Squashing only results in a cleaner commit history if you're making a mess of the history on your branches. If you're structuring the commit history on your branches logically, squashing just throws information away.
I’m all ears for a better approach because squashing seems like a good way to preserve only useful information.
My history ends up being:
- add feature x
- linting
- add e2e tests
- formatting
- additional comments for feature
- fix broken test (ci caught this)
- update README for new feature
- linting
With a squash it can boil down to just “added feature x” with smaller changes inside the description.
You can always take advantage of the graph structure itself. With `--first-parent` git log just shows your integration points (top level merge commits, PR merges with `--no-ff`) like `Added feature X`. `--first-parent` applies to blame, bisect, and other commands as well. When you "need" or most want linear history you have `--first-parent` and when you need the details "inside" a previous integration you can still get to them. You can preserve all information and yet focus only on the top-level information by default.
It's just too bad not enough graphical UIs default to `--first-parent` and a drill-down like approach over cluttered "subway graphs".
If my change is small enough that it can be treated as one logical unit, that will be reviewed, merged and (hopefully not) reverted as one unit, all these followup commits will be amends into the original commit. There's nothing wrong with small changes containing just one commit; even if the work wasn't written or committed at one time.
Where logical commits (also called atomic commits) really shine is when you're making multiple logically distinct changes that depend on each other. E.g. "convert subsystem A to use api Y instead of deprecated api X", "remove now-unused api X", "implement feature B in api Y", "expose feature B in subsystem A". Now they can be reviewed independently, and if feature B turns out to need more work, the first commits can be merged independently (or if that's discovered after it's already merged, the last commits can be reverted independently).
If after creating (or pushing) this sequence of commits, I need to fix linting/formatting/CI, I'll put the fixes in a fixup commit for the appropriate and meld them using a rebase. Takes about 30s to do manually, and can be automated using tools like git-absorb. However, in reality I don't need to do this often: the breakdown of bigger tasks into logical chunks is something I already do, as it helps me to stay focused, and I add tests and run linting/formatting/etc before I commit.
And yes, more or less the same result can be achieved by creating multiple MRs and using squashing; but usually that's a much worse experience.
stacked diffs are the best approach and working at a company that uses them and reading about the "pull request" workflow that everyone else subjects themselves to makes me wonder why everyone is not using stacked diffs instead of repeating this "squash vs. not squash" debate eternally.
every commit is reviewed individually. every commit must have a meaningful message, no "wip fix whatever" nonsense. every commit must pass CI. every commit is pushed to master in order.
Not everyone develops and commits the same way and mandating squashing is a much simpler management task than training up everyone to commit in a similar manner.
Besides, they probably shouldn't make PR commits atomic, but do so as often as needed. It's a good way to avoid losing work. This is in tension with leaving behind clean commits, and squashing resolves it.
The solution there is to make your commit history clean by rebasing it. I often end my day with a “partial changes done” commit and then the next day I’ll rebase it into several commits, or merge some of the changes into earlier commits.
Even if we squash it into main later, it’s helpful for reviewing.
At work there was only one way to test a feature, and that was to deploy it to our dev environment. The only way to deploy to dev was to check the repo into a branch, and deploy from that branch.
So one branch had 40x "Deploy to Dev" commits. And those got merged straight into the repo.
Good luck getting 100+ devs to all use the same logical commit style. And if tests fail in CI you get the inevitable "fix tests" commit in the branch, which now spams your main branch more than the meaningful changes. You could rebase the history by hand, but what's the point? You'd have to force push anyway. Squashing is the only practical method of clean history for large orgs.
Also rebasing is just so fraught with potential errors - every month or two, the devs who were rebasing would screw up some feature branch that they had work on they needed and would look to me to fix it for some reason. Such a time sink for so little benefit.
I eventually banned rebasing, force pushes, and mandated squash merges to main - and we magically stopped having any of these problems.
We squash, but still rebase. For us, this works quite well. As you said, rebasing needs to be done carefully... But the main history does look nice this way.
True but. There's a huge trade-off in time management.
I can spend hours OCDing over my git branch commit history.
-or-
I can spend those hours getting actual work done and squash at the end to clean up the disaster of commits I made along the way so I could easily roll back when needed.
Squash loses the commit history - all you end up with is merge merge merge
It's harder to debug as well (this 3000line commit has a change causing the bug... best of luck finding it AND why it was changed that way in the first place.
I, myself, prefer that people tidy up their branches such that their commits are clear on intent, and then rebase into main, with a merge commit at the tip (meaning that you can see the commits AND where the PR began/ended.
"squash results in a cleaner commit history" Isn't the commit history supposed to be the history of actual commits? I have never understood why people put so much effort into falsifying git commit histories.
Here is how I think of it. When I am actively developing a feature I commit a lot. I like the granularity at that stage and typically it is for an audience of 1 (me). I push these commits up in my feature branch as a sort of backup. At this stage it is really just whatever works for your process.
When I am ready to make my PR I delete my remote feature branch and then squash the commits. I can use all my granular commit comments to write a nice verbose comment for that squashed commit. Rarely I will have more than one commit if a user story was bigger than it should be. Usually this happens when more necessary work is discovered. At this stage each larger squashed commit is a fully complete change.
The audience for these commits is everyone who comes after me to look at this code. They aren’t interested in seeing it took me 10 commits to fix a test that only fails in a GitHub action runner. They want the final change with a descriptive commit description. Also if they need to port this change to an earlier release as a hotfix they know there is a single commit to cherry pick to bring in that change. They don’t need to go through that dev commit history to track it all down.
There are several valid reasons to "falsify" commit history.
- You need to remove trash commits that appear when you need to rerun CI.
- You need to remove commits with that extra change you forgot.
- You want to perform any other kind of rebase to clean up messages.
I assume in this thread some people mean squashing from the perspective of a system like Gitlab where it's done automatically, but for me squashing can mean simply running an interactive (or fixup) and leaving only important commits that provide meaningful information to the target branch.
“Falsifying” is complete hyperbole.
Git commit history is a tool and not everyone derives the same ROI from the effort of preserving it. Also squashing is pretty effortless.
Many games on GOG are at the tail end of their sales cycle (i.e. were released on Steam long ago) trying to eke out a few more sales, are from small indies for whom any attention at all is good attention, or are very old^H^H^Hclassic games that garner purchases for nostalgia's sake by older gamers that can afford more discretionary spending.
1) Modern games are enormous and as long as services like GOG let me re-download my library it frees up literally terabytes of space on my disk array for pirated movies and other things that benefit far more from piracy than games do.
2) I don’t want viruses. I don’t want viruses more than I want to avoid paying $1-$20 for a game (as if I’m anywhere near caught up enough on my backlog of games from the last 40ish years for buying games at full launch-week price to ever make sense, lol, I do that like… once every several years, all the rest are very cheap)
I have a standard English keyboard but I have mapped it in my mind with the German layout which includes ä, ö, ü and some other differences.
As long as I don’t actually look at the keys I can write really fast with it, years of practice I guess…
Escaping the internet on a luxury trip doesn’t disprove political conflict… it just shows how privilege can opt out of reality and sell the experience as clickbaity insight.
It's lame how a timeless Buddhist principle is derided as "privilege" by contemporary leftists. So closed minded and presumptuous towards something so effective and universally applicable.
My personal observation is that those with the least engage in this practice the most, partly because they don't have the bandwidth to bother. It's the middle and upper-middle class who are the terminally online cynics.
>My personal observation is that those with the least engage in this practice the most, partly because they don't have the bandwidth to bother. It's the middle and upper-middle class who are the terminally online cynics.
Look at what the people who were living high on the hog due to tax/graft/dysfunction before losing their heads in the french revolution got up to. Look at the rabbit holes minor British nobility went down. The current american upper-ish middle class is just another cover of the same stupid bad for everyone song.
You really should give specific examples of what the French elites or British nobility did if you want to use those as examples to write off an entire category of people today based solely on their economic position.
I didn't choose the comparison point because it is nonsensical, I chose it specifically because it is relevant.
The french first and second estates convinced the government to debt spend to high heaven in the proceeding years. And much of this spending benefitted them, the .gov going to war with the english and buying warships made with timber and nails they made money off of for example. They also were exempt from the bulk of the taxation and they in turn got to levy their own taxes to a degree. So a lot of them got quite rich over that time as the normal people got hungrier and hungrier.
It's a very good parallel to how the white collar class in the US peddled all sorts of changes to policy and the economy to their relative benefit at the detriment of the industrial and skilled services economy which either got sold overseas or consolidated and financialized to the benefit of the the professional managerial types and white collar workers (and of course the CEOs and whatnot too) and to the detriment of the common man who winds up driving for uber because the factory that employed him went poof.
In what way is hopping on a plane to an island retreat for a week a “timeless Buddhist principle”?
And immediately shilling your next commercial project while you’re at it?
Sounds more like a timeless US-American practice.
Thanks for sharing your personal experience - I do agree that the middle class is the most anxious; anxious about dropping lower and levelling up at the same time.
Terminally online though seems to be a pretty common thing across all classes - just look at Trump or Musk tweeting every 5 minutes…
Yes, exactly. Op escaped because he can allow himself to. He is wealthy and well educated also - knows what a disconnect means and is able to pay for a pricey trip to end of the world why his affairs cater to themselves.
It’s perhaps less than 0.001% of the population that can allow themselves to do it.
Why does it take a trip to the Galapagos to disconnect though? We could just as easily block access to all our socials (including HN) for a week and probably still do fine at our jobs.
Not "privilege" per se, I think that's the wrong word. Republican or Democrat, left or right, rich or very very rich - there is a lot of self-selection bias in judging the world from a pool of people who decided to go on vacation to the Galapagos...
Isn't that exactly what privilege is though? A measure of a person's ability to be part of that self-selected pool, and to shield yourself from issues that affect other people?
"Privilege" has sort of morphed in an mostly-untouchable insult and I don't think it means very much of anything any longer and should not be used. What it means in practice:
- You can't have an opinion because you're in the wrong group.
- Your opinion is wrong because you're in the wrong group.
- Your opinion is hypocritical (and therefore wrong) because of the group you're in.
It's a big step back with regard to argumentation. Ideas are either correct or not, and the fact that they came from someone who might have some advantages does not weigh in on this.
I've not noticed that change in my own conversations, where privilege maintains its pretty clear definition. Maybe you need to find better conversation partners? Or perhaps you're misunderstanding the criticisms that people have of what you're saying?
I like both the options you've proposed for me: either I only speak with awful people, or else I'm always wrong. I'm sure it's one of those two options.
I'm being snarky there, but I've genuinely never seen people make the arguments you're talking about in real life, and I run in some fairly lefty circles. Maybe online, but even then I rarely see people actually trying to argue that privilege has anything to do with the validity of people's opinions. More common is the idea that we need to better promote the voices of those with less privilege, which I don't see as being a particularly objectionable idea.
The only place I regularly see the points you mention are in the opinion pieces of certain types of pundits who like to peddle outrage and invent menaces that don't exist. They regularly tell me that people say those sorts of things, but rarely seem to be able to provide receipts.
Googling it, looks like the trip costs around $6.5k for 2 people for a week. Expensive, but not out of reach for most Americans.
I mean we're on HN... if anything we're more likely to be in a wealthy bubble here. On average. There's plenty outside Silicon Valley but this place is a bubble too.
The US doesn't mandate any vacation or sick leave days, so a huge chunk of the population can't even get a week off work, much less afford $4k per person.
I live in the US and I've worked minimum wage jobs for half my life. By minimum wage I mean where they only give you 29 hrs a week to avoid risking you become full time and you have to work two.
Yet, I've always been able to take time off if I really press for it.
You're absolutely right that it's not easy and harder than the average crowd here but it's far from out of reach.
Also, you hiked up the price by 20% by rounding in the wrong direction. While Americans don't have mandated vacation most Americans have access to PTO. You don't need to exaggerate problems to be able to discuss them. It only makes them harder to discuss and easier to dismiss
How often can you get that week off? Most people I know working in the service industry have to fight to get that even once a year. Hopefully someone's OK not going home and seeing their family in a year to take a vacation like this. Hopefully they don't get sick and need the week for that.
To the cost: $6500 for two is low. Just getting there will be a significant amount, especially if you don't live in a major travel hub like LA or NYC.
"My Galapagos excursion took place on a boat with over a dozen other travelers."
The absolute cheapest is the 100-passsenger Galapagos Legend at $2000 per person for 4 days, 3 nights - but a flight to Baltra Airport from, say, Pittsburgh will add another $1800 per person, and even from Chicago it's $1500 on a mix of airlines.
If you want a small ship with only a dozen others it will be significantly more expensive. If you want a week on something of that size you're looking at $4700 per person and up - plus travel. https://www.galapagosislands.com/cruises/catamaran/tiptop-ii
I would imagine the set of people who would spend $4K per person on a week in the Galapagos does not contain very many people who don’t have 3 weeks of vacation per year (or are retired).
That's definitely out of reach of most Americans. I live in rural America, and am pretty active in my community. I can thing of 2 or 3 couples besides myself who could make a trip like that reality. We are all remote-workers working in software.
- Median bank account balances in the U.S. range from $5,400 for those under 35
- ... $13,400 for ages 65–74
So yeah, in range.
Does it require saving? Yes. But most Americans go on vacation each year. Give up the cost of a few years of vacations and you have this one.
I want to stress "not out of reach" doesn't mean easy. It explicitly doesn't mean one doesn't have to reach. I'd have said something very different if I meant most Americans could easily go on that trip. I specifically mean if it's something they really wanted to do, enough to save over a few years (or more) then that's something that could be accomplished.
It's definitely privileged to take a trip to the Galapagos, but I don't think it's privileged to ignore the news. A lot of poor people ignore the news. They may be too busy, or they may feel powerless to change anything. I think the real question is what exactly this entirely content-free statement means: "I’ll be focusing more on stories that actually matter instead of chasing the flash-in-the-pan ephemera that nobody remembers the next week."
The point is that 90% of the news is unimportant. Often you can read a weekly and that is enough
A politician said something and other politicians reacted. Usually unimportant unless it was backed by a law or something. If it was important then the weekly will cover it.
Main Character of the day on Social media. unimportant
A crime happened nearby. Unimportant
A celeb did something. Unimportant
Something happened to random person. Unimportant
Sport result. If you follow that team you already know, if not then not important.
Seriously go to the front page of the New York times or some other outfit and count the stories that you needed to read today.
All of this is very easy to filter out while browsing the internet. Not when you are speaking with actual persons. Believe or not, there are still people who watch television and believe in old media.
Television teaches them that the proper response to someone disagreeing is to get angry and shout when the opposing party tries to explain their point of view. Something that is useless or even technically impossible in anonymous net forums.
If you look at the old media, important decisions are mentioned but completely ignored after someone has said something offensive or an accident happened somewhere.
Social media is people and people are the problem, not technology or anonymity. Everyone who has spent Christmas with relatives knows this.
I guess I would always wonder who's paying them. YouTube doesn't pay them a salary so is it the ads or is this one side of the story paying for exposure
I think OP's point is that if your life is so blessed that "90% of the news is unimportant to you" then that itself is a great, fortunate privilege.
For example, I can tell you that if you are an immigrant in the USA from one of the (now many) targeted countries, even one with legal residency, news about ICE's actions is very relevant and very important to you.
> For example, I can tell you that if you are an immigrant in the USA from one of the (now many) targeted countries, even one with legal residency, news about ICE's actions is very relevant and very important to you.
Exactly. There's a post from last week on how media/journalism became more entertainment than information, and I think the complete opposite of the first reply: If you have bandwidth and time to consume most of those "world news", then you're the privileged.
One example: In Germany if you watch/read the state regional public broadcast from Berlin[1] for 2 days you will learn more about the whereabouts of Donald Trump, the President of Ukraine, sports news, or some broad reporting about "cultural" aspect of the city (e.g. about Hildegard Knef, something about Karl Lagerfeld and so on), or general gossip.
The city itself has fewer private investments than 5 years, the schools lack basic infrastructure, educational ratings are dropping, delays in public transportation, the hospitals are lacking personnel, 10% unemployment, and an awful housing situation, squeezing the working people.
[1] - I'm totally in favor of public broadcasting that comes from the principle called "broadcast what you want to become or aspire to be" that is more focused on factual journalism (i.e., no commentary), educational programs (especially with Public Universities STEM lectures being broadcasted), educational cartoons, classic music and orchestras, and space/nature/technology documentaries.
> ICE's actions is very relevant and very important to you.
Maybe the first few stories are, but what past masked goons throwing up Nazi salutes and sending people to foreign labor camps do you need to keep up on? If you're into politics, then sure, but your average Joe probably doesn't need to know that they're, yet again, terrorizing people and acting like a secret police force.
Are we forgetting that this specific policy we are discussing was voted in by the public and won the popular vote barely more than a year ago?
I think if more people were legitimately better educated and informed that outcome might not have happened.
The problem is…who is doing the informing and educating? Oftentimes the sources taking up that role are doing so with motives that are not in the people’s best interests.
Wow. Great. Which term is our President on again and can you confirm that time flows linearly and cannot, in fact, flow backwards to undo the election?
The public has no ability to affect change on the policy this Presidency makes. Especially not the public that is predisposed to dislike the President.
This is sadistic and selfish to believe the public must be relentlessly informed of these individual policies that they cannot do anything about. Anything they are informed about present day will almost certainly be forgotten years down the line. But they'll be stressed and unhappy along the way.
Well now you’re moving goalposts by adding specific time periods as qualifiers. So when you made your original statement, you meant to say that the ability to affect change ended recently? And now “This is foisting misery on people who have no capacity to affect change.”
Well, even that isn’t true. The congressional midterms are next year. Control over congress is on the ballot. Turnout will be the decider as it always is.
If “did not vote” was a candidate, it often wins elections.
In addition, local politics happen every year with higher levels of influence per person, and they often directly affect individuals more than national politics.
Going around telling people they have no impact guarantees that outcome.
Considering time does, in fact, move linearly and only in one direction - it's a default. Not a moved goalpost.
And referring to the present in contrast with the next Presidential election - an event thematically related to the previous Presidential election that you referenced - it seemed relevant.
As for what people need to be informed about - they'll inform themselves via increased prices on just about everything due to tarriffs + continued lowered interest rates despite notable inflationary pressures.
I maintain it is cruel to relentlessly and aggressively inform people of the horrors of the world that they - and I repeat myself - cannot do anything about. From news media fewer and fewer trust every year.
If you were right, it wouldn't be so egregious. Unfortunately, due to lower hiring standards, expedited processes, and a general nonchalance towards the law, plenty of legal immigrants, green card holders, and even natural-born citizens have been wrongfully arrested by ICE because they fit the profile of who they're looking for. Just look up "ICE deports legal immigrant", and you'll find dozens and dozens of stories about various cases involving it.
And regardless of if it's intentional, if it's negligence, if it's just an acceptable margin of error, either way, if you're a legal immigrant, you very much do still have to worry about ICE.
Categorically false. You might need to brush up on current events regarding ICE actions being taken against legal permanent residents and even US Citizens.
This is a lie. I call this a lie because you should know better if you are informed on this subject. I assume that one would be informed to make a statement such as yours.
There are legal immigrants being detained in secrecy for weeks on end with no due process, today, in this country. It is not made up, it is easily verifiable with a quick internet search and a look into one of multiple stories available.
“Lie”
I suggest not just reading clickbait headlines. Read the last 2 or 3 paragraphs of story where the writers often bury the inconvenient facts. Such as charges that would invalidate a legal immigrant’s status.
Millions of people who are from other countries are living perfectly fine in the US and not hiding in fear.
That's just it though, the "news" is not providing valuable information to the majority of people, it's mostly a series of takes designed to fit into easily digestible narratives so they can attract enough viewers to survive as a business.
99.9% of people would be better voters if they put five hours a week toward reading about and better understanding shit from an undergrad liberal arts program (history, political philosophy, statistics, media studies, basic physical science, economics) and five hours a year into catching up on the news, than vice versa.
Increase education funding, mandate a couple of levels of free choice liberal arts/philosophy type courses to ensure people have to expand their thinking a little, focus on critical thinking and media analysis skills in primary and secondary education - not as the main focus but certainly as important, civic building classes.
News media gets harsh anti-monopoly rules: no more billionaires owning every station in every jurisdiction, in fact no more conglomerates whatsoever. More independent funding for local news: I'm content for a bunch of these to go bankrupt on a regular basis but we'll sponsor more people putting out independent journalism.
At an international scale spin off an entity like the Federal Reserve which would be the Federal International Reporting Bureau with some iron clad rules about funding changes and the sole mission to baseline the availability of boots-on-the-ground international journalism, with a mission charter the citizenry must have accurate reporting to understand how they will choose leaders to guide international politics. This one would be tricky to get right, I suspect you'd probably end up tying resource allocation to government funding alotments and the like via some automatic mechanisms.
The first and last are probably pie in the sky: really let's start by shredding a couple of media empires into 50 different fiefdoms and let them battle it out for views, but there'll be no more mergers or cross-media ownership that's for sure.
Personally I'm all for breaking up the media conglomerates. Especially the news. There is a tremendous amount of group-think from professional elites who all goto the same universities and then go work in the same newsrooms. When combined with endless M&A it creates insular monoculture with low tolerance for opposing views in most of these news outlets.
> At an international scale spin off an entity like the Federal Reserve which would be the Federal International Reporting Bureau with some iron clad rules about funding changes and the sole mission to baseline the availability of boots-on-the-ground international journalism
That sounds great in theory, but given the recent scandals at the BBC and uncovering of systematic bias there we can see how fragile such institutions can be. Even without M&A driving it the BBC has become a primarily leftist monoculture.
> Increase education funding, mandate a couple of levels of free choice liberal arts/philosophy type courses to ensure people have to expand their thinking a little
Sounds great, but also prone to systemic bias. Universities in general have become echo chambers in liberal arts departments.
Perhaps combine that with options for doing national service of some sort that would balance out education. Afterall, classroom learning only gives one aspect of life and experience. Often just exposing people to new places and environments broadens their outlooks.
German peasants in the 17th century seemed to manage just fine without 24/7 news coverage.
Almost all news that's actually important - that might actually affect your life - will find you one way or another. Most news isn't important (eg sports drama). Or it isn't urgent (eg tariff news). Or both, like celebrity gossip.
Only a vanishingly small percentage of news is both urgent and important. And there's plenty of people in my life who would tell me if - for example - we needed to evacuate the city due to a fire.
Really. You can switch off. It'll be ok. Try it, and you'll see.
He referred to the Thirty Years War where instead of doomscrolling the peasant especially living in southwestern Germany would get his war news by getting killed or starved and his home burned down.
I ignore the news a lot too. For the reasons you mention, I can't change anything and it only makes me angry seeing all the far right nonsense happening. There's no point anymore. I just follow the tech news now. It does lead to me being out of touch with some local stuff though but who cares. I'm in some pretty niche communities anyway so what goes on in the mainstream isn't that relevant to me.
It's important to have principles and to speak up for them around others, and to get your information from sources of truth.
But it is not important for most people to be plugged into a news mainline every day to read about the latest absurdity of our flailing country. Until or unless there is mass unrest and sustained protests or a general strike, the only thing we can do is vote and boycott, and if you live in a swing district or state, write a politician.
I think "escaping the internet" by stopping news consumption most of the week would benefit most of us, rich and poor, all races, unless you need realtime updates for your safety.
Finishing my PhD I kinda did this same disconnect. Only really getting news by word of mouth or maybe weekly checking Reuters front page. Effectively quit Twitter and BlueSky. It's about a year since I started and I don't regret it for a second. I rarely feel like I've missed something important. Honestly, if it it's important then people will be talking about it.
I'm on HN more now and honestly a bit disappointed with myself for that but even here is less baity than social media and news. It's easier to select topics as well. I just feel myself get angry when I get on those platforms and it reminds me to get off.
can a poor person not disconnect in the same way? I think plenty already do without meaning too, lots of tech-illiterate truck drivers and construction workers with flip phones.
Exactly. People who are stupid enough to afford dysfunction peddle stupid policy that makes everyone's lives worse. They don't care because they're not affected and when they are it's not bad enough to make them question the beliefs that got there.
All the stuff the "rich but not nobility" people did to pour gas on the fire in the lead up to the french revolution is a good comparison point IMO.
As with all addictive goods, the evidence will show that socio-economic factors influence the degree of psychological healthy/unhealthy or growth focused use of a medium/substance.
Smart phones are ubiquitous, and influencer is a key path for many to try and move out of their economic bracket.
Interesting. I live in a pretty rural part of the US, most of the people I know around here in construction have been doing well the last few years. That could always change, housing sure seems like a bubble today, but so far they've mostly been finding as much work as they can handle.
Technically you don't even need a flip phone to disconnect from the media and the news. Plenty of people have smartphone but choose not to care about what happens in the world, at least what we have no say in it.
Although if I was American, I think I'd be pretty interested (worried) in what my country is becoming under Trump presidency.
But then, until the elections there is not much one can do.
The people in this thread coming to the defense of their CEOs sound like Tom Smykowski in Office Space desperately trying to save his job:
“I already told you: I deal with the god damn customers so the engineers don't have to. I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people.”
I don't get what you mean. There are people who are great at bridging the customer-engineering gap. (Although we don't know what Tom was really like with customers) There's skill to that kind of position. Bobs were the stereotypical consultants brought in to change things and cut costs without understanding the actual work. What does this have to do with defending CEOs?
We do know that Tom actually didn’t really do anything, all the real work was done by his underlings.
Similar to what most CEOs do.
Of course it’s not always true, but like Christine Carrillo in the article i think it’s not a stretch to say that most CEOs don’t do that much; certainly not enough to warrant being paid 1000 times what their menials make
> Although we don't know what Tom was really like with customers
The movie makes it quite clear, actually.
The Bobs were actually way better than the stereotypical layoff consultants. They even caught on the crazy management chain and the busywork generated by TPS reports. Sure they wanted to layoff good engineers, but doesn't invalidate the actual good findings.
Did we ever see him interacting with a customer? I don't remember that part and I can't find any clip of it. We see him in many other situations. We know he was not respected and was a weirdo in many ways, but that doesn't say anything about the quality of his customer communication.
"Hard headed", "not a cheap date", "not a lightweight"? Hard to say if increased tolerance is good or bad (especially if we're uncertain about how addictiveness/susceptibility to addictive behavior it passed)
I get that saying “boomer ruined the world for all the generations afterwards” is an insult, but the word itself is now considered an insult?
Genuinely asking here; the constantly shifting landscape of what one is allowed to say when talking to US Americans is a bit hard for me to navigate and I currently only have online discourse as guidepost (which is like 1000% more toxic)
Your question is disingenuous, as the word "boomer" didn't appear isolated with no context. The statement was "the baby acts like a boomer", which clearly has a pejorative connotation--you yourself recognized this when you asked "Which demographic was casually insulted here? The babies/third children?" ... it's not even possible to think that babies are being insulted without thinking that saying they're like boomers is insulting. As I said, that seems to be an unquestioned assumption.
As I said elsewhere, there is no single way that boomers behave. Boomers are simply people born in the post-war boom, from 1946-1964, and they display a huge range of traits. Virtually all statements referring to boomers collectively that aren't purely statistical are pejorative--ageist bigotry.
> what one is allowed to say
This oft repeated nonsense is bad faith. You're allowed to say whatever you want, and people are allowed to respond.
How does “the baby acts like a boomer” have negative connotations?
Sounds like you are personally offended that the word “boomer” exists and projecting here.
> you yourself recognized this when you asked "Which demographic was casually insulted here
I asked this because boomer was the only possible demographic in GPs post, not because I think the term boomer is pejorative in itself. Chilling and ambition are obviously not demographics but qualities.
> This oft repeated nonsense is bad faith. You're allowed to say whatever you want, and people are allowed to respond.
If you want to go there, this argument is bad faith as well… of course I can say anything, but you seem to be personally offended that the term boomer exists and I simply don’t understand why.
> all statements referring to boomers collectively that aren't purely statistical are pejorative
Is that true for every other age group, so for example is every statement that refers to “millennials” or “zoomers” automatically pejorative and ageist?
> Virtually all statements referring to boomers collectively that aren't purely statistical are pejorative--ageist bigotry.
It's not ageist to have complaints against a specific generation, not the one before, not the one after, with those complaints sticking to that generation as their age changes.
(Whether those complaints are right or wrong on a statistical level is a different issue.)
Fine, it's some other sort of stupid ignorant intellectually dishonest bigotry. (Most of the people who get attacked as boomers are actually in the generation before them.)
> Whether those complaints are right or wrong on a statistical level is a different issue.
Only because you have made it one. The word "ageist" was the least part of my comment (but there is in fact a strong ageist element to the pejorative use of the term, contrary to your mischaracterization of the realities of its use ... notably, the people who use it are younger, never older, and have not used it throughout time--they couldn't, as they weren't even born when boomers arrived on the scene and for decades afterwards).
It is actually extremely common in Europe (as I linked to in a sibling chat), with 30-40% of kids having it at any time.
With those rates, my guess is that you probably had it several times, but just thought your bum was itching for no reason (or you were one of the asymptomatic cases). I think the awareness of it has gone up, now it's common to let the kindergarten know if you suspect it in your child, and they send a message to the other parents.
To be blunt you do not get it from eating cookies in sand. You get it from ingesting pinworm eggs, you ingest them by someone touching their bum (where the worms lay eggs) and then touching something that you then touch and touch your face/mouth, or scratching your own bum in your sleep then scratching your face / mouth.
If you don’t think it’s super commen in Europe it’s generally a lack of diagnoses. Literally 1/5th
Of British kids have it at any given time (and I imagine that tracks across Europe and USA at least)
In most cases you can’t use the device without agreeing to the terms of service right?
For example a service I use a lot recently changed their terms of service - there was no way to keep using the service without agreeing.
Might be different for devices or services that don’t need internet to function; but even for those you have some “activation” step nowadays that forces you to agree before “unlocking”
Just imagine how different the world would be if this wasn't allowed and any time a ToS was pushed out like this the user had the option to offer a counter ToS and the company must have a human look it over and agree/disagree within a set period of time.
Then there is something wrong with our legal system if only one portion of the population seems to be able to avail themselves of contracts. Seems like a failure of the entire legal apparatus. No more ToS.
> Who agreed to that ToS ? Abby McAbbott ? With no phone number ? A throwaway email address ?
I don’t think this matters in the way you think it does. If they can demonstrate that you have to click through the ToS to use the device and app, then the burden would be on you to show that you did not accept the ToS to use the device. But therein lies the catch: If you found a way to circumvent their setup process, you wouldn’t be using the device as designed or intended.
"If they can demonstrate that you have to click through the ToS to use the device and app ..."
There's nothing to demonstrate. We will have no interactions.
The op implied (probably correctly) that their ToS is toxic. I am pointing out that there is no reason for you to enter into that ToS.
Are you suggesting that I, an anonymous piggyback user of their service, would blow up my anonymity (and all of the protections and peace of mind that it affords) by attempting to reestablish some form of legal contact ?
No. It's easy come, easy go and that's just fine with me.
> There's nothing to demonstrate. We will have no interactions.
Ok? Then it doesn’t matter if you accept or not.
The ToS doesn’t come into play unless there’s legal action. If you’re never going to enter into legal action with the company then it doesn’t matter if you accept the ToS or not.
> If you found a way to circumvent their setup process, you wouldn’t be using the device as designed or intended.
Liability in civil court is not as simple as you posit. Severability and judge discretion are but 2 ways that immediately can invalidate this line of argument. The cause of actual damages are almost always scrutinized, meaning the company would have to prove that the legal agreement could somehow have prevented the damage. Courtrooms are often mischaracterized as following robotic rules and precedence to ill-effect, as if there aren't people in the courtroom using good judgement. This is largely because those cases are the ones most publicized, not because it's the norm.
That’s orthogonal to the comment I’m responding to. The parent commenter was claiming that because they left a device in airplane mode when they accepted the ToS, it doesn’t count. Like it’s a loophole that allows one to accept it but not have it count.
The actual terms of the ToS will always be evaluated in court. You can’t, however, go into court and argue that the ToS doesn’t apply because you put a fake name into the app and left it in airplane mode.
You also wouldn’t get anywhere if you bought their device but used it with your own reverse engineered app or something, as the app is considered part of the product.
Doesn't really work that way. If you want to sue Abbot, then you have to reveal yourself. At which point, it will be clear that you were in fact using the product and did in fact agree to the ToS. If you never sue Abbot, then sure. But then it doesn't matter.
Part of the benefit of CGM’s is you can automatically load your readings to your doctor. I have a T1 child, so when I call with a problem I can get quick answers.
Related, Abbot previously had problems with their freestyle lite test strips. There were lawsuits, fines and most insurance dropped them from their covered diabetic suppliers.
reply