When will we see the first successful nostalgia act on the web? We're around 30-years of Internet culture at this point. The early years had a small audience, but each year that passes there will be more people that remember "the good Internet".
At some point an old brand / personality will be able to do a "come back tour" the same as Guns and Roses and capitalize on people's fond memories.
I like the idea of breaking out of media bubbles and seeing how bias is reporting things differently. The site ground.news is a mechanism for doing that. They aggregate bias and ownership rankings from third party organizations and then show who is covering what and how. It is fascinating. But I think their rating system has some glaring errors. It's impossible to get a list of all publications but even their standard one shows the problem. AP being center is solid, but in the updated ratings it is skewed as left of center. Politico is definitely not left of center nor is The Hill center. Those are all right of center. NBC and CNN is at best left of center but especially with the new management of CNN that is actually now right of center too. Even in the categories of organizations I can't stand I don't think their ratings hold up. I hate Fox News but there is no way their web/print content are as skewed right as Daily Wire and Breitbart. They would more appropriately be in the same column as WSJ and New York Post. The thing I learned today though is that it is possible to create individual suggestions and tweaks. So maybe it would be worth subscribing after all...I can't tell. Anyone have practical long term usage experience to tell me what their thoughts are? #MSM#MediaBias#uspoli
Requirement:
Multiple devs work on multiple features concurrently.
Features move through various states of qat and uat (deployed to qat & uat environments via commit tags)
Problem: keeping 'main' clean. Some say to always keep main updated. But if its not 'production ready' I dont see why you merge to main.
Solution: I dont see a way around it. You simply work your feature until its ready to merge to 'main'.
It iterates all the rules. Then applies the first where all conditions specified.
The implementation seems.... clunky.
Worse, is maintaining the set of rules in the database.
Its a relational set of tables. Each rule has a set of rule components. To satisfy a rule means every comp must pass.
Authoring rules is laborious. Theyre sorted by an 'ordinal' column at runtime. Its just kind of a mess.
@Cmastication In my research I've whittled it down to 1 or 2 options: the specification pattern or Martin Fowler's idea of removing conditional logic by refactoring to polymorphism. But still dont have a great maintenance implementation. Considered JSON as a storage medium. idk...
I have a permanent branch that's never going to be merged into main. Is there any way to get GitHub to stop asking me if I want to merge it whenever I push new commits to it? I want this to go away for specific branches (I'll also accept it going away for all branches, because I mostly don't care about this).
@bradwilson You could...Create a new repo, delete the local git folder and push it to the new repo. Then delete the branch from the og repo. Lots of work but...that will work.