I'll never understand why people think this looks human:
What Made This Time Different
This time, I didn't just install FreeBSD.
I created a system for learning and success.
Clear goal: FreeBSD as my daily driver
Daily habit: 10 minutes minimum
Accountability: post the journey on Linkedin
Gee, why not let the agent try FreeBSD for you and do the posting directly
It's a funny video but his stance is quite principled, as he refuses to use any non-free software even if it's horribly inconvenient. Which is the exact opposite of what we have here.
Because those type of people are actually some type of narcissist powerpoint bots. Only interested in their "journey" and putting that next to a picture (of herself probably) climbing a mountain.
Here is what should worry everybody who care about FreeBSD and the "foundation", it seems it is being run into the ground [0]
> The board has said the deficit spending is intentional. They are drawing on reserves to invest more in the project, which makes sense in principle.
> But at roughly the 2024 burn rate, the reserve fund might last about 4 to 5 years.
> One thing that caught my attention is that the EU Cyber Resilience Act starts in September 2026, and the Foundation already has six workstreams running to prepare for it. That kind of work costs money, and right now a lot of it seems to be funded from the same reserves that are shrinking.
This is also why you are hearing thing like FreeBSD "is investing in laptop support" or a KDE installer.
But this is not what is gonna "save" FreeBSD. People get interested and choose FreeBSD because it a great server OS, because of the ZFS support, jails, PF, stability and the coherent system overall.
They would do more for adoption by just making sure most VPS hosting services have it as an option along Linux than wasting infinite money on supporting "laptops".
See also [1], people are getting tired of that level of hypocrisy and waste of money.
I'm trying to remember if anyone complained like this about the Apple Card offers in Apple Wallet. For some reason advertising their credit card is completely fine, but advertising their movie is where people get out the pitchforks? Not defending either, I think both are egregious. I just think it's interesting.
Completely agree! Felt like such a refresh right up until the suggestions to follow on the Musk platform – it’s basically the same as suggesting to follow on Truth Social nowadays, only that Musk has more money than Trump could ever dream off
Not the author, but when I use the phrase I mean each commit accomplishes a single important thing, but also that each commit is complete: it includes necessary tests for example. IMO every commit that lands on `main` must pass the test suite (this means intermediate commits should be squashed into that atomic commit).
The more I've been doing open source maintenance and contributions where there isn't as much context between the code author and reviewer, the more I've been pushing for a little more than this.
- Add tests in a commit *before* the fix. They should pass, showing the behavior before your change. Then, the commit with your change will update the tests. The diff between these commits represents the change in behavior. This helps the author test their tests (I've written tests thinking they covered the relevant case but didn't), the reviewer to more precisely see the change in behavior and comment on it, and the wider community to understand what the PR description is about.
- Where reasonable, find ways to split code changes out of feature / fix commits into refactor commits. Reading a diff top-down doesn't tell you anything; you need to jump around a lot to see how the parts interact. By splitting it up, you can more quickly understand each piece and the series of commits tells a story of how the feature of fix came to be.
- Commits are atomic while PRs tell a story, as long as it doesn't get too big. Refactor are usually leading towards a goal and having them tied together with that goal helps to provide the context to understand it all. However, this has to be balanced with the fact that larger reviews mean more things are missed on each pass and its different things on each pass, causing a lot of "20 rounds of feedback in and I just noticed this major problem".
In particular, the refactors leading up to the final change made it so the actual fix was a one line change. It also linked out to the prior refactors that I split out into separate PRs to keep this one smaller.
I agree, but I usually explain (and do) this from the side of fixing a bug, but where the test suite is currently passing: first commit adds the failing test (shows that it would have caught the error), second commit makes it pass.
Also agree with GP that each commit on master should be passing/deployable/etc., but I don't see why they can't be merge commits of a branch that wasn't like that.
That still interferes with `git bisect`. Make the test pass in history but then make it fail in your working directory and work to get it to pass before committing.
I absolutely love that testing suggestion - I'd never considered shipping a whole separate commit adding the OLD test first, but having a second commit that then updates that test to illustrate the change in behavior is such an obviously good idea.
Even ignoring the rude name-calling, I usually find that these kind of comments are poorly thought-out and come from an unrealistic idea of name ownership. I wasn’t familiar with any other D2 and want to give the benefit of the doubt, so I went through a few pages of search results for “D2 language”. Didn’t see any other projects. Are you thinking of the D3 JavaScript charting library?
https://web.archive.org (take a screenshot option if you have a login and it's JS madness WBM can't handle), https://archive.ph, etc (hopefully captured more than one if possible) - random screenshots are proof of absolutely nothing.
Also because xitter provides a broader discussion platform and reach compared to only HN (even though I highly appreciate the HN content). But yeah, the xitter post should preferably also contain that url to the source.
You’re saying the university denied their application because they referred to their homebrew device as a “laptop” and not a “cyberdeck”? I’m far from any of the worlds involved, but that just seems extremely unlikely to be the reason. In fact I’d expect the opposite—the uni not understanding that an applicant’s “cyberdeck” is actually a homemade laptop—a concept anyone can grasp
reply