Don't know about efficient, but there is at least two ways which seem to work OK-ish (although not all that efficient, I gahter):
* Do regular certifications. Before certification, check if the document is up to date. If not, update it.
* Share the documents to answer teammates' questions. Like with a WIKI it may turn out that the important stuff is actually missing/undocumented/outdated. This is then a good opportunity to fix the document.
I used to work in medical devices where it's all about documentation and even there nobody took the time or had time allocated by management to work on documentation. And most people aren't good at writing so the documents were terrible.
> > a Google Account that isn't tied to anything else.
> Isn't that pretty much impossible? You need a phone number for verification, which effectively ties it to that phone number.
I just want to follow-up on this because some people claim this is not correct because they have managed to create accounts without phone numbers.
Indeed, I think to this day, under special circumstances (like e.g. on reasonably recent Android devices) you might be able to setup a Google account without phone number.
The trick is, that in the general case, you can not keep this account online indefinitely.
First thing to note: This way of account creation does not seem to work anymore.
Second thing to note: After once logging in from a different country, trying to login again REQUIRES me to provide a phone number after successfully giving username/password/2FA code. No way to use the recovery code instead...
Also, given that this account was never before connected to a phone of any kind, by definition, the addition of a phone number cannot provide additional security confirmation (it's data that simply wasn't present before and any "personal" phone number could potentially do -- of course I haven't tried, because that's the point of not linking a phone number).
I think this way it is finally proven that they only do this to harvest the data/phone numbers and any claim of enhanced security is void.
I write this after having lost the second account to the phone number required screen despite being in possession of all the credentials which were ever assigned to that account...
In the Bash shell, true is a builtin. It may be a builtin for other POSIX-compliant shells. false is also a builtin.
The key difference is that : is required to be builtin. There are several good reasons for this. For example, syntax: the shell can single out this special character syntactically before searching $PATH.
Also, ":" is a disallowed or problematic character for certain filesystem types. If your shell attempted to omit this builtin, it could not always rely on an external command file by this name.
Lastly, people keep bringing up fish, but it is not a POSIX shell, so its similarities in syntax and operation are coincidental.
* Do regular certifications. Before certification, check if the document is up to date. If not, update it.
* Share the documents to answer teammates' questions. Like with a WIKI it may turn out that the important stuff is actually missing/undocumented/outdated. This is then a good opportunity to fix the document.