Yes, but this is exactly the sort of thing that should be a user-level configuration. A personal scratch directory has nothing to do with the repository itself and doesn’t belong in a repo’s .gitignore.
If it's only needed for one particular checkout, .git/info/exclude is the other obvious option.
You don't need to put the scratch directory in the committed gitignore file. gitignore files are recursive. So a common approach is to use a gitignore with * in the scratch directory.
OpenCode also defaults to ask for external_directory, which applies to bash commands touching paths outside the workspace.
sre on archlinux 10.0.0.193 ~/opencode-test took 0s
opencode run "use bash to touch an empty txt file in my home dir"
> build · moonshotai/kimi-k3
! permission requested: external_directory (/home/sre/*); auto-rejecting
touch ~/empty.txt && ls -la ~/empty.txt failed
Error: The user rejected permission to use this specific tool call.
sre on archlinux 10.0.0.193 ~/opencode-test took 0s
opencode run --auto "use bash to touch an empty txt file in my home dir"
> build · moonshotai/kimi-k3
$ touch ~/empty.txt && ls -l ~/empty.txt
-rw-r--r-- 1 sre sre 0 Aug 24 10:34 /home/sre/empty.txt
Done — created `/home/sre/empty.txt` (0 bytes).
The obvious question would be: why include --auto in the PoC at all if it's supposedly superfluous?
Getting around that external_directory check looks trivial, though. You could ask it to run, e.g., the result of decoding a base64-encoded command that writes outside the current directory, or simply the result of concatenating two strings that together specify a file outside the current directory, etc., etc.
But not insult, and even for defamation, you will be prosecuted and have to prove the statement is true, even if the politician and everyone else knows it's true.
Framing this as whether he can convince you the mistype was accidental gets it backwards, and "would I believe X or would I think Y" is preponderance, not reasonable doubt - entirely different standard. Reasonable doubt doesn't ask which account you find more likely. It asks whether the innocent one is unreasonable.
Take the hypothetical as posed: duress code one digit off, entered while detained after being interrogated for hours, and repeatedly pressured to unlock. The government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly triggered the wipe and did it for the purpose of impairing the seizure. Nothing about that scenario makes mistyping an unreasonable explanation unless there is more circumstantial evidence that indicates him intentionally providing the wrong PIN.
I'm from a region bordering the palatinate region and I'll absolutely back you up on being able to understand them pretty well. There's an amish guy who sometimes pops up on my TikTok feed, and it's always fascinating to me how the language, while it has obviously drifted away over hundreds of years, is still fairly intelligible for me. The comparison to older people from your local village is pretty apt.
> Funny sidenote: The highest rate of foreign migrants into the palatinate region --- where the amish came from --- is now from US citizens
For anyone wondering whether this reflects some strange Amish return migration: almost certainly not. It’s overwhelmingly the result of the enormous US military presence around Ramstein, Landstuhl, and Kaiserslautern. It's also not exactly a recent development.
You clearly haven't played WoW in a decade, judging from this comment.
> Even if you buy the expansion just to get the "feel" on how it was, it's impossible.
You don't buy previous expansions after a new one launches - they roll into the base subscription. After Shadowlands released, buying BfA separately wasn't even an option.
> MMOs like GW2 and even SWTOR do it way better
“Keep every expansion fully relevant forever” sounds nice until you think through what that actually means for an MMO like WoW. You would either fragment the player base across twenty years of content or turn gearing and balance into a complete circus.
Imagine your best-in-slot trinkets from the current raid and Siege of Orgrimmar, your tier set from Dragon Soul, the weapon from Hellfire Citadel. Try organizing a group when other classes need gear from Icecrown Citadel, The Everbloom, Argus and Ahn'Qiraj.
The point of "current expansion content is relevant" is that it funnels the player base into a fairly narrow area of the theme park. That is important, because if you spread out the population over 20 years worth of content, you risk making the world feel incredibly empty, which is a death sentence for a theme park MMORPG.
Blizzard’s actual approach is much more sane: older content comes back in controlled ways. Timewalking reopens older expansion content with scaling and relevant rewards, and Mythic+ seasons already rotate older dungeons into the current endgame pool. Midnight's Season One, for example, features dungeons from Wrath of the Lich King, Warlords of Draenor, Legion, and Dragonflight.
> You don't buy previous expansions after a new one launches - they roll into the base subscription. After Shadowlands released, buying BfA separately wasn't even an option.
They took so long to make that decision, at least they did right?
> “Keep every expansion fully relevant forever” sounds nice until you think through what that actually means for an MMO like WoW. You would either fragment the player base across twenty years of content or turn gearing and balance into a complete circus.[...]
That's your opinion and you are free to have them, but not your "own facts". GW2 do an horizontal progression that you do not need to farm gears between expansions or even major patches, if you play high-end content in WoW, you must know that with every new raid launch in the same expansion, players need to grind a lot to still be relevant.
You also already know, if you really play the retail currently, that how much "services" are offered for people to get like "AOTC" with gold because it's inhuman how much gear grinding to be able to do that achievement and collect it's rewards.
> Blizzard’s actual approach is much more sane: older content comes back in controlled ways. Timewalking reopens older expansion content with scaling and relevant rewards, and Mythic+ seasons already rotate older dungeons into the current endgame pool. Midnight's Season One, for example, features dungeons from Wrath of the Lich King, Warlords of Draenor, Legion, and Dragonflight.
Have you ever question yourself why are there so many private servers? As someone who plays them on and off an argument that always come is "I just want to play that expansion over and over again, and choose which one". And not play a "mix of retail and classic content in a timed gated window".
My "wow credentials" so you stop assuming wrongly: Mythic Raider (never really got Cutting Edge, what I did most was in BfA) and Mythic+ Dungeons (multiples KSM) ;)
As a current (albeit casual) player of mainline WoW, I think its biggest problem is how hard it's locked itself into the idea of what an expansion should be. Every expansion has more or less followed the TBC playbook: higher level cap, new landmasses and instanced content, total gear reset.
Of course it's going to become impossible to keep everything relevant when they keep stacking the tower higher for decades.
There's no reason why an expansion couldn't expand on what's already there instead of throwing everything out. They could for example do an expansion that fleshes out current zones that could use more love and expands the game horizontally. That doesn't mean they have to abandon the TBC model, but even if they'd just gone with a repeating pattern of "horizontal-vertical" with expansion releases they'd have a lot less content to try to juggle.
I keep one vault for almost everything because the cross-domain links are where the interesting stuff happens. I studied sociology, political science, and media & communication before moving into IT, and I'm still actively interested in all of it and especially how these topics intersect. Where does a note on Baudrillard's concept of hyperreality go? The social science vault? The IT vault? Both? With a single vault I don't have to answer that question - the note exists, and I can use it to make connections to AI, social media, or cultural trends.
Multiple vaults break this. You end up duplicating notes, or linking across vault boundaries (which adds friction), or just forgetting where you put something. That's trading one of Obsidian's strongest features for... tidier folders.
The one case where I do split things out is genuinely isolated project knowledge - like a D&D campaign I used to GM. 99% of those notes have zero connection to anything else. Separation makes sense there precisely because there's nothing to link.
One more thing: a lot of people solve the "big vault gets messy" problem with elaborate folder structures, but Obsidian's search (especially with Omnisearch) makes most of that unnecessary. I don't really organize my notes into careful hierarchies. I write them, link them, and search for them. The mess is fine. I am one with the mess.
Yeah, totally valid for things like D&D - I split that out too, for the same reason.
Work and homelab overlap constantly for me though. I make heavy use of periodic notes, so even something like recipes would get linked in weekly logs for meal planning or tracking. The connections don't have to be deep to be useful - sometimes it might just be 'I made this thing on this day' and that's enough context to be worth having in one place.
Third-party MCP servers create at least two different security problems. One is prompt/context injection through the tool output. The other is the much more conventional risk of executing untrusted code with transient dependencies on your machine (which is how the recent litellm compromise was discovered).
Containerization only helps with the second one, not the first, but that still matters. If you’re going to run random third-party MCP servers, isolating them from your host and any sensitive local data is still an obvious improvement over no isolation.
"It's not a complaint about water. It's a complaint about the wetness."
If capitalism requires constant vigilant government intervention to prevent monopolistic practices, anti-competitive markets, and asymmetric bargaining power, then it seems to me that this is absolutely a complaint about capitalism. If anything, your comment just makes the indictment more damning.
i'd rather have the gov't be vigilant, than to have the gov't be the one monopolistic dictator. None of those problems of monopoly are inherent in capitalism - they exist in one form or another under a different market style (that of a command economy). It just appears different.
If it's only needed for one particular checkout, .git/info/exclude is the other obvious option.
reply