It is awesome for embedded realtime programming. State charts are quite nice to reason about for control systems.

> You can commit with conflicts unresolved.

True but it is not valid syntax. Like, you mean with the conflict lines?

The conflict lines shown in the article are not present in the file, they are a display of what has already been merged. The merge had changes that were too near each other and so the algorithm determined that someone needs to review it, and the conflict lines are the result of displaying the relevant history due to that determination.

In the example in the article, the inserted line from the right change is floating because the function it was in from the left has been deleted. That's the state of the file, it has the line that has been inserted and it does not have the lines that were deleted, it contains both conflicting changes.

So in that example you indeed must resolve it if you want your program to compile, because the changes together produce something that does not function. But there is no state about the conflict being stored in the file.

Isnt that a bit dangerous in its own? If the merge process can complete without conflicts being resolved, doesnt it just push the Problem down the road? All of a sudden you have to deal with failing CI or ghost features that involve multiple people where actually you just should has solved you conflict locally at merge time.

The tooling can force resolution at any step desired.

What's the point of options when there only is one correct answer?

The conflict is no longer an ephemeral part of the merge that only ever lives as markup in the source files and is stomped by the resolution that's picked, but instead a part of history.

I think it is also not true that there's only one correct answer, although I don't know how valuable this is.

For committing let's say yes, only one correct answer. Say the tool doesn't let you commit after you've merged without resolving conflicts.

But continuing to work locally you may want to put off resolving the conflict temporarily. Like person A changed the support email to help@example.com and person B changed it to support@example.com - obviously some wires go crossed and I will have to talk to A or B before committing the merge and pushing, but I can also go ahead and test the rest of the merge just fine.

And heck, maybe even committing after merging is fine but pushing requires resolving. Then I can continue working and committing locally on whatever else I was working on, and I'll only resolve it if I need to push. Which may mean I never need to resolve it, because A or B resolve it and push first.

> The conflict is no longer an ephemeral part of the merge that only ever lives as markup in the source files and is stomped by the resolution that's picked, but instead a part of history.

How is this different than having a merge commit?

Yeah this seems silly. You can do the same thing in git (add and commit with the conflict still there)! Why you would want to is a real mystery.

It allows review of the way the merge conflict has been resolved (assuming those changes a tracked and presented in a useful way). This can be quite helpful when backporting select fixes to older branches.

In this model, conflicts do not exist, so there are no conflict markers (the UI may show markers, but they get generated from what they call “the weave”)

Because of that, I think it is worse than “but it is not valid syntax”; it’s “but it may not be valid syntax”. A merge may create a result that compiles but that neither of the parties involved intended to write.

No it is not the best we can do. Like, just ask "are you happy?" instead of some convoluted scale.

Like, if there is no consensus on what the scale means the answers will be too culturaly dependend and random between individuals.

In my experience doing surveys "was the food good?" after say a conference is way easiee to interpret than some scale answers.

> How is this the fault of AI?

The false positive rate combined with scanning millions of pictures might make the chance of arresting the wrong person really high.

Before the misuse, there is opportunity to predict that misuse is certain to occur.

How about just bailing and having people falling of planes? Why would there need to be a good way to "extricate" from a ludicrous mess?

Without a doubt it's a "least worst" scenario. The best solution is to not empower the people who got us there. A distant second is to not give them back control eight years later.

I'm still interested to hear of a better c.2009 peace plan.

> This has led me to a theory that humans just can't behave nicely beyond some threshold group size.

I think what happens is that the risk of including a critical amount of "toxics" (lacking a better word) such that they can keep a conversation going, increases by FB group size. Without actice moderators it doesn't take much.

I think it is important to remember that only a tiny, tiny fraction of most facebook groups is actually posting, commenting, or even viewing the group at any given moment. Most people who view don't post/comment. (True of reddit and other social media as well.)

And the thing about poorly moderated groups (especially on platforms with rage-boosting algorithms) that let assholes go off without consequences is: the people who both a) actually look at the group ever and b) aren't assholes either leave entirely, stop looking at the group, and stop posting/commenting to the group (if they ever did in the first place). They go find places to hang out where there aren't a bunch of assholes. Nobody wants to hang out with the assholes when they can easily just not.

And at the same time, the assholes all gravitate to the same few places because they get kicked out of all the other places. Or if they don't get kicked out outright, they get shouted down or ignored, which they hate. So instead they congregate where they can get away with or get praised for saying whatever vile things they want.

The Dunbar number is 150 for humans but that only measures maintaining a group, maybe the behave nicely number is smaller.

That effect also applies when you try to block car crashes. That happened to me years ago with the same genre of videos. Like car crashes and people falling and hurting themself a little bit.

Yes. Please tell my bank that.

They know. The EU directive is quite clear that hw tokens are to be preferred over phones. Banks are cheap though and violate it.

Switch bank.

It is hard not to accidently click on shorts when they are interleaved in search results.

Adding that once one accidentally clicks on a short all the results are skewed in that direction afterwards. I have to close the browser, run BleachBit and start over.