Yeah, that's the theory, and by any mean we definitely need to pursue that as well. I wish we had the luxury of making it work on its own. But since we do not, we need to pull all the levers we have, not just one.
> Expecting each individual person to be their own EPA and research how every single item they consume is produced idiotic and doomed to failure.
That's a false dichotomy. There are many middle grounds between researching every single item you buy and dropping the problem as a whole. You can focus on items which are most likely to bring negative impact, you can draw information from journalistic reports and material produced from dedicated associations. There are many ways to be sensitive to economic externalities of the things you buy without getting insane and without considering the whole problem moot on general phylosophycal principles.
Sure, I am responsible for my own actions, and buying something is an action I (can) make. Therefore I bear responsibility for the side effects of my buying actions. Not the same kind of direct responsibility of those that directly make bad actions, and I don't think I should become insane over evaluating the impact of every single thing I buy, but there's a middle ground between that and ignoring the side effect of anything you buy.
There's a better viewpoint on that, though: ignore moral responsibility, think in terms of agency. Choosing from whom you buy is one of the few ways you (as an ordinary citizen) have to make the world a little steer towards a better form of itself. My own choice alone won't change much (which is correct, otherwise we'd be in an economic dictatorship), but if many people consistently care about that capitalism will work its magic and make wonders happen.
Giving up something you'd otherwise enjoy or find convenient because it would indirectly bring harm to other people feels a very virtuous action to me. I wish more people (including me) had the ability to do that more.
Would he? There seems to be a tradition of illuminations of the Quran (see e.g. https://www.islamicity.org/77800/illumination-of-the-quran/, first result of an internet search). The style is quite different, since Islam forbids making representations of animated beings, but that didn't prevent the development of a rather exquisite craftmanship.
AFAIU it is essentially mass-produced (pun intended?). The master is carefully handwritten, all the others are copies taken with an industrial (if high quality) process.
EDIT: That's not meant to be dismissive of it. It looks like a very beautifut book, and I'll probably buy one.
Suppose I want to do this with my laptop, and dump my drive to the cloud (say accessible via SSH) to reinstall another operating system overwriting it. It's likely that the new operating system won't touch most of the blocks in my drive, so when restoring after having passed the boundary I don't want to transfer those unchanged blocks. Is there a good tool to do that easily?
If you use a SSD or above, you do not have any control over these "blocks" (called cells in these technologies). You cannot access them at all once they are unliked (i.e. the slack source you had with HDD which you could access does not exist anymore).
By my experience, it helps a lot to have a handful of patches in Wine already. Doesn't have to be anything especially great, but showing that you can work with the conformance tests (both write them and fix them), create good commits, go through the patch review process, interact constructively with the maintainers can get you a lot of points and make up for a not necessarily perfect interview test.
Do not look for the super-core stuff like user32.dll and ntdll.dll. There is already a lot of folks working there and it's hard to make an improvement if that's your first contribution. But there are a plethora of random forgotten libraries in dlls/ which usually nobody cares about until some application depends on those, and they are quite likely to have a good amount of low hanging fruits. Look for the todos in the tests, for example.
Disclosure: I work for CodeWeavers, but I am not involved in the hiring process.
Agreed. Many smaller MRs are likely to get the same amount of changes accepted in far less time. Some of the factors include:
* After each change you have to review the whole MR, either because you have to rebuild the context or because it's not obvious how the new changes interact with the old ones. Hopefully the new review won't take as much as the first one, but still it's linear, and the number of changes request is also likely linear in the MR size, so that's already total quadratic.
* More iterations often mean higher review fatigue, at some point I don't want to rehash the same code over and over again, and I tend to postpone bigger MRs in favor of smaller ones.
* Larger MRs are correlated with the author not having a full grasp of what they are doing, and therefore are unable to segment it properly and organize the code properly. Sometimes there are not many alternatives to a large MR, so that's not a hard rule, but there is certainly a decent correlation.
In my experience (admittedly with a company that is not necessarily statistically meaningful) when I began doing code review that helped with my own MRs getting reviewed (and also contibuted positively to performance reviews). First and foremost because it helped me getting a better understanding of the whole code base, not just the parts that I ended up touching; and then, I suppose, also because it made me more trustworthy towards the code maintainer.
> Expecting each individual person to be their own EPA and research how every single item they consume is produced idiotic and doomed to failure.
That's a false dichotomy. There are many middle grounds between researching every single item you buy and dropping the problem as a whole. You can focus on items which are most likely to bring negative impact, you can draw information from journalistic reports and material produced from dedicated associations. There are many ways to be sensitive to economic externalities of the things you buy without getting insane and without considering the whole problem moot on general phylosophycal principles.
reply