology is the future or anything, but it does look pretty promising. We’ll know better when DOME testing begins in 2026.