Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | withinboredom's commentslogin

Please don’t use git-flow. Every time I see it, it looks like an over-engineer’s wet dream.

Can you say more as to why? The concept is not complex and in our situation at least provides a lot of benefits.

I think the guy that created it has even stated he thinks it's a bad idea

Literally the reason’s for git’s existence is to make merging diverging histories less complicated. Adding back the complexity misses the point entirely.

Or deleting the test files to make all tests pass. It’s my personal favorite.

> Now crap has turned into revenue sucking subscriptions

So much this. Each subscription is literally a small percentage of your revenue. You can't reinvest it ... it's just gone. Hopefully it enables more productivity ... but most likely, it is only marginal.


Do people actually use this mode? Having to approve diffs in the ide is too annoying.

Depends on my task. If it’s complex and my expectation is for Claude to get things wrong the diff preview is helpful.

Even then, I'd wait until it's had a chance to iterate and correct itself in a loop before I'd even consider looking at the output, or I end up babysitting it to prevent it from making mistakes it'd often recognise and fix itself if given the chance.

True. I’ve been strictly in the terminal for weeks and I have a stop hook which commits each iteration after successful rust compilation and frontend typechecks, then I have a small command line tool to quickly review last commit. It’s a pretty good flow!

You can tell it not to do that and it will show inline diffs.

> On slower machines we were seeing this be in the order of seconds, not ms and when somebody is typing all they feel is the 1 character that's stuttering.

You mean like a laptop that is trying to stay cool (aka, cpu throttling) on battery power while Claude is running a slightly different version of the test suite for the 5th time to verify it didn't break anything?

Yeah, the typing latency is really bad in those cases. Sometimes waiting for 40 seconds or more.


If you are rich enough, it isn’t rocket science to avoid capital gains taxes in the EU. And by rich enough, just a few hundred K. (See the related FIRE Reddit boards)

One thing I remember from civics class: governments should think in terms of generations; not profits/losses.

That's true, but you have to actually be investing in growth for it to come up. Instead the next generation will get both spiriling interest payments and crumbling infrastructure.

Nobody also sees your evidence…

If you have to ask, you didn't even look very hard. I'm not a historian and I learned about this stuff in World History class. Hell, there's even movies about it (unless you think there just happened to not be any children in all those villages they burned down in the movies?)...

There’s revisionist claims that all the primary sources, even those corroborated by people of the cultures in question, are either just invented propaganda or actually just isolated instances because actually, everyone throughout all time and space is on board with 2025 Western social norms. I think that’s what he’s alluding to. It’s not a very fruitful path of discussion. Archeological confirmations and independent testimony can all be safely ignored by this view as well.

But we are talking about specifically torture for sport, not just burning them alive. You can find many firsthand accounts of this throughout different times and places in different cultures. Steppe peoples and groups like the Comanche were particularly notorious for it, they seemed to find it funny.


It's not revisionist to point outthat a LOT of ancient texts, especially those describing particularly horrifying actions, were propaganda written by the enemies of the cultures in question - or embellishments written hundreds of years later.

I'm not saying that "torture for sport" of children never existed, just that any account should be treated with skepticism, and that it was far rarer than you would think if you just take every text at face value, especially since it's the kind of thing that gets repeated (and embellished for shock value) far more than other historical accounts.


Uh-huh. Here's the problem. Here's the way this almost always works: "Author X would have been BIASED because he belonged to Culture X that fought these people - so this is all fictional propaganda!"

Nearly all the time this is the entirety of the evidence. That is, there is no actual evidence, just people churning out papers because we live in a publish-or-perish world that well, maybe he would have been hypothetically motivated to lie or embellish. So therefore, he totally did. It's all fake!

The most notorious examples of this sort of pointlessness are claims that the Phoenicians and Carthaginians did not practice human sacrifice and it was all made up by Roman propaganda, nevermind the third-party information we have and now the archeological evidence. Rarely, in ancient examples, are they exhibiting much outrage over it.

Same for the Aztecs, another frequent target - we have non-Spanish evidence, and we never had any reason to doubt them in the first place. Part of the problem is exactly that YOU think it is particularly horrifying when most of the time (as in the Roman example) the cultural tenor was probably something much closer to the US abortion or gun control debate, or at least from peoples who saw this happening regularly enough they were substantially number to it than you or me.


You are making pretty bold and sweeping statements.

Do you have a specific example for such a paper that has "no actual evidence", in an actual scientific magazine?

Considering author bias is absolute standard baseline practice in historical research, and OF COURSE it is only a starting point for a comparison with alternative sources.

> Part of the problem is exactly that YOU think it is particularly horrifying when most of the time (as in the Roman example) the cultural tenor was probably something much closer to the US abortion or gun control debate, or at least from peoples who saw this happening regularly enough they were substantially number to it than you or me.

Tertullian, Apologeticum, Chapter 9:

"Babes were sacrificed publicly to Saturn in Africa till the proconsulate of Tiberius, who exposed the same priests on the same trees that overshadow the crimes of their temple, on dedicated crosses, as is attested by the soldiery of my father, which performed that very service for that proconsul. But even now this accursed crime is in secret kept up."

Does that sould "numb" to you?


Do you think blood libel is a modern creation?

Right... The historical texts were propaganda for the few people who could read and write ... for what, exactly? I assume you think genocides in modern times are just propaganda too?

The few people who could read and write were the educated ones - mostly those in power or close to them. So exactly the people you needed to influence to get something done. And of course written texts could be read aloud to those who cannot write.

What exactly are you actually trying to say? That propaganda didn't exist back then? That it was never written down?

What do you think "Carthago delenda est" was?

> I assume you think genocides in modern times are just propaganda too?

And why would you assume that?

There is in fact a modern time example for exactly the kind of thing we're talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony


Ah. There was an interesting YouTube video I watched the other night that claimed the dark ages didn’t actually exist. Easily refutable, but I assume this is the kind of stuff you’re referring to?

Yeah. That’s another good example. There are fads and trends in some academic circles that burst out into the Internet scene and become common “actually” rejoinders. Of course, some older claims about the Dark Ages were exaggerated and simplified. This led to an “actually the Dark Ages weren’t even real” reaction in a few papers which spread online. Of course there was a marked decline in social organization during that time period regardless.

There is absolutely a way to incrementally update scrollback in a terminal, 100% flicker-free. Whether it works in every terminal is a different question. But if you can accept that your code will work in pretty much every modern terminal -- this is absolutely doable. I double people are still using xterm and other older terminals for this. And in that case, you can fall back to this more compatible way.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: