> CI should reject the feature branch if the linter fails.
Your CI pipeline is broken if it refuses to run because of style issues. Linting is either applied as a pre commit hook or manually by the developer. Anything else is a mistake you are making without any concrete tradeoff.
The same goes for other mistakes such as handling warnings as errors.
Imagine going into a meeting with a senior manager and explain that you cannot release a hot fix because your pipeline is broken due to the last commit having 5 spaces instead of 4.
When you’re talking about outliers, it’s not an even-or situation. It’s not that being diligent is more valuable than being smart. Lots of people are smart, but the ones who are exceptionally smart and exceptionally diligent—outliers on two dimensions—are usually the most successful.
It’s also worth pointing out that people who e.g. study algebra in eighth grade and calculus in high school aren’t actually outliers; they’re maybe the top 1/3 or so of the class in terms of mathematics ability.
There’s a selection bias in that the USSR and China both actually turned into barely functioning societies afterwards, often because they implemented their ideals in inconsistent or hypocritical ways. If you take the same ideology and actually apply it consistently you’re the Khmer Rouge.
Sounds similar to religions. If a religious group sticks strongly to its religion's founding principles and teachings, it's "fundamentalist" and is basically a cult or something like The Handmaid's Tale. The groups that water everything down and are hypocritical and inconsistent are much more successful long-term, with far more members and lots of money.
The main difference is that unlike Marxism, most traditional religions can be the basis of a long-term successful society even if you apply their ideas consistently.
As Cardinal Richelieu famously said, “if you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.”
This quote is frequently misinterpreted. It is not a comment on the mutability of language in general, it is a comment on centralized authoritarian power, which the Cardinal sought and wielded. Because he personally wielded so much power, he needed only the flimsiest excuse to condemn someone.
The U.S. legal system does not empower prosecutors in this way. They are free to provide quotes out of context, of course, but defense counsel are just as free to provide the missing context, and neither actually gets to make the decision to convict.
Don’t underestimate a federal prosecutor. Perhaps we need a new saying: “If you give me six lines from the US Code, I can get a plea bargain from the most honest of men.”
In this case, hiding your chats is not exactly going to help you. If anything, it will be showing up prominently in the list of charges against you as destruction of evidence and impeding investigation.
For criminal actions in the US, at the least, what you do say can be held against you.
What you don't say cannot, and what communications you destroy (as part of an ongoing general "document management" policy, not as a specific response to a lawful demand for records) cannot.
However if you phrase your document management policy as "apply these guidelines so that our illegal activity cannot be documented by us as illegal" you will be having a Bad Day should that policy come before a prosecutor, Grand Jury, or court.
NB: That's attributed to Richelieu, and AFAIK it's not something specifically that he said, though it seems to be in the spirit of much of his practice.
Something of which I'm aware as I've featured precisely that quote on a number of my profiles across the Internet under this 'nym.
In 62 days we will have a completely different Department of Justice that is unlikely to follow the current administration’s approach to these issues, so I’m surprised that they’re even bothering.
This has to be the case of the lifetime to anyone at the DOJ that worked on it. Of course they want to see it to the end. And there's no reason to believe that the approach would be different.
Like, who exactly in the new administration is a fan of Google? The Republicans have complained for years about a perceived bias. Trump vowed during the campaign that he'd prosecute Google if he won re-election.
They'll absolutely continue driving that case, if nothing else to use as leverage to try to force Google into making pro-conservative algorithmic changes.
My understanding is that this is based on a fairly novel antitrust theory that only exists inside the Biden administration. I expect the new DOJ to attack Google for entirely different reasons. But you might be right.
WW1 was the critical period. Part of the reason Britain was so insistent on high levels of reparations from Germany is because they needed the money to pay their war debts to the US, which they ultimately defaulted on at the start of the Depression.
Also Britain sacrificed its industry in favor of the banking sector (there were of course other more complicated factors) by refusing to devalue their currency like France did.
Not that coal disappeared shortly after 1915. It was going relatively strong until the mid 60s and dropped to 1/3 of the peak in the 80s. In terms of production tonnage
Yes. To be very clear, due to technological improvements allowing better eROI and better access to resources that couldn't be exploited previously, a "peak" isn't catastrophic: the production just become flat and sightly down as the best mines empty out. But having to import energy sources from outside your country is a good way to limit your industry growth.
The war proved ruinous to the UK in a way WW1 wasn’t because of the destruction visited by the Luftwaffe, and the UK squandered its lion’s share of the Marshall Plan on maintaining Imperial pretenses:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.sht...
I agree with you and I think we’re both right. WW2 made things much worse for Britain, and Britain was still in a very strong position in 1940 compared to the other European powers (along with leading the world in multiple key technical endeavors) but WW1 was when things started going downhill for them. If you went back to 1900 or even 1910 it would have probably been unthinkable that Britain would default on a foreign debt or allow a foreign rival to match the Royal Navy, and yet Britain did both of those during the interwar period—the latter of which was agreed to with a formal treaty, negotiated and signed in that foreign rival’s capital city!
The US Civil War put a damper on the trade volume for a period of time, it came back stronger afterwards.
So successful was the transition of slave labor into sharecropping and tenant farming during and after the war that cotton production actually expanded dramatically.
By 1870, American cotton farmers surpassed their previous harvest high, set in 1860. By 1877, they regained and surpassed their pre-war market share in Great Britain. By 1880 they exported more cotton than they had in 1860.
During the US Civil War cotton volumes went down and mills, mill workers in Lancashire and Cheshire experienced widespread poverty ...
However for a well placed elite few, cotton profits from trade climbed dramatically ..
Despite cotton shortages in England, merchants would sometimes re-export the materials that did arrive to other ports in Europe. Notably, they also re-exported materials from the South to the North, because the Union also struggled from being cut off from direct trade with the Confederacy. As a result, during the war, cotton grown in the Confederacy could be shipped out of a southern port to Britain to evade the Union blockade, sold in Liverpool, and then shipped back across the Atlantic to a northern port, evading the Confederate cruisers.
Liverpool's docks also benefitted as profitable wartime enterprises emerged, particularly the increased trade of commodities such as ships and armaments. The Union's merchant marine, nearly the world's largest in 1860, was devastated throughout the war in part by the Confederate warships supplied through Liverpool. In addition, as a result of the war, cotton speculation and brokerage, rather than trade in cotton itself, became immensely profitable for a number of merchants.
Interesting; I was under the impression that the British just found new sources of cotton. From the American perspective this story is mostly told as a losing bet from the Confederate side—the South believed that Britain was so dependent on Southern cotton that they would intervene on their side of the war. Given the intensity of British public opinion against slavery this seems like a bad bet, but if the Confederates had better judgment they probably wouldn’t have started the war in the first place.
IIRC (I don't have historic trade complexity to hand, I once did for a project some years ago) the British did cultivate new sources (eg India) after experiencing a volume lull for some time.
Over a longer arc the cloth trade itself grew in volume and demand for raw fibre increased, absorbing the post Civil War US production again.
You're correct that public sentiment opposed slavery and that unionised mill workers in England supported a ban on non use of "slave cotton".
What also occurred, as often happens in war, is that a profitable black market trade grew and lined the pockets of many middle men, at the expense of growers who had reduced profits and embargos to deal with and for mill workers who saw less actual work as bale numbers plummeted.
It’s also often handy to configure linters and autoformatters as precommit hooks.
reply