Mustard only?! I am definitely the dog in the hot dog car.

I would advocate for using each tool, where it makes sense, to achieve a more intelligible graph. This is what I've been moving towards on my personal projects (am solo). I imagine with any moderately complex group project it becomes very difficult to keep things neat.

In order of expected usage frequency:

1. Rebase: everything that's not 2 or 3. keep main and feature lines clean.
2. Merge: ideally, merge should only be used to bring feature branches into main at stable sequence points.
3. Squash: only use squash to remove history that truly is useless. (creating a bug on a feature branch and then solving it two commits later prior to merge).

History should be viewable from log --all --decorate --oneline --graph; not buried in squash commits.

People Make Games did a 2.5 hour deep dive on it. https://youtu.be/JGIGA8taN-M I'm blown away by the amount of work they put into it. Just finished watching it. What a mess. I'm going to need some sleep while I process all of that.

eventually ...

So after having watched that, I'm convinced that Robert Kurvitz and Aleksander Rostov were defrauded. I take what the studio employees are saying with a grain of salt. I mean, they are still employed so how can they possibly be trust worthy. Even if Argo wrote Cuno (god bless him). If Kurvitz was difficult to work under, it has nothing to do with the alleged theft of his share in the company. That People Make Games really leaned into his toxicity at the end of this doc kinda ticked me off. Like yeah he shouldn't have to answer to that. That's not the story. That's a distraction. If the Estonian court doesn't rule in Kurvitz's and Rostov's favor, they better have a damn good explanation.

Sebil Engineering has a really fun mechanic I've never seen before. Its like those Hot Wheels tracks you always wanted as a kid but your parents never got you, but even better. I guess its a traffic control game? Anyone have other examples of these?

lol yeah I guess it depends on the length of the sentence and the context. Context is usually pretty clear for questions, and maybe exclamations are typically short enough that the '!' is already visible anyways. Definitely wasn't considering periods and commas in that list.

Maybe a Kremlin Bot? Wouldn't be surprised if they're over here already.

Tab Session Manager

I feel the same about Mastodon. I just want to be social with my friends, not on broadcast to a bunch of randos. It makes sense for brands and I guess people who commercialize their identity. But I don't really care about trying to keep up with the lives of brands or really people i don't know, so i haven't want or need for such a site. Also I prefer to catch up with someone for real. Like tell me what you did when we hang out next. I don't want to sit there and pretend like your trip to wherever is news because i already casually saw all the pictures you posted a month ago. And if we are never going to meet again, then I don't need to know what you do with the rest of your life. I like this format much better. Ego is much less in effect and people can just bounce ideas and jokes around. Reddit though... most of the user base is still over there. I've stopped posting and voting entirely. Full lurk mode.

I was able to get in two games of Cartographers, one scenario from Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective, and a round of Lords of WaterDeep. What a good week!

Cartographers is one of my new favorites for my friend group. We've been playing it slowly with colored pencils, just taking our time making the maps look extra pretty. We plan on printing some larger maps for the game, and then bringing our own art supplies. It's a nice relaxing game to just hang out with your friends to.

True, but I see this quote repeated so often that it kind of bugs me. It seems to be used in a thought-terminating way. As if we shouldn't criticize languages. As if they aren't tools that are able to be improved upon, or they're all made equal. But I'm sure Bjarne Stroustrup needs to fend off hostility and unfair criticism as much as any programmer with a successful language.

Big enough for what though? Big enough to take advantage of the amount of destruction these weapons create? They could have chosen a single isolated, near coast warship. Or even just dropped it near coast on no target at all. The important thing would have been the show of force, in order to deter further attack. Knowing the US had that capability might have been enough to end the war. But we didn't try to communicate that we had these weapons, instead we used them.

I don't get the "needed to" argument. They could have chosen military targets, but went straight for cities.