The bit about “comparability”. Where do you see that they will? (I mean, aside from the original article that claimed it without evidence.)

A submodule is “just” a pointer to a specific commit in an external repo. It was at one point entirely done via shell scripts, and unless I missed an update is still obnoxiously slow compared to the rest of git.

I can’t fathom why the SHA-256 support for submodules would do more than just treat the SHA as a foreign key.and go from there. We’d potentially be in trouble if SHA-1 support is being removed, but I don’t see any reason why git would do something so stupid.

(I honestly can’t fathom why SHA-256 hashed commits couldn’t be the children of SHA-1 commits. A bunch of reasons why you may not WANT to, but that’s a separate concern that seems like it’d be outweighed by comparability.)

Further reading that casts doubt on even submodules breaking:

https://www.deployhq.com/blog/git-3-0-on-the-horizon-what-git-users-need-to-know-about-the-next-major-release

It sounds like the new default is specifically to push GitHub et al to support SHA-256. Which they either will, or they will fork git and continue on with SHA-1 forever.

I read that whole article, and aside from an unsourced statement that GitHub et al will need “new and distinct servers” exactly zero of that seemed to support the thesis that a SHA-256 default was going to be “expensive”.

Submodules are not the preferred way to incorporate third-party code for any environment I know. And while web-exposed URLs for management tools like Jira or AzureDevOps will need to adapt before the new default can be used, doing so even with a wholesale re-hashing of every commit isn’t technically difficult.

What would be terrible and dangerous would be if git 3.0 entirely dropped SHA-1 support. But just as you’re free to keep on using “master” instead of “main”, i expect that extant projects will still be supported until a version after every major project has converted to SHA-256 or what have you.

Dorks recommending that other dorks who couldn’t even figure out Word should instead use a gui wrapper around an overcomplicated text-based markup format are a special kind of something.

That said, I havent even looked at LaTeX in over twenty years so maybe it has had dramatic improvements since the invention of markdown…

There is no over-reaction to actual censorship.

Sudden abscorbic rejection is the tolerant reaction to facist sea-lioning.

There are a handful of other issues where a similarly strong rejection is appropriate, such as “surely a little rape is OK” or “why can’t a grandfather fuck a 12 year old”.

It may seem extreme to respond with such vitriol just to a political choice, until you remember that the politocian in question is a rapist and a pedophile.

breaking the encryption is hard , but getting around the encryption is entirely doable without physical access if you allow SMS or on-device sharing.

You should trust signal tree the same way you trust a front door lock that has never been broken or picked despite repeated attempts to do both.

.Just remember that police only go through the door when it’s easier than breaking a window or tearing through a wall.

There are all of these stories about signal because it is notable when someone gets around it

That there’s anything approaching secure communication on a cell-phone dominated Internet whose.operating systems are either “snobbish walled garden” or “ad agency living in the corpse of a search engine” is astonishing. In the same way that a gun safety that keeps a toddler from shooting themselves with an otherwise loaded gun is astonishing.

While I’m aware of the causal influence a deflationary currency can have upon economic activity, I’m not sure how the inverse works

Care to explain?

Delete means to remove from database, no recovery

From a technical standpoint, this was not at all the case historically. By the time we moved from floppy disks to standard UNIX commands the presumption was that your data would be backed up and thus recoverable, and early RDBMs treated the equivalent to a DELETE SQL command the same way FAT did.

Nowhere in the English language semantically will you find that “delete” implies that you can recover it.

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/518243/origin-of-the-word-delete

Delete as originally brought into English from Latin referred to smuding out in your wax slate, and later blotting out your writing to hide a mistake. In both ancient usages the mistake was potentially recoverable, a non-contradicting inference that continued on to the computer age.

Note that we don’t generally say “delete” to mean “remove unrecoverably” in other contexts, either. The rules for handling classified material do not merely say “delete”, but always compound it with qualifiers or expansive instructions such as “delete unrecoverably” or “delete files and backups”.

As far as the hardware you are executing “delete” should follow that command.

Final point: the actions of a user with regard to their posts on Lemmy are not hardware commands. They are pure software concepts that interact with a distributed and abstracted system that is several steps removed from such.

I could almost see your point, except that “don’t show this anymore but don’t bother cleaning it up” is what “delete” means all throughout the internet. Following a tradition that goes back to BBSes, Usenet, and MS-DOS.

Trying to delete in social media is like trying to un-publish yesterday’s printed newspaper. Maybe it’d be sensible to label the action “hide” or “declaim”, but that’s probably a whole seperate topic.

The POTUS has no power to levy taxes without an act of congress.

There are a bunch of acts of.congress that give discretionary power to the POTUS for certain specific taxes in response to certain international actions.

Here’s a plausible sounding website found from a quick web search.

https://legalunitedstates.com/can-trump-still-impose-tariffs/

I don’t think that was cgi. It think it was stop motion and puppetry.

(Or, cgi that was supposed to look like stop motion and puppetry.)

I think the number gives a false sense of accuracy. Like using fifteen digits of pi to calculate an orbital path even though you system can’t model every mass in the system and thus have way higher variance regardless.

I am numbers on, but only because I don’t care enough to turn it off.

That’s not being neurotypical. That’s just having poor communication skills.

Based on the actual women in my life, “blame partner for own communication failures” is the divergence rather than the norm. Regardless of what shallow media portrays.

If we’re mucking the alphabet, though, we really should bring back the thorn.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorn_(letter)

(If for no other reason than to also bring back the you/thou formal/informal split so I get fewer stares when I point out that the best translation of Exodus 20:13 is really more like “hey, man, no murders!”)

If vulcans from Vulcan speak Vulcan, then earthers from Earth speak earthish.

Wasn’t it a bajoran building a farm on a to-be-flooded valley (or metaphor thereof?)

Star Trek humans seems to have internalized angst from post-first-contact jerkiness, and effectively have three levels of interaction :

1. Intervene wherever necessary to stop genocide
2. If your history includes FTL all bets are off.
3. Otherwise go low to no contact.

deleted by creator