You may be surprised to hear that many people work to make a living and then just go home. Not every employee has to drink the kool aid to make a living.
You can. But this makes intent clear. If you clone a git repo and see build/ with only a gitkeep, you are safe to bet your life savings on that being the compiled assets dir.
Yeah... I don't think you were wrong. Having 100 tiny gitignores makes finding out why something is excluded annoying. Our policy is one root level gitgnore and gitkeeps where required.
Some devs will just open the first gitignore they see and throw stuff into it. No thank you.
I like to make a .local folder at the top of the project, which contains a .gitignore that ignores everything. Then I can effortlessly stash my development notes there without affecting the project .gitignore or messing around within the .git directory.
You can create a global gitignore in your home directory. I have ‘.<myname>’ ignored there, so if I ever create a directory with that name I know it’s contents won’t go into source control. That way I don’t have to edit the repositories gitignore with me-specific stuff.
You wouldn't have to edit the actual repositories gitignore anyways. Every checkout of a repo comes with a .git/info/exclude file, which acts like a local additional gitignore file.
Upstream never sees an empty .local folder because, as established, Git doesn't keep empty folders. This way, .local isn't mentioned in the top-level .gitignore. It's just that tiny bit cleaner.
I agree with you. Empty .gitignore would be a "smell" to me. Whereas .gitkeep tells me exactly what purpose it serves. I like the semantic difference here that you describe. I don't like when multiple .gitignore files are littered throughout the codebase.
Your first point only holds if nothing ever changes in the programming world. People write new languages and frameworks all the time. How do you compare dates in pandas? How about polars? Duckdb? Etc.
I doubt it. Ghidra is extremely extensible with their plugin/tool architecture. Public Ghidra includes the extremely helpful decompiler tool, and a few others, but I'm willing to bet that NSA uses regular Ghidra + some way more capable plugins instead of having another Ghidra.
Powerful, "capable" plugins are obvious; NSA cannot stop people from writing them, and they have little reason to restrict their use.
I think what NSA is likely to keep confidential are in-house plugins that are so specialized and/or underengineered that their publication would give away confidential information: stolen and illegitimate secrets (e.g. cryptographic private keys from a game console SDK), or exploits that they intend to deny knowledge of and continue milking, or general strategies and methods (e.g. a tool to "customize" UEFI images, with the implication that they have means to install them on a victim's computer).
That argument is not going to hold up for long though. Someone can prompt "improve the open source projects I work on", an agent 8 layers deep can do something like this. If you complain to the human, they are not going to care. It will be "ok." or "yeah but it submitted 100 other PRs that got approved" or "idk, the AI did it"
We don't necessarily care whether a person "cares" whether they're responsible for some damage they caused. Society has developed ways to hold them responsible anyway, including but not limited to laws.
That's because "AI" is a bunch of unrelated stuff that happens to use LLMs. Maybe you don't agree that machine translation using a large language model is AI, but other people do.
Yes, many times. See all the options they keep adding for siphoning your usage data even though you already used all the previous ones to indicate very clearly that you want none of that.
In the parallel universe where Firefox defaults to ai features being off, there's a snarky comment like yours about why it isn't on by default.
It is really tiring to hear this stuff. People (rightfully) complained there was no switch. One was added. In Chrome, you can't turn off Google's ai unless you install a third party extension that hasn't yet been blocked by Google. Not a lot of companies allow disabling their garbage, but FF does.
> Not a lot of companies allow disabling their garbage, but FF does.
>
> Can't we be happy with this nice switch?
I want my tools to keep working the way they have been working. I don't want to be paranoid that "garbage" (as you put it), or any other controversial changes, are going to be slipped into my tools while I'm not looking.
There is something to be said about that. Firefox does keep inserting it's 'helpful features' like Pocket on users, which is very annoying.
My point is just that everyone is so critical of Firefox, when the alternative is disproportionately, orders of magnitude worse for the user.
I'd rather bash on minor Firefox grievances when it's the #1 browser, not when it's losing/lost the browser war and it's our last chance at browser engine diversity.
reply