Generally Aethelstan gets pretty good coverage on TRIH and the episodes on that era are some of my favorites. Also, the VIP membership tier is called "Athelstan" if I remember correctly.
I've been using it for many years, super simple way to have many email addresses deliver to a single gmail. The effort I'll spend migrating will be better spent setting up a non-Google alternative
Sounds intriguing, want to try one now. This is the kind of thing Home Orchard Societies wet their pants over. Probably grown right next to their pawpaw tree.
Not sneering in any way, I love those groups and visit when I get a chance. Also a big fan of our local university's tree collections, they are on a mission to preserve variety of specimens.
Maybe for the DB domain author is talking about but the nice thing about a bool is that it's true or false. I don't have to dig around documentation or look through the code what the convention of converting enum, datetime, etc. to true/false is. 1970/1/1 (I was four years old then, just sayin), -6000 or something else?
Nullable helps a lot here but not all languages support that the same way.
I'm glad to hear that but only if the buttons, wires and connectors are high quality. Pretty sure one of the reasons for everything touchscreen is cost. My mom's BMW has a sort of joystick/knob/button that controls what's displayed on the screen which is an okay compromise.
I never understood the "git cli sucks" thing until I used jj. The thing is, git's great, but it was also grown, over time, and that means that there's some amount of incoherence.
Furthermore, it's a leaky abstraction, that is, some commands only make sense if you grok the underlying model. See the perennial complaints about how 'git checkout' does more than one thing. It doesn't. But only if you understand the underlying model. If you think about it from a workflow perspective, it feels inconsistent. Hence why newer commands (like git switch) speak to the workflow, not to the model.
Furthermore, some features just feel tacked on. Take stashing, for example. These are pseudo-commits, that exist outside of your real commit graph. As a feature, it doesn't feel well integrated into the rest of git.
Rebasing is continually re-applying `git am`. This is elegant in a UNIXy way, but is annoying in a usability way. It's slow, because it goes through the filesystem to do its job. It forces you to deal with conflicts right away, because git has no way of modelling conflicts in its data model.
Basically, git's underlying model is great, but not perfect, and its CLI was grown, not designed. As such, it has weird rough edges. But that doesn't mean it's a bad tool. It's a pretty darn good one. But you can say that it is while acknowledging that it does have shortcomings.
It's more than that; it's also git's incredibly unfriendly way of naming things.
Take for example the "index" which is actually a useful thing with a bad name. Most tutorials start by explaining that the index is a staging area on which you craft your commit. Then why is it called index and not staging area? Incredibly bad name right there from the get go. If you ask what the word "index" means in computer science, people usually think of indices into an array, or something like a search index that enables faster searching. Git's index doesn't do any of that.
And git's model leaks so much implementation detail that many people mistake these for essential concepts; there are people who would tell you any version control system that doesn't have the "index" is not worth using because they don't allow one to craft beautiful commits. That's patently false as shown by jj and hg. This useful concept with a bad name becomes one amorphous thing that people cannot see past.
