That’s the point. They want to stop people bypassing ads by using alternative front ends. If they succeed with server side ads, then it’s going to be difficult to block ads. Maybe not impossible, but difficult.

I think assets like app icons are ok. They rarely change, and are often quite small. It’s convenient to have those kinds of things bundled together with the code.

Linux has developers. It just needs more desktop users.

He’s also promising a fully self drivable car by the end of 2017

A collection of words

I know, I read it because I wanted to know too know if it was addressed

That was my first reaction just by reading the title.

Mostly because I learned the hard way what inodes are.

I mostly use VS Code for notes and configuration files. Sometimes Python scripts. I agree with you, it requires a lot of setup. It has replaced Vim for me either way.

Most of my programming is done in IntelliJ, which works mostly out of the box. I’ve also used Visual Studio (not to be confused with VS Code).

I can’t imagine working without a proper IDE for any serious programming anymore. Working without IDE is like self imposed handicap.

I like when videos are as direct as this guy’s. Just straight to the point. No extra fluff, distracting skits or drama. It’s just him talking straight to the camera about things he’s passionate about.

Hate is a strong word.

I have a dislike for them. Especially in recent years. There was a time I thought they were the cool hip company with lots of cool innovations. When Google docs launched it was so revolutionary that two people could work with the same document at the same time.

Now I see them more for what they are: an advertisement provider. They’re only after our data. Once I realized that my dislike for them grew.

But my dislike for them hasn’t been enough to stop using their products. I’ve tried DDG a few times, but I’ve always been dissatisfied with their results.

It’s Poe’s law

I post my ignorant opinions somewhere. There’s always someone who will correct me with correct information.

Microsoft has nothing to do with this. This is entirely on Crowdstrike.

Git rebase can be hard to understand for many. Not everyone has the blessing of being in a team of Git gurus.

I think squashing is great and I would never want to go back. It helps ensuring:

• All commits in main have useful messages. No more “fix pipeline errors”, “fix MR comments”, etc.
• Ensures pipeline has been successful with all commits in main. No need to guess which commits will build and won’t build.
• Easy to revert commits.
• Eliminates incompressible history because someone had a bad day with git.
• Encourages frequent commits. No need to ensure all commits are perfect and good in their own right. Commit when you want to commit even if it’s incomplete work.

And IMO, if your work warrants multiple commits, then it probably also warrants multiple merge requests. Merge requests should be rather small to make it easier to review.

Edit: another good thing is that when we decide to release, we can easily look through the commit history for a change log. No more sifting through minor fixes commits.

I don’t like stash for this purpose. What if I have to jump to a different branch a second time? Should I stash again?

It can be difficult to know which stash belongs to which branch. Nah, I rather just commit so I don’t need to bother with that confusion.

I’m aware of that option. I haven’t bothered to learn it because this is a perfectly good system for me.

Often I commit because I have to jump to another branch, so I want to save my progress. This means I can be in the middle of something, so I write a trash message.

All those messages will disappear anyway after the merge request, because we use a squash policy. I can spend more time thinking of a more proper commit message when writing the merge request.

The post mentions that these are for commits in a merge request before squash. When they’re squashed a proper message is given.

AFAIK, the documentation isn’t the main problem. I’m pretty sure PS3 is quite well understood.

The problem is how to translate the code to a typical X86 architecture. PS3’s uses a very different architecture with a big focus on their own special way on doing parallelism. It’s not an easy translation, and it must be done at great speed.

The work on RPCS3 incredible, but it took them more than a decade of optimizations to get where they are now. Wii U emulation got figured out relatively quickly in comparison, even if it uses similar specs to PS3.