Its funny that it got labelled piracy like how pirates used to sail up to poor defenseless ships, forcefully board them and then copy the entire ship and sail away with the copy leaving the original ship to go on its way.
Nope, it's all 4 serial ports on my desktop PC... ugh.
Also, tell your city council that you want directional lights pointed DOWN, and not directing a bunch of wasted light into the sky. It's cheaper AND it preserves our night skies.
A set of twins as an xmas gift. This painting was cut in half so each owner could have the art of their twin mailed to them. They will be made whole again when the two owners meet in person at a future date.
Each half is 4"x6". I really like doing these symmetrical cut-apart paintings. I'll post pics of the ready-to-mail cards later once I get them prepped.
git changing master to main by default
The argument against the word "master" is based on the unproven assumption that the term is loaded with racist connotations, and the mandate for change is based on the fact that the possibility of the assumption's truth is nonzero and that the side-effects of the change are small.
If that were true, I would be on board with it. However, it's plainly clear that the impact of git upstream switching the default branch name to "main" is going to be huge. Many scripts with the "master" hard-coded are going to break, scripts written on the valid assumption that the name "master" was an intrinsic, unchanging property of git.
Every programmer who works with repositories before and after the change are going to constantly mis-remember which is which, and we'll have to guess at the default when working with new or unfamiliar repositories.
This event is going to establish a new epoch in git. We should take that seriously.
Which means we have to confront the fact that the assumption (that inherent racism is present in the word "master" and is causing harm to those who have suffered under racism) may not actually be true. The claims do not hold up well under scrutiny. And, as far as I can tell, the cause is championed disproportionately by white people.
The moralized nature of the question puts an external pressure on decision makers on the git project, which is normally not present for other patches. They have to consider, if they review these changes negatively, will it affect their personal reputation? Their careers? If there's even a slight chance of this, is it better not to argue the matter at all, and rubber-stamp the patches? I don't think this change is being developed under the right conditions.
On the left, we have a tendency to rubber-stamp social causes with a lesser degree of scrutiny. I think that this is a testament to how much we value empathy and solidarity, but I don't think it's a healthy way to approach our problems. Software breakage has a social cost, too.
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!