How does such a place not become a hook up camp? Even with total surveillance there the victims can like change phone number I guess.

Last edit maybe? It is so annoying when sites don't publish the original timestamp.

It's still showing a time in the future, which only makes sense if there is some kind of error with the server time or some kind of weird timezone conversion gone wrong

Can confirm, in 6 hours.

"Avoid embarrassment" is very much why you quench public discourse.

Why? Do the extra hours give you more stocks?

Some factors to consider are promotions, pip, or just being fired

Only "the greatest country in the world" has laws that allow firing for NOT doing overtime.

Crashes? How is that possible. You could take the money spent on bombs and do anything with it including helicopter money or digging holes and it would be better spent.

It is awesome for embedded realtime programming. State charts are quite nice to reason about for control systems.

> You can commit with conflicts unresolved.

True but it is not valid syntax. Like, you mean with the conflict lines?

The conflict lines shown in the article are not present in the file, they are a display of what has already been merged. The merge had changes that were too near each other and so the algorithm determined that someone needs to review it, and the conflict lines are the result of displaying the relevant history due to that determination.

In the example in the article, the inserted line from the right change is floating because the function it was in from the left has been deleted. That's the state of the file, it has the line that has been inserted and it does not have the lines that were deleted, it contains both conflicting changes.

So in that example you indeed must resolve it if you want your program to compile, because the changes together produce something that does not function. But there is no state about the conflict being stored in the file.

Isnt that a bit dangerous in its own? If the merge process can complete without conflicts being resolved, doesnt it just push the Problem down the road? All of a sudden you have to deal with failing CI or ghost features that involve multiple people where actually you just should has solved you conflict locally at merge time.

The tooling can force resolution at any step desired.

What's the point of options when there only is one correct answer?

The conflict is no longer an ephemeral part of the merge that only ever lives as markup in the source files and is stomped by the resolution that's picked, but instead a part of history.

I think it is also not true that there's only one correct answer, although I don't know how valuable this is.

For committing let's say yes, only one correct answer. Say the tool doesn't let you commit after you've merged without resolving conflicts.

But continuing to work locally you may want to put off resolving the conflict temporarily. Like person A changed the support email to help@example.com and person B changed it to support@example.com - obviously some wires go crossed and I will have to talk to A or B before committing the merge and pushing, but I can also go ahead and test the rest of the merge just fine.

And heck, maybe even committing after merging is fine but pushing requires resolving. Then I can continue working and committing locally on whatever else I was working on, and I'll only resolve it if I need to push. Which may mean I never need to resolve it, because A or B resolve it and push first.

> The conflict is no longer an ephemeral part of the merge that only ever lives as markup in the source files and is stomped by the resolution that's picked, but instead a part of history.

How is this different than having a merge commit?

Yeah this seems silly. You can do the same thing in git (add and commit with the conflict still there)! Why you would want to is a real mystery.

It allows review of the way the merge conflict has been resolved (assuming those changes a tracked and presented in a useful way). This can be quite helpful when backporting select fixes to older branches.

In this model, conflicts do not exist, so there are no conflict markers (the UI may show markers, but they get generated from what they call “the weave”)

Because of that, I think it is worse than “but it is not valid syntax”; it’s “but it may not be valid syntax”. A merge may create a result that compiles but that neither of the parties involved intended to write.

No it is not the best we can do. Like, just ask "are you happy?" instead of some convoluted scale.

Like, if there is no consensus on what the scale means the answers will be too culturaly dependend and random between individuals.

In my experience doing surveys "was the food good?" after say a conference is way easiee to interpret than some scale answers.

> How is this the fault of AI?

The false positive rate combined with scanning millions of pictures might make the chance of arresting the wrong person really high.

Before the misuse, there is opportunity to predict that misuse is certain to occur.

How about just bailing and having people falling of planes? Why would there need to be a good way to "extricate" from a ludicrous mess?

Without a doubt it's a "least worst" scenario. The best solution is to not empower the people who got us there. A distant second is to not give them back control eight years later.

I'm still interested to hear of a better c.2009 peace plan.