It was astonishingly humane especially considering how effective it was:
1.) Communication network completely destroyed (anyone with a working pager in Lebanon has thrown it in the garbage).
2.) Most targets, while severely injured and even blinded, are still alive - I'm sure their families prefer this to them being dead.
3.) If you are an enemy of Israel, what can you even do now? You cannot assume your phones or your furniture or even your cat is safe. Any one of these things could detonate and kill or maim you at any time. And you can't trust anyone in your organization either.
I deplore zionism, but that doesn't change how humane and effective and incredibly precise this attack was. Probably its humane-ness was not particularly on purpose, and was more a side-effect of the constraints they were working with (hiding explosives in a small pager while still maintaining its correct operation), but that doesn't take away from how much better this is for all the casualties compared to, for example, Hamas casualties in Gaza.
You could always have the end user drop in their legally obtained copy of CARDS.DLL from older versions of Windows, and then parse the NE to extract all of the card images...at least, that's what I did when I made a clone of Windows Solitaire :)
It’s a replay of their Soleimani response which they also telegraphed in advance, only targeted military targets, and also resulted in zero fatalities.
They are criticizing the journalist (Kevin Roose) because of this line from his NYTimes article:
> "[Andres Freund's] job involves developing a piece of open-source database software known as PostgreSQL, whose details would probably bore you to tears if I could explain them correctly, which I can’t."
And that line doesn't matter at all for the purposes of understanding the "xz" attack. To me it's pretty innocuous and self-deprecating and makes sense for the general readership the NYTimes writes for.
If you add a "+" character, it becomes a force-push:
git push origin +HEAD:refs/heads/MY_NEW_BRANCH
Let's me work from master locally, but push my work to a new remote branch just for the PR. Saves a couple steps in his normal workflow as he describes it. I also tend to use the "Squash", "Rebase" and "Amend" buttons on the PR's web UI that makes a few of my common "post-push" operations even more convenient (thanks to a Bitbucket plugin).
Oh, and "git pull --rebase --autosquash" is also a big part of my workflow. Quite a miraculous "does exactly what you want without you even knowing you want it" command.
When would you want to autosquash things coming from another repo? Autosquash is for doing interactive rebases; you'd never want to publish commits that say "squash! ..." or "fixup! ...".
Yeah, "all branches are remote" is in fact the Objectively Best Workflow.
In point of fact I don't deal with local branches at all on 95%+ of days. Just "git reset --hard <remote>/<branch_to_work_on>", do whatever I want, and then "git push <remote> HEAD:refs/heads/<pull_request>" (or push -f if I'm reworking an existing one, yada yada). If I want to "pull" changes I just "git fetch <remote>" and don't ever bother checking anything out.
Local branches involve too much state that inevitably means I trip over it.
Heartily agree! I never thought of my workflow in this way, but it makes sense: by completely avoiding local branches, I reduce my cognitive load. I only ever work from "master", but my "master" is just whatever I happen to be working on that day.
reply