When working on a feature branch it can be useful to break up your changes into logical commits. This gives you the flexibility to roll back to an earlier iteration when still working on the feature if needed.
One of my git habits is to git reset the entire feature branch just before opening a PR, then rebuild it with carefully crafted commits, where i try to make each commit one "step" towards building the feature. This forces me to review every change one last time and then the person doing code review can also follow this progression.
These benefits hold even if the branch ultimately gets squashed when merging into main/master. I also found that even if you squash when merging you can still browse back to the PR in your git repository web UI and still see the full commit history there.
> I realize you are probably using bitwarden directly, in which case don’t you trust them to safeguard your data?
Yes i use bitwarden directly, no self hosting. I do trust them keep my data safe (although i also trusted LastPass at some point, big mistake) but why not also keep a local copy, just in case. The type of data you store in bitwarden is worth the hassle and if Bitwarden Inc. ever gets into big trouble suddenly you'll be glad to have the backup.
Information wants to be free but might be losing the battle regardless. The siren call of centralization lures in too many people who only realize the implications when it's too late.
On most projects and topics i work on i keep personal notes. Sometimes i copy entire pieces of information from websites into my notes so that i don't lose it when the website dies. Any interesting webpage i at least archive through both archive.today and archive.org. Eventually i might look into taking that locally as well.
> "The network, owned by a Dutchman named Danny Manupassa, had made a spectacular bungle: it had stored the private keys for the system on the same server as the network’s messages. Analysts in the Netherlands obtained the private keys and then used them to decrypt Ennetcom texts."
Not your keys not your comms. But even then then, apply defense in depth.
> "Sky’s messages ran on a different system than EncroChat’s, and it was more difficult to infect the network with bulk malware. Instead, someone with knowledge of the investigation told me, analysts seem to have launched a “protocol attack” that deceived handsets into revealing their private keys."
It's a theory by wealth manager Brent Johnson that the next big recession will trigger an enormous demand for dollars. The dollar will rise against most other currencies and non-US bonds thus sucking up all the liquidity (that's the milkshake part).
He's been on many podcasts to explain his theory and provide updates. I will link you an interview at realvision from september 2020 timestamped at 51:55 where he goes through it in summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_HCIyc6MaA&t=51m55s
Hey NY Times, now do an article on clothes dryers which use 4x more energy than the BTC network[1][2] while air-drying can do it without any electricity.
The dominant position of the USD on the world stage also might have something to do with the USA having deployed military to more than 150 countries at once and their involvement in regime changes all over the world.
Meanwhile the FED heroically partakes in piling on debt for the futures generations.
Your post seems to have an undertone of nervousness about the exchange rate of USD/cryptocurrency which is understandable in the middle of this bull market. In my opinion bitcoin is a revolution disguised as a get-rich-quick scheme. A whale liquidating lots of BTC sounds like a sweet bargain to me. BTC has a capped supply so they will run out of steam at some point.
Due to game theory mechanics most network participants have an incentive to play by the rules and agree on rules that are as fair as possible. A hard fork has to be embraced by the majority of the users to be accepted. It's not just the miners or the whales who decide the rules.
Of course there are countless of cryptocurrencies in use right now of which most are doomed to fail (maybe even all but one are doomed to fail).
In a world where the Fedcoin and e-euro are commonplace, having access to a decentralized money system not tied to the whims of politics would really matter to me.
This article seems to focus on clean code not having a significant effect on the software in production for the experience of the end user.
One example where I have experienced the benefits of a clean codebase is when onboarding new developers. It takes a few days of handholding but once they've started working with the code there's very little room for gotcha situations where they get stuck or inadvertently introduce bugs due to being misdirected by the code that was already there.
One of my git habits is to git reset the entire feature branch just before opening a PR, then rebuild it with carefully crafted commits, where i try to make each commit one "step" towards building the feature. This forces me to review every change one last time and then the person doing code review can also follow this progression.
These benefits hold even if the branch ultimately gets squashed when merging into main/master. I also found that even if you squash when merging you can still browse back to the PR in your git repository web UI and still see the full commit history there.