Do you mean specifically Github, or any code forge at all? When you say "we rarely use different branches", what do you mean - you're all pushing to master, or you have branches for each team or something? I would regard "code forge" and "separate branch per reviewable unit of work" as extremely normal, nearly universal.
Yes, we're all pushing in the same branch (not called master, we have one branch per version (usually we have one branch that's the current version deployed in production and the development branch)). To group up commits for review, we add in the commit message the Jira issue number and Jira will keep a list of all commits through Bitbucket. Bitbucket supports PRs, but I don't think it's ever been used here.
I can gather that the way we're using is not the most usual ;).
I happen to have memorised how to add new remotes a long time ago, but I would 100% not care if someone I worked with googled it every time. That's how it was for me for several years. I don't think that has anything to do with "learning the tools". And getting claude to do it is not that much different from copy-pasting from google.
Better yet, assign the positional arguments to named variables for documentation purposes; you can see them when you `type` the function. (Comments get stripped, unless you make an actual script.)
I wholeheartedly agree that it's the same, but I fundamentally disagree about it being a "problem", or at least, one worth caring about. I don't honestly believe that typing out the extra 35 characters that are filled in by the helper function I gave here would solve anything that comes close to the convenience of not needing to memorize them.
What do you suppose those shares you bought are for? "I decided to launder my accountability through a third party" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
If you are counting individual fish (independent of size) and you count all sea creatures, I think this is false. The "vegetation" are small creatures like phytoplankton, and the fish that eat them probably vastly outnumber the fish that eat fish. Each stage of the food change contains about an order of magnitude less fish than the level below.
Most small fish eat small crustaceans and other small animals, not algae.
Most phytoplankton, i.e. unicellular algae, is eaten by zooplankton, i.e. mostly by small crustaceans, like copepods.
The fish that eat other animals vastly outnumber the fish that eat algae or aquatic plants.
In open water environments, the kinds of bigger animals, i.e. fish, cephalopods, chaetognaths, cnidarians, ctenophores are almost all predators who, unless they eat each other, they are eating zooplankton that consists mostly of small crustaceans and of planktonic larvae of the animals that live on the bottom.
> The fish that eat other animals vastly outnumber the fish that eat algae or aquatic plants.
This is why I said "if you count all sea creatures". The original comment said "most fish are predators because there isn't much vegetation". As you say, there is quite a lot of vegetation, and there are many more sea creatures in that category than there are predators.
So, most fish are predators, but not at all for the reason in the original comment. It remains true that population and total biomass drop off exponentially as you go up in the food chain (which is really the only point I was trying to make).
The main reason while the majority of big aquatic animals are eating other animals, while the majority of the big terrestrial animals are eating plants, is the disparity in size between big animals and most aquatic primary producers, which requires at least one intermediate layer of small animals, who gather efficiently the small algae, packaging the nutrients and energy into bigger bodies, which can be gathered efficiently by the big animals.
The multicellular algae have bodies with a poor content of nutrients, because unlike terrestrial plants they do not need to store large reserves of nutrients in body parts like seeds or roots modified for storage, reserves that would be needed sometime in the future, after finding a place to germinate or after an unfavorable season passes. The stems of multicellular algae typically have only the purpose to anchor them to the bottom, to avoid being swept away by currents, so they do not need to contain much edible substance.
So only a few animals, e.g. sea urchins and some snails or chitons and few fish, have developed the special adaptations required to graze multicellular algae, like adequate teeth, because the reward for such an adaptation is not great and the places with abundant multicellular algae are typically restricted to regions close to shores.
Ok but at the point where you're defining "fish" as "all aquatic life" and "vegetation" as "plankton" (is yeast vegetation too?) you've kind of gotten away from what I meant.
Cows can get big by eating grass because most of the land is covered in plants, but tuna can't get big by eating seaweed because most of the sea is abyss.
Please substantiate this claim. What do you think makes it DRM? What kind of browser are you using that results in "harassment"? I use tor browser and other oddball firefox forks all the time, Anubis never gave me any trouble. I think it just requires you to compute some hashes.
It’s a software tool that specifically exists to allow content creators to enforce rules about how their content is used. It meets the dictionary definition of DRM.
It’s DRM that I think of as silly larping that doesn’t really bother me, but it’s clearly drm.
> It’s a software tool that specifically exists to allow content creators to enforce rules about how their content is used.
This is what I would like substantiated. I can go to a site behind Anubis, download the content on it, and do whatever I want with it. It doesn't do any kind of attestation of hardware or software. So - what makes it DRM?
This is kind of gibberish without seeing the name frequency alongside the swing. It's much more likely to see a swing with an infrequent name than a common one.
Then you can do the whole file process. For most people the government gets all the data. The filing process is purposely keeping tax companies in business today.
The point of my response is that the analogy was broken without saying what adding those pages could provide.
Right, but now there are a million extra pages in the filing process. Many more companies would be kept in business to deal with the extra garbage!
The analogy isn't broken. Your objection didn't really make sense, because adding pages to the tax code makes the tax code strictly more complicated. Your response just ignored the case where that complexity actually matters.
reply