My point is really that the default --force is dangerous for new/sleep deprived users, or ones that kinda understand but don't - where as --force-with-lease is not and is always safe. --force-with-lease should just be default
This probably should be the default in git (as in there should be a `git push --force-without-lease` instead) and asks git to make sure the commits locally on your branch are up-to-date with those on remote/origin. It then fails if you try to overwrite commits that you haven't seen, and has saved me a few times when working between computers on the same project when i could have lost history on the remote that i failed to fetch.
This looks like a web service framework, rather than a web application framework like Rails/Django. Like it's closer to Sinatra/Express than Rails -
The speed of Rails comes with rapid development & strong conventions leaving the important stuff (like business logic and building something) to you.
Once you get to a size where scale is an issue with Rails, you'll have a startup that's working - it's a better problem to have than a startup that has perfect fast code but no customers.
I had a blip about 40 minutes ago for around 4 minutes, where an internal IP for a redis server failed to connect, and didn't failover to the backup node... which is just excellent.
I use it for Rails, and the most use I get out of it is with RSpec testing - tests with already descriptive spec names, it guesses correctly like 95% of the time what I was going to write anyway.
It's less useful around view code, but controllers/models it can be somewhat useful too. But to be honest, I'm happy to pay the price to let it write some specs for me
*elected* politicians is the key. The member states voted them in, they have a democratic mandate. No one running these companies have anywhere near the same level of responsibility to people as someone that's actually elected.
This is just another regulation on that free market, decided for by democratically elected people and not by the companies choosing not to be regulated.
The cargo-cult religion is unfortunately back by science and years of study and agreement amongst scientists - human activity is causing climate change and global warming. You sound like you haven't accepted this fact based reality that we live in and are a part of.
Climate change is our fault, and we have to stop it, there is no other alternative that also includes life continuing on earth as we know it. This change is already happening, it's not hypothetical. Global systems are already being affected, extreme weather and drought more common. Global temperature change has to be kept as low as possible, or we risk crop failure, famine and mass immigration at a scale that has never been seen.
I understand there are huge logistical issues with shifting off fossil fuels, but we as humans have to. We can get to the moon, we can stop burning old dinosaurs & plants to make stuff work. Even without climate change, these resources are finite. Are you just going to accept waiting for all the oil to run out before making plastic tubes from something else? The clue is in the name fossil, they take millions of years to produce and are non-renewable.
You can think of me as a green psychopath all you like, but it doesn't change the cold hard facts. I hope my reply isn't high-intensity BS.
I hear this view a lot - my main rebuttal is 'but can't top up your car with petrol/gas/diesel at home either'.
The infra around EV charging needs to be much much better, I totally agree with this, but the idea that everyone will be able to charge their cars at home just isn't going to happen