Yes

first well known work after 1970

The Martian Chronicles was published in 1950, Fahrenheit 453 in 1953

I had the same experience with Hedgewars, but I can’t really say why it doesn’t click like Worms for me.

Battle for Wesnoth - a turn based tactics game in a fantasy setting. It’s also available on Steam and itch.io. Coincidentally, version 1.18.0 was released yesterday.

Thanks!

“women” feels weird for a lot of English speakers

Why does it feel weird? (not a native speaker here)

“But why? It both has to do with computers!” - literally a project manager at my current software project.

Mastodon is written in Ruby. Nowhere near as big as Facebook or the ML field yet

FTFY ;)

Unfortunately there is no rest - his memorial was vandalized after one day.

I was saying we could create the missing liberal spaces ourselves. ThePantser said we couldn’t because we’re being called out as sexist when we do that. The only example for that being “boy scouts” which I suppose means BSA, an organization with massive sexual abuse and bullying problems (according to Wikipedia). No idea how they are supposed to be “liberal”.

Whether the girl scouts accept other genders or not has no relevance for that argument. And if it would be fair for them to do that is a completely different discussion because girls are hit by sexism in a completely different way than boys.

the use of the term “gender identity” there implies it’s more for trans people

No, it doesn’t.

if there was a recurring women-only Minecraft party or something and there was never one for men, I’d be upset about that.

And again you are completely ignoring any arguments about why these spaces might make sense.

I don’t think so.

What are you trying to say? I don’t know that much about Scouting in the U.S. At least in Germany we didn’t have this gender divide in scouting, but as GSUSA were founded after the BSA I suspect that their goal was to provide scouting for girls because they couldn’t join BSA.

As soon as men try to organize and speak out we get called sexist.

That’s simply not true. We have at least one counselling centre in our city that is “boys/young men only” and several “men only” self help groups. I’ve never heard them being called sexist, on the contrary people generally agree that this is a good thing and we need more of this. And they are certainly not forced to include other genders.

There are obviously not enough initiatives like these. But a blanket statement like yours is false and if you make the claim that men are regularly getting called out as sexist for forming liberal safe spaces you should provide some sources (I’m not denying that it happens, it’s just not something I’ve experienced).

Just look at the boy scouts (ignoring the pedophiles)

The goal of boy scouts wasn’t to provide a safe space to explore gender identity or emotions or anything like that. There was no reason to exclude other genders.

Until there’s a liberal space for men, it’s going to cause them to flock to lying conservatives.

I mean, they/we also could create these spaces for us, much in the same way women did (and many other groups). And of course it’s easier to fall for reactionary groups when liberal groups are less visible, but it’s still a decision to follow their bullshit.

Shoutout to !mensliberation@lemmy.ca (and similar spaces)

Orgon

Orgone (well, “Orgone crystal”)

I would never rely on the opinion of my boss when the question is what my rights are. They’re usually not a lawyer and their interests are often contrary to mine.

Yeah, you’re right, technically it’s not a “diff”, it’s the changed files.

I don’t think this technical detail has any consequences for the general mental model of Git though - as evidenced by the fact that I have been using Git for years without knowing this detail, and without any problems.

I disagree, hard.

I disagree with the general conclusion - I think it’s very easy to understand*: each repo has a graph of commits. Each commit includes the diff and metadata (like parent commits). There is a difference between you repo seeing the state of another repo (fetch) and copying commits from another repo into your repo (merge; pull is just a combination of fetch and pull). Tags are pointers to specific commits, branches are pointers to specific commits that get updated when you add a child commit to this commit. That’s a rather small set of very clear concepts for such a complex problem.

I also disagree with a lot of the reasoning. Like “If a commit has the same content but a different parent, it’s NOT the same commit” is not an “alien concept”. When I apply the same change to different parents, I end up with different versions. Which would be kinda bad for a Version Control System.

“This in turn means that you need to be comfortable and fluent in a branching many-worlds cosmology” - yes, if you need to handle different versions, you need to switch between them. That’s the complexity of what you’re doing, not the tool. And I like that Git is not trying to hide things that I need to know to understand what’s happening.

“distinguish between changes and snapshots that have the same intent and content but which are completely non-interchangeable and imply entirely different flows of historical events” How do you even end up in a situation like that? Anyway, sounds like you should be able to merge them without conflicts, if they are in fact completely interchangeable?

“The natural mental model is that names denote global identity.” Why should another repo care, which names I use? How would you even synchronize naming across different repos without adding complexity, e.g. if two devs created a branch “experimental” or “playground”. Why on earth should they be treated as the same branch?

“Git uses the cached remote content, but that’s likely out of date” I actually agree that this can lead to some errors and confusion. But automation exists - you can just fetch every x minutes.

“Branches aren’t quite branches, they’re more like little bookmark go-karts.” A dev describing what basically is just a pointer in this way leads to the suspicion that it might not be Git’s mental model that is alien.

“My favorite version of this is when the novice has followed someone’s dodgy advice to set pull.rebase = true” Maybe don’t do stupid stuff you don’t understand? We know what fetch is, we know what merge is. Pull is basically fetch & merge.

““Pull” presents the illusion that you can just ask Git to make everything okay for you” Just… what? The rest of the sentence doesn’t really fix this error in expectations.

• except the CLI of course, but I can use GUI-tools for most tasks

constantly rewrite both the code and tests as you better understand how you’re going to solve the task while trying

The tests should be decoupled from the “how” though. It’s obviously not possible to completely decouple them, but if you’re “constantly” rewriting, something is going wrong.

Brilliant talk on that topic (with slight audio problems): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ05e7EMOLM

Removed by mod

JavaScript.