Ha you only think this is unique to tech because you don't have experience of it in other fields.
FizzyOrange
joined 2 years ago
I'd settle for detailed short term local rain forecast. It's such a huge application and as far as I can tell (please correct me if I'm wrong!) nobody does it at all well.
- Often ensembles are only run every 3 or 6 hours, so the predictions are needlessly out of date.
- The ensembles have a very small number of runs (like less than 10) so you can't get a good estimate of probabilities.
- Usually you can't get access to the raw data anyway and user facing sites dumb things down to a single number, so e.g. "it's going to drizzle all day" and "it's going to tip it down for half an hour at some point" are presented exactly the same. As are "it's either going to rain loads or not at all" and "it's definitely going to rain a bit".
No, they're inherently optional in Git. There's no way to "check in" a git hook. You have to put in your README
Clone the repo and then please run
pre-commit install! Oh and whatever you do don'tgit commit --no-verify!
You definitely need to actually check the lints in CI. It's very easy though, just add pre-commit run -a to your CI script.
So... to store encrypted data that only the user can decrypt you don't need any fancy zero knowledge algorithms. Just have the user keep the encryption key.
For authentication you could use one of these algorithms. OPAQUE seems to be popular. I'm not an expert but it seems like it has several neat zero-knowledge style properties.
But probably forget about implementing it without a strong background in cryptography.
To check that people ran the pre-commit linters.
Committing itself won’t be possible
That's not how pre-commit hooks work. They're entirely optional and opt-in. You need CI to also run them to ensure people don't forget.
Yeah this is weird. I thought they'd switched to ARM.
You need them in CI anyway to check people have actually done that, but yeah you definitely don't need to have CI automatically fix formatting and commit the fixes. That's crazy.
WPRS uses the term rootless like this. I didn't come up with it. But I agree it is not a great term. If you can think of a better one I will happily use it. Parallels calls it "coherence mode", which also isn't great.
Actually Xprs uses "seamless mode" which is probably better.
Yeah it's more complex. I don't think there's any more overhead though, and there's no reason it will be slow.
Can’t you just run it locally?
No, unfortunately not.
Isn't it just basic X forwarding?
Yeah true. It definitely has downsides. But so does begging corporations for money...
I've definitely seen "this is more correct, but all the other code does it like this so can you change it?"
I can't say I entirely disagree with it either - usually the "more correct" is not "the existing code doesn't work at all", and keeping it consistent makes it easier to fix all of the code later, because you're only fixing one style instead of two (or more).