But once you really understand how Git works, you're ruined for every other version control system. When I'm forced to use TFS for a project, I use Git locally and Git-TFS to keep them in sync. Now I commit often, all day long, tracking all my changes and (relatively) easy rolling them back or reordering them if necessary.

Yup. I can deal with any language (ok, aside PHP...), any operating system (yeah, I don't mind developing on Windows), any framework, any technology...but source control has to be on git or I'm out.

No other tool affects my workflow so deeply at this point.

Except when you forget the --rebase and now have hours of work fixing your tree.

Any merge conflict and you'll notice something fast what happened, and then you can simply abort. If someone there's no conflict, you can just look at the reflog and reset to the pre-merge commit.

Whoop-y-doo.

And why then does it say in all kind of manuals that you should not use rebash unless you know what you are doing!

Because you shouldn't do anything without knowing what you're doing. That command is just unique-ish to git, so it requires a bit of special attention (you need to understand how the commit hashes work).

Once you do though, merge conflicts are 100x easier to handle, commit history makes more sense, etc. There's cases where you don't want to use it (when you want to be able to trace branching history or if you're merging the branch back upstream multiple times), but for most use cases, rebase away!

There really isn't a neat for that many languages, even though you need quite a few to cover all the relevant use cases.

The biggest issue right now with languages though, is that you have language A, that specializes in a very particular use case. Then you have a group who wants A, but with an ecosystem and focus on another use case, so they create B. For a while, life is good, until zealots of A go and try to recreate A in ecosystem B, and vice versa. Then people need to create ecosystem and language C, and history repeat itself.

Case in point: Ruby/rails plaguing every dynamic language they can.

F# is a better functional language than Scala (and isn't plagued by shit like Scalaz and Akka. Also, even though Scala itself is an excellent language, the JVM underneath limits it in weird ways with issues the CLR doesn't have), and C# is better than Java (and in certain, limited cases, better than Scala).

So the combination of both and the CLR, once it is fully cross platform and instrumentation/support ecosystem is available, would blow them out of the water. It probably won't happen because of the microsoft stigma though.

All you want me to do is code all day long.

Errr...no. Well, unless you're working for an outsourcing firm I guess. The coding part is trivial, and doesn't take that long. Figure out what to code, that's harder, and you're not going to do that right alone in your silo with a few hours per sprint of design sessions.

Yeah, I personally don't mind being tapped on the shoulder at all. But people blowing music, yapping on their cellphone next to you, and babbling about non-work related shit non-stop, thats just fucking annoying, and that also make me wipe out the noise cancelling headphones.

No. You need people who have 2 bits of communication skills to be able to make clear arguments. There are ways to communicate without being a dick. If you just go being a prick as the only way to get your point across, you're just not that good.

And yes, the irony isn't lost to me that I fall squarely in the category of people who aren't good enough to make my points properly. That doesn't mean there aren't people better than me at it.

And this is why only a small tiny fraction of rapes ever end up with someone ending up in jail. "Your word vs hers", and without evidence, you can't throw someone in it. There's always going to be issues because our system is broken, mind you, but that doesn't mean you should just go and make it legal.

In the same way here, if there's not enough evidence, so be it. But there's some people that literally flaunt about it. You can get enough evidence to stop THOSE at least.

The implication here is more along the line of: "revenge porn is wrong, period. Some people may not feel like its an issue because they're guys and the victims are usually women".

The whole "what people do with the video" isn't the problem in itself. Its that a specific subset of usage of said video squarely fall into various categories of sexual harassment, extortion, etc. This wouldn't get prosecuted as a copyright case.

Don't buy it but also don't use it. The dollar vote is how it should happen. But if you're pirating it, you're basically giving them ammos against you.

You don't need games and movies to live. This isn't food. Play by the rules and screw them over at their own game until the rules change. If people just bypass the rules, then they end up looking like the bad guys, and there's not nearly as much incentive to change the rules themselves.

Many countries have that already. Not many countries have self driving cars.

That being said, one of the biggest cause of unemployment is the inability to efficiently get people from where cheap housing exists and where jobs are plentiful, because generally jobs are in expensive areas.

Better transportation options helps a lot with that.

Even IE11 isn't terrible. We have a pretty large web development team at work for our product, and being a Unix/Mac shop, its annoying to test IE (need VMs, etc). I'm pretty much the only person who consistently test it, and its very very rare people break something, even though they're only testing on latest Firefox and Chrome. Even IE10 doesn't break that often. IE9 however....that horse was dead a long time ago.

Now, result may vary, if you use a lot of 3d transforms and bleeding edge features, even Firefox and Chrome are totally different. But having to support IE10 makes sure none of that gets in, and it makes things easier (the irony...).

Companies that target only evergreen browsers and have all these new toys available to them are in for a world of pain, when IE becomes the least of your worries...

Rendering HTML in the 90s was easy. Rendering html today, is really, really fucking hard (there was stuff added between the 90s and HTML5 you know...)

There's 2 big issues.

First, there's just a lot. The CSS3 spec alone would take forever to implement from scratch. Well, no one finished yet.

Second, the spec is full of holes. FULL of holes. So people just lean on each other to figure out what to do. If you implement the spec exactly as is, you could still make something totaly useless, because you're not handling the undocumented edge cases the same way Firefox or Chrome do.

At this point, pretty much no one can realistically write a browser rendering engine from scratch. Even Spartan isn't from scratch. They're just getting rid of the parts of Trident that are holding them back, but very much keeping big chunks of it.

If all of a sudden, all rendering engines and their memories were to spontaneously go poof, but all existing web pages still remained as well as the html5 and related specs, it would be a very, very long time before we could browse the existing web again.