But to me, what matters is the actual change to main/master at the time the thing is merged — that is what affects the team.
Totally agree, if the developper goes in wrong product direction at the beginning and add 10 additional commits afterwards: team + 6 month actually don't care about it.
I certainly see no point in merging it in when it based on an ancient ancestor
If you want the CI to run, before the merge on the result it will produce on main branch ?
To some extent Tesla could be Starlink's AWS. Every Tesla user could be a potential starlink customer. Could we even imagine a more efficient data collection?
The service isn't expected to work very well in the urban areas where I assume most current Tesla owners live, so I'm not sure this is a particularly natural fit. Also, it requires a bulky receiver.
We are using ActiveAdmin to manage our backoffice since few years, but we are facing some issue, especially in dev env, where the more you have models, the slower will be hot reloading of the code.
Before considering to kill it to create a new backoffice in our rails app from scratch, I wonder if some HN people faced these issue and found some best practice to put AA at scale.
"Why does working longer hours not improve the situation? Because working longer makes you less productive at the same time that it encourages bad practices by your boss. Working fewer hours does the opposite."
This is evidence? Working fewer hours than what? There is obviously a point where your productivity drops off, but that doesn't mean you are producing less work overall.
What I would like to see is tangible evidence. Perhaps analyzing Jira for several companies to see the effort put into projects vs the overall productivity. Maybe set the baseline at the 40 hour week and analyze a few different chunks like 30, 35, 45, 50, and 60 hours per week. Without some sort of analysis like this all we have pure conjecture, and no way to understand where a reasonable cutoff should be.
I agree. Things like having the weekends free and getting enough sleep are really important for having a sustainable working life. But that does not mean working 35 hours per week is a must or 40 hours is a natural limit, for example 9 AM to 8 PM from Monday-Friday is a 50 hour workweek and easily sustainable. The norm in industries like banking, big law firms or management consulting is more like a 60-70 hour work week and while it is obviously not desirable, there are many people who can do it for many years.
Pretty funny how an ambiguous date format ("1/5/10") led to two interpretations of how long ago this was (6 or 10 years ago).
To clarify: at the time of initially writing this comment, there were only two comments in this thread: the parent of this comment, which said it was 6 years ago; and another, which said it was 10 years ago. I don't know or care whether it was legitimate for either to come to the conclusion they did, I just thought it was funny, and that it was most likely due to the super-short date format inside the link. Can we move on please?
Sorry, I understand that different locales use different orderings, and I scanned that chart, but I still don't see how "1/5/10" could have anything but the "10" refer to the year. Is there a country that uses one-digit years in their dates (unless referring to 1AD or 5AD)?
South Africa use the Year/Month/Day order, and if one assumes these strings were converted to integers and that the conversion implies any number of preceding zeros are ignored, then that could be 10th of May 2001
I use year/month/day order too (so does ISO) but we all pad out our years to 2 or 4 digits.
If the only way to interpret "1/5/10" as 2001 is to assume the formatting is hosed, then I guess one could also assume the character encoding was mangled and the bytes for "1" and "5" should perhaps be in a crazy encoding (think ebcdic on steroids) that maps them to "7" and "-2".
So I guess assuming the date "1/5/10" could refer to the year 2BC is about as logical as assuming it could refer to 2001?
And the 10th of May, 2001, wasn't 10 years ago anyway (not that it is relevant)...
My all-time favourite was .NET running in a Thai locale interpreting standard "completely unambiguous" ISO yyyy-MM-dd as a Buddhist calendar year, i.e. Gregorian year + 543. Hilarity ensued.
> YMD is only plausible if the first number is 2-digits or 4-digits. How is "1" a year?
During the first decade of the 21st Century, I regularly encountered dates, especially handwritten, with single digit years, because some people first reduce to a two-digit year when writing dates, but then -- as with any other number -- leave off leading zeros.
The date in question ("1/5/10") was formatted by a computer, so hand-written dates seem pretty far off topic.
But even ignoring that, I've never ever seen a single person write a single-digit year. Not alone ("I graduated in 1" vs "I graduated in 2001"), not in dates ("August 7, 1" vs "August 7, 2001"), not anywhere.
The single digits in the date are not prefixed with a zero. So "1" could be interpreted as 2001. Why would the first digit be prefixed with zero but not the middle digit ("5").
