[-] expr@programming.dev 3 points 3 weeks ago

It can be nice when you successfully do a rebase (after resolving conflicts), but change your mind about the resolution and want to redo it.

Doesn't come up that much, but it's been handy once or twice, for me. It's also just nice security: no matter how I edit commits, I can always go back if I need to.

[-] expr@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago

Insurance companies shouldn't exist. Healthcare should not be a for-profit institution.

[-] expr@programming.dev 3 points 1 month ago

Probably a good thing you got banned for advocating for child abuse.

[-] expr@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago

It's too good to pass this up in this thread: threw*.

[-] expr@programming.dev 3 points 4 months ago

The issues are primarily with Azure, I believe.

[-] expr@programming.dev 3 points 6 months ago

This whole situation just emphasizes the fact that rebasing >>>>>>>>>> merge squashing.

[-] expr@programming.dev 3 points 7 months ago

There are many strategies for maintaining test environments for that kind of thing. Read-only replicas, sampling datasets for smaller replicas, etc. Plenty of organizations do it, so it's not really an excuse, imo.

[-] expr@programming.dev 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Macrodroid, hands down. Lets you automate almost everything on your phone (and not on your phone), and it's remarkably friendly to use.

[-] expr@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago

They were fostering the children, I thought. But yes.

[-] expr@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago

I'm certainly sympathetic as I too have faced terrible abuse when working in customer service. TBH to me that says more about the job (which sounds pretty awful) than working from home. But perhaps that kind of job makes it more difficult since it sounds pretty "solo" to begin with, and I can see how WFH can at least exacerbate that, especially if your workplace isn't set up for it. It's probably a pretty isolating job no matter if you are WFH or not, though.

[-] expr@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago

I've always used and will continue to always use curl.

[-] expr@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago

I think that's a reasonable enough generalization, yeah.

I'm sorry though, I seem to have given you incorrect information. Apparently that library does not have monad instances, so it's a bad example (though the Concurrently type does have an applicative instance, which is similar in concept, just less powerful). For some reason I thought they also provided monad instances for their API. My bad.

Perhaps it would be better to use a much simpler example in Option. The semantics of the sequencing of Options is that the final result will be None if any of the sequenced Options had a value of None, otherwise it would be a Some constructor wrapping the final value. So the semantics are "sequence these operations, and if any fail, the entire block fails", essentially. Result is similar, except the result would be the first Err that is encountered, otherwise it would be a final Ok wrapping the result.

So each type can have its own semantics of sequencing operations, and in languages that can express it, we can write useful functions that work for any monad, allowing the caller of said function to decide what sequencing semantics they would like to use.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

expr

joined 1 year ago