Hm, you should generally be able to hit Return to close a message box on Mac. Or, more specifically, to activate the default action in a dialog (the button whose background is the tint color of the application). Spacebar activates the button that has the focus ring around it, which may or not be the default button, but you can use Tab to move the focus around.
At least, this is the way it's always been on OS X and later. I'm not sure about classic Mac OS.
as an American this is my favorite format. Sortable, and the mm-dd order reflects the standard American way of writing month+day, and yyyy is unambiguously the year since it's 4 letters. Best of both worlds.
It's very easy to say, "well, of course, a thing that looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, is not necessarily a duck." But when you're presented with something indistinguishable from a duck in every way, how do you determine whether it's a duck? You can't just say "well I know it's not a duck". It's dodging the question.
If I picked a human off the street and asked them to "count first two hundred numbers in reverse while skipping every third number and check if they are in sequence", I bet most would screw up.
my point is not that current LLMs are sentient, or even that LLMs ever could be. My point is that it's very difficult to come up with a way to test consciousness, and it makes me a bit nervous to see people suggesting that something could never be conscious just because it's technological and not biological.
I could only find an article claiming 4% drink 6+ cups per day so a top 1st percentile coffee drinker must go much further beyond that. I'm guessing at least 2 litres per day.
"Ours" and "theirs" make sense in most cases (since "ours" refers to the HEAD you're merging into).
Rebases are the sole exception (in typical use) because ours/theirs is reversed, since you're merging HEAD into the other branch. Personally, I prefer merge commits over rebases if possible; they make PRs harder for others to review by breaking the "see changes since last review" feature. Git generally works better without rebases and squash commits.
Wow, interesting to see such a diametrically opposed view. We’ve banned merge commits internally and our entire workflow is rebase driven. Generally, I find that rebases are far better at keeping Git history clean and clearly allowing you to see the diff between the base you’re merging into and the changes you’ve made.
"Clean" is not the same as "useful". You have to be really, really disciplined to not make a superficially looking "clean" history which may appear linear but which is actually total nonsense.
For example, if one is frequently doing "fix after rebase" commits, then they are doing it wrong and are making a history which is much less useful than a seemingly more complicated merge based history. Rebased histories are only clean if they also tell a true story after the rebase, but if you push "rebase fixes" onto the end of your history, then it means that prior rebased commits no longer make any sense because they e.g. use APIs that aren't actually there. Giving up and squashing everything to one commit is almost better in this case because it at least won't throw off someone who is trying to make sense of the history in the future.
I think that rebasing has won over merges mostly because the tools for navigating git histories suck SO HARD. I have used Perforce at a previous job, and their graphical tools for navigating a merge based history are excellent and were really useful for doing code archeology.
Generally our pattern is that every PR gets rebased into sensible commits. So in a way we are doing "squash commits" but the method is an interactive rebase. This keeps our history very pretty and clean, and simultaneously easy to grok and navigate.
Yes, I prefer that approach as well because it allows the person who authored the change to do all the work of deciding how to resolve conflicts up front (and allows reviewers to review that conflict resolution) instead of forcing whoever eventually does the merge to figure everything out after the fact. It also removes conflicts from the history so you never have to think about them later after the rebase/merge process is finished.
I don't know. Even when I'm working on my own private repositories across several machines, I really, really dislike regular merges. You get an ugly commit message and I can never get git log to show me the information I actually want to see.
For me, rebasing is the simplest and easiest to understand, and it allows you to squash some of your commits so that it's one commit per feature / bug-fix / logical unit of work. I'll also frequently rebase and squash commits in my work branch too, where I've temporarily committed something and then fixed a bug before it's been pushed into main, I'll just reorder and squash the relevant commits into one.
I completely agree, since doing rebase our history looks fantastic and it makes finding things, cherrypicking and generating changelogs really simple. Why not be neat, it's cost us nothing and you can make yourself a tutorial on Claude if you don't understand rebasing pretty easily.
I use Windows and macOS both daily and it's truly baffling to me that anyway could consider Windows software quality to crush the Mac -- either first party or third party. macOS has no shortage of bugs but compared to Windows it works like a dream.
As one example of many, Night Light (Windows' version of adjusting your screen to be warmer at night) has been broken for me, for 5+ years. I mean literally it just never works on its own. The only way to kick it into working is toggling HDR on and then off, every single time I wake it up.
I would guess it's just my configuration but I built a second PC from totally new parts, and got a different monitor, and installed Windows 11 instead of 10, and it's still broken.
At least, this is the way it's always been on OS X and later. I'm not sure about classic Mac OS.