Which is the entire point of it. Why should I look at ten commits when I can look at one and get the same exact data? Why should I pollute my production history for what a is likely a bunch of debugging commits? The branch is a scratchpad, you should feel empowered within your own branch, rebase allows you to be lazy in the development cycle while presenting a nice clean set of changes at the end of it.
Yes! When you are deep in the code, your brain operates in a non-linear way. You try a solution, it breaks a test. You patch the test. You realize the variable name is wrong. You fix a typo.
Without Squash, the main branch history becomes a timeline of your mental struggle.
With Squash, the main branch becomes a catalog of features delivered.
No body needs to take a trip on the struggle bus with me...
You can split your work in multiple commits and at the same time drop/squash debugging or wip changes. The result allows you to go into much better detail than a PR description.
Want to be more specific about your argument? I’d consider a government good if it is serves the people of that country. “Iran murders and tortures it citizens by the thousands, and impoverishes them by the millions through widespread corruption, but they sold some drones to Russia, so that’s nice.” Is that your argument?
So you're saying if you use the language to write UB, then you get UB?
Seems kinda circular. Ok, you're not the same user who said it can be UB. But what does it then mean to same "sometimes it's UB" if the code is all on the user side?
"Sometimes code is UB" goes for all user written code.
I mean the language doesn't dictate what post-condition your class has for move-ctor or move-assignment.
It could be
- "don't touch this object after move" (and it's UB if you do) or
- "after move the object is in valid but unspecified state" (and you can safely call only a method without precondition) or
- "after move the object is in certain state"
- or even crazy "make sure the object doesn't get destroyed after move" (it's UB if you call delete after move or the object was created on the stack and moved from).
But of course it's a good practice to mimic the standard library's contract, first of all for the sake of uniformity.
Your politicians have created the migrant crisis by fucking up the middle east - as part of the same hybrid warfare on our institutions as said propaganda.
Other parties don't have friendship treaties with Putins party.
The US with accomplices invaded Iraq in 2003, NATO bombed Libya in 2011. Western politicians and mass media encouraged Arab Spring insurrections. All that led to the rise of ISIS among other things.
And yet oddly you blame Russia for "fucking up the middle east". Why? Have you considered the possibility that it's you who is a victim of propaganda?
>Other parties don't have friendship treaties with Putins party.
I'm sure other parties have friendships with the parties or institutions in countries other than Russia.
The European migrant crisis is mostly driven by Syria and the Sahel countries. Syria and Sahel are direct results of Russian military intervention, same with Lybia.
So you force a a migrant crisis and the spread information about the failings of liberal democracy... it's KGB basic training.
I don't want them unknowingly consuming foreign propaganda campaign content and maximally politically divisive conversation.
Having spaces where identities are confirmed is really important for honest and open debate. Screaming at each other in Reddit and Facebook comments amongst society-fracturing influence campaigns isn't free speech.
And if someone wants to leave the identity confirmed space and go yell in the anonymous sea of voices they can but we need other options.
>I don't want them unknowingly consuming foreign propaganda campaign content and maximally politically divisive conversation.
Good point.
That's what Putin's "foreign agents" law addresses.
The law is much criticized by Western media and "NGOs" for some reason.
As a matter of fact, it marginalizes any recipient of foreign money even if they do something genuinely good for Russian people, but I doubt it is why the West doesn't like this law.
"The EU condemns the totally unfounded decision by the Russian authorities to block access to over eighty European media in Russia.
This decision further restricts access to free and independent information and expands the already severe media censorship in Russia. The banned European media work according to journalistic principles and standards. They give factual information, also to Russian audiences, including on Russia’s illegal war of aggression against Ukraine.
In contrast, the Russian disinformation and propaganda outlets, against which the EU has introduced restrictive measures, do not represent a free and independent media. Their broadcasting activities in the EU have been suspended because these outlets are under the control of the Russian authorities and they are instrumental in supporting the war of aggression against Ukraine.
Respect for the freedom of expression and media is a core value for the EU. It will continue supporting availability of factual information also to audiences in Russia."[0]
Russia did all of that, the problem is that the EU (just like the US) has never respected Russian interests and expanded its own sphere of influence as far as it could. Until Russia thought that enough is enough.
And fails spectacularly.
reply