Running a git command on one branch and multiple branches being affected is really unusual for me! This really does look like it is designed for just this problem, though. Simple overview: https://blog.hot-coffee.dev/en/blog/git_update_refs/
Seems like you found it, but for others: one of the easiest ways to get a PR's diff/patch is to just put .diff or .patch at the end of its URL. I use this all the time!
It’s bonkers to me that there isn’t a link to the plan patch from the page. Yes, it’s trivial to add a suffix once you know, but lots of people don’t—as evidenced by this thread.
Discoverability in UX seems to have completely died.
They don't! Layout grids are less about the rows and columns and more about the lines separating them (which is why those get a lot of attention in CSS grid). Take a look at how layout grids are used in design and you will quickly find examples that are extremely inconvenient to realize with HTML tables. I'm sure it can be done and I'm sure some poor email marketing dev had to, but the result would be entirely static and not able to reflow.
You have just restated the similarity I referred to. The ways they are different make them important enough to distinguish.
“Tabulate” doesn’t just mean organising anything by rows and columns, it means organising data for a particular purpose. And layout grids usually end up looking quite different to tables because although they have a broadly similar underlying structure, the purpose is quite different.
They're not quite deprecated, but they're also not quite not deprecated at all:
> Historically, the <b> element was meant to make text boldface. Styling information has been deprecated since HTML4, so the meaning of the <b> element has been changed.
I think CSS grid is too powerful to be represented in markup. I rotated the idea in my head for a bit but the most I could come up was elements that covered a small subset of CSS grid and which completely lost the entire appeal of being able to handle tracks dynamically.
This is a classic problem I identify across a wide variety of types of software. I call it "forcing a graph into a tree" and it comes up any time you have something that must be evaluated across multiple axises but the earliest assumptions (now invalidated) about the data restricted it to a tree, or the most really available tools to process it is with tree-like data structures and algorithms.
HTML is a tree. It's really great at trees. But defining a grid layout sometimes requires organizing data by both the rows and the columns. That can't fit into a tree.
I think a lot of people's complaints that "CSS is too complex, why can't we just do this in HTML" would go away if they could understand that CSS--being a rules-based system--can process the graph, but HTML can only ever define a tree. There are things that will just never work in just HTML.
This gets hard because trees are easy for people to understand. We have lots of examples of them: file systems (if you ignore symlinks). Family trees (if you ignore inbreeding). Tree of life taxonomies (if you ignore more than basic undergrad biology). You can probably guess by my caveats how much I feel it is important to study graphs. But graphs are "scary Computer Science" stuff to a lot of people, so they don't take the time to learn.
> If you operate a paywall or a content-gating mechanism, we don't consider this to be cloaking if Google can see the full content of what's behind the paywall just like any person who has access to the gated material
> These public repositories (@gitlab.com/evlaV) are an unmodified 1:1 public copy/mirror of Valve's latest (currently private) SteamOS 3.x (holo) GitLab repositories
Then define public and state what's wrong with this repo which conflicts from your definition of public.
For me this looks like a fine public resource and after a short glimpse it looks like that you should be able to even build this effing source code from this repo.
Edit ps. If you edit your own content then please leave a note about what you have changed please
The linked repo isn't the official public resource. Valve provides the source packages for what they distribute (aka GPL compliance) but this person wanted them to open up their private GitLab instance to the world.
As far as I can tell, they wrote a script to download the source packages they provide and then try to reconstruct them into a GitLab repo.
Well based on the paragraphs in the README it's not actually being updated anymore, it only reflects SteamOS as of August and the author quit running their process to update it.
> (April 1, 2024): After over 2 3 years (and 2 Steam Deck model releases - LCD and OLED) Valve still hasn't publicized their private GitLab repositories nor fully complied with the GPL. I decided to (finally) release the relevant portion of my automated "bot" project, aptly titled srcpkg2git. This/These software/tools haven't been updated/modified much since 2022, but should allow users to easily access and even mirror Valve's SteamOS private repositories (as I've demonstrated with these public mirrors (@gitlab.com/evlaV) the past over 2 3 years).
Yes indeed. That's hardly public what we can get...
If I understand this correctly, Valve provides the src packages for the packages they distribute. This person wrote a script to download the src packages and extract them. The README misleadingly claims it's a "mirror" of Valve's private git repos, which is not accurate.
The author wants them to open up their GitLab instance, showing their internal development. That's not required under GPL.
Valve appears to be complying. This person wanted access into their internal development systems, though.
The rest of the README is tens of thousands of lines about capitalism, abstaining from procreation, and withdrawing from society with hundreds of links to videos and hundreds of quotes. It's very strange. These are not the writings of a healthy person, sadly.
ProPublica's reporting has been dogging Boring's heels in Las Vegas on this, I've been reading them religiously. It appears that the city views this project as Cool™ and opts either to not fine or fine pittances for constant violations.
ProPublica is extremely left-wing. That doesn't imply that their journalism is low-quality or inaccurate, but it does suggest that their choice of stories will be colored by that ideological/establishment-friendly bent. You won't see them investigating the political influence exerted by public sector unions for example.
Their X feed gives a pretty clear picture of that:
> That doesn't imply that their journalism is low-quality or inaccurate
Anecdote: in some early reporting, I noticed a citation to a paper that didn’t support the purported argument. (It said the opposite.)
I emailed the author, one of the founding journalists at Pro Publica and an award winner. He basically thanked me for the feedback and then left the article unchanged.
Pro Publica is reputable for a small publication. But they are not authoritative.
Be specific. Which article and which citation? Otherwise this is insinuation or even slander.
Edit to add: what you've done here is defame every member of the ProPublica staff, past and present (because you don't name a particular writer or article). There is no way for anyone from ProPublica to refute this.
If you want to critique ProPublica honestly, quote a particular statement they've published.
> Be specific. Which article and which citation? Otherwise this is insinuation or even slander
I’m literally calling out a liar. Not sure how you missed that.
But sure. This is the article [1]. Excerpt from my e-mail to the author:
“I came across your post through Dealbook today. In your article you mention that it is ‘argued that [Sarbanes-Oxley] would hurt initial public offerings, which it didn’t.’ You link through to a working paper on the SSRN at ‘didn't’. From the paper linked to:
‘Although the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the 2003 Global Settlement have reduced the attractiveness of being public for small companies, we argue that the more fundamental problem is the increased inability of small companies to become and remain profitable.’
The paper, in whole, posits that structural changes in the attractiveness of exit by acquisition versus IPO are the salient factor behind a secular decrease in IPO activity…Furthermore, the paper directly concedes (see quote above) that SOX negatively impacted IPO activity. This is not how you represented it in your article.”
Eisinger’s response:
“Thanks, [JumpCrisscross], for your thoughts.”
> what you've done here is defame every member of the ProPublica staff, past and present (because you don't name a particular writer or article)
I’m calling Jesse Eisinger unreliable. Since he’s a founder in good standing at Pro Publica, I’m calling out the publication. Honest journalists don’t get free passes for negligent or crooked bosses.
Pro Publica is worth reading. It is not authoritative—it does not hold itself up to journalistic standards, a rot which starts at the top.
(I’ve used the above exchange to block Pro Publica from influencing lawmaking on Cheyenne, Albany, Sacramento and D.C. I would want anything they say independently corroborated before being acted on.)
Thank you for this. Count me as one more person who's been influenced by your exchange with Eisinger.
Edit: My layperson reading of the source makes me think the ProPublica article would be accurate if its link to the source had the text "which it mostly didn't" rather than "which it didn't". I don't have a problem with the article as it's written, but this is a good reminder that journalists writing for a general audience will often omit qualifiers, sacrificing accuracy for readability. (I, on the other hand, cling dearly to my qualifiers.)
Not sure where you extract is supposed to come from, the paper argue that
> Many have blamed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the 2003
Global Settlement’s effects on analyst coverage for the decline in IPO activity. We find very little
support for the conventional wisdom, and offer an alternative explanation
> Not sure where you extract is supposed to come from
The paper. The one that was cited. (It was a working paper at the time.)
Nevertheless, your quote drives the point home. The paper rejects “the conventional wisdom” which “states that low public market prices are due to either lower valuations caused by the lack of analyst coverage, or to lower earnings as a public firm because of SOX and other costs.”
The Pro Publica article says that paper shows SOX did not reduce IPO volumes. That’s false. The earnings channel is rejected. But otherwise, the paper is about acquisition versus IPO.
It’s understandable incompetence. It turns into a lie when one digs in after the error is pointed out.
> No wonder you got ignored ..
If a journalist ignoring me means I can let their work be ignored in multiple state and national capitals, I will take it as a win.
(And with the benefit of hindsight, the article was dead wrong. I built a bit of a career on the private markets starting in 2012, as it happens.)
I'm just speculating here, but it could be that he doesn't want to risk doxing himself. If he emailed them from his personal email address, which contains his real name, the journalist could out him.
It would be extremely counterproductive for a ProPublica writer to maliciously dox someone who pointed out a logical inconsistency in their writing, if the writer's intent is to bolster their own trustworthiness. Any journalist crazy enough to do this would be forever out of a job because no source would ever speak to them again.
Its more basic then that. This is follow laws as they are written. It should not be a left/right issue. If you dont like a law, that's why its a democracy.
Of course not. But there are a myriad of wrong-doings from all sectors of the economy. Choosing to focus exclusively on the wrongdoings of interests that are obstacles to the coalition of unions, bureaucracies, and allied media that economically benefit from ever-increasing public spending (from 20% of GDP in 1950 to 38% today) is a case of shaping public opinion by selection.
Pure whataboutism, come on. Yes, other things deserve investigation, but so does this. And there's plenty of right-wing media — in fact I'd argue too much such that there's a lack of balance in US media.
>Yes, other things deserve investigation, but so does this.
I was not trying to imply that this does not deserve investigation. I just thought that it was relevant to point out the agenda or ideological bias of the source because it helps to know these kinds of things.
>And there's plenty of right-wing media — in fact I'd argue too much such that there's a lack of balance in US media.
Journalists are overwhelmingly left-wing in their ideological leanings.
The result is something you could call "silence by selection": investigative reporting on corporate or conservative money is constant, but similar investigations of public-sector unions’ financial pipelines, pensions, and political leverage are almost non existent.
When mainstream coverage discusses "special interests", it targets corporations or billionaires, not the public-sector class which is the single most powerful political bloc in every advanced Western democracy (and which is the reason why every major urban area in the US is controlled by Democrats).
> I was not trying to imply that this does not deserve investigation. I just thought that it was relevant to point out the agenda or ideological bias of the source because it helps to know these kinds of things.
As noble as your intentions may be, it's unnecessary and muddies the conversation if you keep adding cherry-picked information about your view of the politics of those involved.
Also, "left-wing" and "right-wing" are not particularly useful terms as they are ill defined and vary from place to place (e.g. the U.S. left-wing is considered very right-wing in most of Europe).
The views of the politics of those involved is not controversial. They are very much part of the American left, as their X feed makes abundantly clear.
As I understand it, X is a cesspit of right-wing hate and vitriol, so I wouldn't trust their evaluation of "left". As I said, it's really not a useful term to use and you're diverting the discussion away from the issues involved to a discussion of politics instead. Your comments come across as if you're trying to push a specific narrative.
I think where an outlet stands in the larger political landscape is useful context and there's nothing distracting or inappropriate about bringing it up, so we can agree to disagree.
I don't plan on visiting that site whilst it's being run by a blatant Nazi. There was a literal world war to stop that kind of evil and yet people seem to have forgotten. I hope you are not one of those people - I'm always suspicious of anyone that continues to use X/Twitter.
It's funny, Musk has enough money to end world hunger and instead he decides to be a complete arsehole.
I couldn't open their X because it's a technological abomination, but their Bluesky doesn't paint the image of a blatantly left-wing and super partisan channel that willingly ignores reporting on the public sector.
Amongst the top 10 things I saw them complaining about a state government, public regulators not doing their job well… it's not dramatic.
Maybe it's my European lens indeed, but it seems like a generic centrist media outlet, with maybe an anti-elites edge, which I'd expect from the Fourth Estate.
Hmm, I don't agree that journalists are overwhelmingly left-wing. I can see how that'd be true since they're highly educated and that correlates.
But the sad reality is that most media channels in the US (maybe everywhere?) are corporations owned by a handful of very conservative people. Their agenda reflects that. Local media is almost fully right-wing. You can be a leftie journalist, but usually you won't go against editorial guidelines. At least that's why I've learned in school (studying media).
Statistically, they lean heavily left, and what makes more sense as an explanation for that is that it is because most major outlets’ editorial workforces are themselves unionized.
Editors, drawn from the same milieu, share these priors.
And yes, people with degrees lean left too, because academia leans heavily toward the Democrats. Academia is part of the public-sector ecosystem. Universities are funded by the government, staffed by people whose careers depend on public funding, and bureaucratic growth. Their personal financial interests line up with left-wing politics.
Once one party is fused to the institutions that hand out degrees and public paychecks, of course it will show up as "more educated voters".
Why does left or right even matter? This is ordinary stuff that should be covered?
If you've read the article, you can see how
- they were told to stop, and refused
- lied about what they did to make the problem look smaller
- reversed corrective action as soon as they thought the inspectors left
This has nothing to do with bias. A right wing outlet should've covered this too. They might have used some different words but I don't see how this can be anything other than intentional. In the end their own legal department had to step in and acknowledge that they won't do any other projects before putting in remediations.
The systematic bias arises from story selection, not from whether a specific investigation is accurate.
So I am absolutely not suggesting this story is not accurate or that Boring Company isn't at fault.
In the long run selective coverage creates an inaccurate picture of reality: constant stories about private greed, almost none about institutional self-dealing within the state.
Given that the current president is right wing, wouldn't the left have a vested interest in talking about self-dealing in the state?
Regardless, we are on a news aggregator here. Whatever selection bias this source has should be counteracted by hn drawing from many sources. At least on the source level. HN is going to of course be biased towards stories hn finds interesting.
>Given that the current president is right wing, wouldn't the left have a vested interest in talking about self-dealing in the state?
If there wasn't a permanent bureaucracy of sorts, then yes, but in this case there is in fact a permanent bureaucracy, what some call the deep state, which is a constant regardless of which party is in power. And this political bloc overwhelmingly supports the Democrats and is threatened by potential cuts from Republicans.
Covering self-dealing within the state would give the Republicans' efforts to cut some of these programs and departments moral legitimacy in the public eye, so left-wing news sources would not do that.
So what outlet would choose to not cover this? One that doesn't care?
I think you misunderstand the whole concept of journalism. They report, you interpret. Left wing or right wing might matter in what words they choose, to influence your perception.
Not reporting something like this is not bias, that's just not caring.
I never said that they shouldn't cover this. In fact, it's maybe reasonable that people with agendas do investigative journalism that only covers the malfeasance of one side and faction. I'm not really sure. I certainly wouldn't discourage any outfit to do credible reporting on any story just because it might help or harm another side or just because they might or might not have biases. But that being said, I do think it's worth pointing out that the outfit does have a bias. What's the harm of letting people know?
Indeed. But some are easier to change than others. I switched my e-mail provider, and it took all of five minutes to launch the copy of my data. Since I kept the same domain, everyone sending me e-mails didn't notice anything.
With Apple's approach, I'd have to go through each account and move it from something@icloud to something@new-domain.
However, for people who don't want to mess around with custom domain names and e-mail providers, apple's approach is very practical. You just need to tell it to "hide your email" when you register somewhere and you're good to go.
As someone who uses both, I much rather prefer aliases to hide-my-email for the more important stuff. For one, I can choose the email address "username", which I cannot with Apple's solution. Plus, what happens when I move on from Apple to something else?
But aliases can be easily mapped back to your normal email address, unlike Apple's which are opaque. I, too, am afraid of vendor lock-in though. Sadly, couldn't find a good alternative yet
There's no solution to lock-in because there must be some massively shared domain that the email address exists on for the anonymity of the service to properly work. However if you are simply looking for an alternative to Apple, Fastmail offers a masked email service too.
Not sure where you're coming from - my original email address is not being shown in headers, so those seem fairly opaque. Probably depends on your email provider?
Running a git command on one branch and multiple branches being affected is really unusual for me! This really does look like it is designed for just this problem, though. Simple overview: https://blog.hot-coffee.dev/en/blog/git_update_refs/
reply