Fork me on GitHub
#clojure-europe
<
2021-07-15
>
dharrigan06:07:32

Good Morning!

mccraigmccraig08:07:30

anyone got any favourite git strategies for splitting chunky PRs ? i've been turning the entire branch into uncommitted working-copy, and then rebuilding commits from scratch, which works ok, but is quite finicky and unpleasant to do anyone got anything better ?

Aleksander08:07:12

A combination of interactive rebase, patch staging and patch checkout

👍 4
Aleksander08:07:02

Ie git rebase -i main git add -p git checkout -p

Aleksander08:07:32

With interactive rebase you can squash, throw away, and edit individual commits instead of the whole branch

mccraigmccraig08:07:23

yeah, i know interactive-rebase... i didn't find it useful in this case - i've got a large PR, with changes in a bunch of functional areas, which i want to split into 6 more-focused PRs ... so the problem becomes one of shifting change-state from a "not-used" pool to new commits/PRs... which gets painful when i want to stash everything i don't want to add to the current commit and do a test run before committing

ordnungswidrig09:07:54

I'm using magit which might have spoiled my workflow

ordnungswidrig09:07:30

Typically I go back to the common base revision (`main`) and do a git merge --no-commit my-wip-branch . Then piecewise commit all the changes.

mccraigmccraig09:07:51

that's roughly my flow @U054UD60U (also with magit)- my sticking point is that i'd like to make tests pass at various points in the new commit stream, which is awkward with all the uncommitted working-copy still hanging around

ordnungswidrig09:07:01

This also works when doing an interactive rebase, IIRC you can git commit part of the changes and then git rebase --continue afterwards.

ordnungswidrig09:07:15

You need to select a commit to edit in the interactive rebase select.

ordnungswidrig09:07:31

yes, and an unhealthy amount of git stash

Aleksander09:07:52

I never managed to get editing commits to work. Always ended up with thunk conflicts for reasons I couldn't understand ...

mccraigmccraig10:07:19

i've often come across the https://git-scm.com/docs/git-rebase#Documentation/git-rebase.txt---rebase-mergesrebase-cousinsno-rebase-cousins when trying to rebase large branches... i much prefer merge based routes

raymcdermott09:07:24

Heavy rain here today, the paths in the woods are becoming streams

borkdude09:07:49

Last week I was on vacation in Valkenburg (NL), where they're having floods right now.

raymcdermott09:07:35

Recycling doesn’t seem to be fixing this

borkdude09:07:08

Perhaps we should turn the air conditioning a tad lower troll

raymcdermott09:07:50

Yeah or take one day a week without meat

borkdude09:07:35

or don't fly for fun, only when it's "important"

raymcdermott09:07:03

You mean like important holidays

😆 2
maleghast09:07:07

[soapbox] Or stop using cement (unless we can find less carbon-horrible ways of making it), seeing as it is responsible for more Carbon than any one single nation state (except China) and accounts for around 700% of the Carbon emitted by civil aviation annualy. Don't get me wrong, we should all be doing everything we can, but meat-free Monday or making people feel guilty for getting on a plane is emptying a bathtub with a teaspoon. We need sustainable adaptive change in the areas that account for the vast majority of the Carbon released each year and the only way to effect meaningful change is adapt and change our power generation, private transport and manufacturing practices at the Systemic Level and that means Nation States and Super-National organisations simply saying "This is happening" and legislating accordingly. It is the best bit of misdirection that the mass media has ever pulled to make middle-class people feel personally responsible for climate change while allowing the worst offenders to hide behind that distraction of individual responsibility and carry on regardless. Do whatever your conscience demands, but honestly the only way to really fight Climate Change is to vote in realists who are committed to taking hard but manageable steps over the next thirty years or so. Precipitous change would be disastrous for the World Economy and would hurt the poor of the World the most - sustainable adaptation and an honest discussion about the lowest hanging fruit that no one wants to talk about because they are beyond the reach of the individual and therefore immune from the hand-wringing personal responsibility lie is the only real solution. [/soapbox] (Sorry, working in the field has made me more committed to change but also far more critical of the somewhat futile popular narratives)

4
18
jkxyz09:07:33

I read a great book called Against the Anthropocene which makes exactly this point: that calling our current era the “anthropocene” is ideologically loaded in such a way to imply that we’re all individually responsible for climate change, and it plays into the neoliberal financialization of nature and its continued exploitation for profit.

maleghast09:07:07

I would really like to read that - thanks for the recommendation 🙂

jkxyz10:07:08

It’s from MIT Press: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/against-anthropocene — Actually mostly an art theory analysis of the usage of that terminology in visual culture, but it’s so powerfully written in places that it left a big impact on me

raymcdermott13:07:27

I think you nailed the big points @maleghast and yes I agree @UE72GJS7J the focus on a narcissistic version of the self in many societies is at the heart of socializing costs (and guilt) whilst privatizing the rewards

🙏 2
orestis17:07:56

I seem to remember that the whole concept of the "carbon footprint" was a BP invention decades ago?

val_waeselynck18:07:52

@U7PBP4UVA I think you mean "personal" carbon footprint. And frankly, it's not very relevant to think of it that way - wondering about one's impact on the environment is a natural and well-founded endeavour, and from knowing some of them, people developing these carbon footprint calculators are not working for the oil industry. I'm very worried by how much individuals use this narrative as a way to reject their own responsibility, and more importantly to avoid questioning their lifestyle (since what they need to do is express support for policies that will deeply alter their lifestyles). I don't claim that's what you're doing; but really, I hope public opinion will evolve to realize that the "finding the culprit" narrative will get us nowhere.

val_waeselynck18:07:38

I mean, computer programming is an invention from the military decades ago, right?

orestis18:07:37

I like the way you phrase it Valentin. It's true that it's easy to dismiss all the "greenwashing" these days as missing the point but indeed as individuals we have to support policies that will alter our lifestyles.

👍 2
dharrigan10:07:52

Do I recall, recently, a group doing a virtual clojurebridge, anyone remember the deets?

borkdude12:07:59

You could buy solar panels to offset the energy cost?

dharrigan12:07:51

My energy provider is 100% renewableables and sustainable energy

dharrigan12:07:59

i.e., wind farms, solar, etc...

dharrigan12:07:26

Tis a bit more expensive than the more established players in the market

borkdude12:07:15

There's a lot of fraud in that industry, at least in the Netherlands. They count burning wood (biomass) as sustainable energy, while this wood often comes from forests that are chopped down in other countries.

mpenet12:07:05

having to run less/no ac is a better goal

mpenet12:07:07

so better insulation, avoiding opening windows when it's 30c, using the basement when possible (it's quite common in southern europe) etc etc

val_waeselynck13:07:57

Aside from that, I would not recommend buying your own solar panels as a way to lower your footprint, because of the inefficiencies in individual installations. I'd rather invest in renewables or decarbonation projects.

borkdude13:07:44

I almost invested 10k in a wind project, but it turned out to be (probably) a scam... I was happy I could get my money back.

😱 3
val_waeselynck13:07:53

Of course, @maleghast said, individual effort only gets us so far; that said, there is some merit to the idea that individual efforts inspire collective action, so I wouldn't try to oppose them starkly.

borkdude13:07:01

> there is some merit to the idea that individual efforts inspire collective action, so I wouldn't try to oppose them starkly exactly. should we behave like helpless sheep who only depend on our political leaders? guess not

💯 2
val_waeselynck13:07:50

Yeah come to think about it, I'm not sure it's useful to invest in renewables anymore - renewables mostly pay for themselves nowadays. As a sign of this, Voluntary Carbon Market standards tend to stop certifying renewables-based projects, because the additionality is becoming too hard to prove.

borkdude13:07:19

The scam I almost lost my money to was probably a Ponzi scheme

borkdude13:07:45

They pay dividends to previous "projects" by starting newer "projects"

raymcdermott13:07:37

@val_waeselynck it's difficult to know what is and is not ethical in a society where the supply chains are (usually deliberately) opaque but I agree that we should do what we can whilst understanding that the effect will most likely be nugatory

val_waeselynck15:07:19

The way I see it: 1. what is ethical and how responsibility is distributed is a matter of opinion, not fact, so I try to avoid drawing the debate to that terrain. It's not that I don't care about ethics, it's just that it seems to me we don't even need to go down to ethical matters in order to achieve consensus. Informed people very largely agree on taking ambitious action. A lot of the controversies we see about the environmental transition are actually byproducts of ignorance, not philosophical divergences.

val_waeselynck15:07:54

2. Individual impact is a legitimate and natural concern. I think it's wrong to say it's solely a fabrication of big corporations. Big corps try to attract attention to it, so as to make us oblivious of other aspects, but it's a well-founded concern.

val_waeselynck16:07:18

3. Achieving a low personal footprint is not a very relevant outcome wrt environmental issues. However, it seems relevant both to initiate collective action in an enlightened way (paying attention to lifestyle impact helps a lot in graduating from ecological awareness to ecological consciousness), and also for pioneering the sort of sustainable modern lifestyles which will hopefully become imposed by regulation and social convention

val_waeselynck16:07:04

It's a bit like that with tech, btw, isn't it? Tech cannot possibly solve the issue, only create the opportunities to do so.

👍 2
val_waeselynck16:07:41

Anyway, I'm just rambling at this point

raymcdermott16:07:51

I find it hard to agree with you that it's ignorance vs education. It's public record that Exxon has had the data showing that their business / sector is a cause of global warming for decades. Those executives are - to use your words - informed and ambitious people. Their ethics are based on the primacy of shareholder value and they have deliberately set out to muddle the data with a known and direct cause: ecological harm.

val_waeselynck17:07:43

The example of Exxon is famous because it's sensational, but I think it's over-represented. From what I've seen from meeting with executives and from testimonies of people who did, this kind of cynism is not at all the main origin of greenwashing in the corporate world. "At least we're doing something / every little counts" is a much more common driver of environmentally-misguided management than "we're gonna cheat those idiots." We've all witnessed how software systems can be absurdly and harmfully managed without anyone in the loop being a villain, isn't it natural that it's the same for ecological systems? So I stand by what I wrote: ignorance is the main inspiration of failed SER, not cynism. It's not just me thinking this. Jean-Marc Jancovici, founder of the Shift Project and Carbone4, who both works a lot with companies while still spending a lot of time criticizing them, presents the same diagnosis about executives and politicians: "they're not even cynical, they're just ignorant." It's not just big corps, btw. Individuals also do a lot of green-washing at their level, to themselves or others, with the best intentions. How many time have we heard someone say "yeah but I do X, so it's not that bad" ? I should probably clarify what I mean by "ignorance": ignorance is not just "not knowing" - it can also be "looking away". And about sensational: I submit that's this is another cultural issue we have wrt environmental action. When it comes to environmental issues, people and media currently tend emphasize intentions and symbols rather than results and reality. Perhaps it's human nature, or maybe judeo-christianism, or maybe Walt Disney, but we seem to be programmed in that way.

borkdude16:07:11

I saw a documentary last week where a farmer who knew that the way he farmed wasn't ecologically sustainable said: well, that problem is for the next generation to figure out. This might be typical for a lot of those people who are near their retirement.

raymcdermott16:07:52

I don't like to always blame old people. young people can be shitheads too 🙂

👍 4
otfrom16:07:26

and those in between :-)

😬 2
borkdude16:07:11

I don't have kids myself but I'm really surprised at how some people who do put kids into the world can unify their lifestyle with the future of their kids.

borkdude16:07:22

I know lifestyle of one person/family doesn't matter, but if nobody gives a crap we're doomed, which we probably already are.

pez17:07:25

I think some of us simply don't subscribe to the alarmist propaganda.

val_waeselynck17:07:05

@U04V15CAJ I've been pleasantly surprised with how much people care when exposed to the facts. The French Citizens' Convention for Climate was a good surprise in that respect.

val_waeselynck17:07:10

@U0ETXRFEW it's hard for me to tell what you mean by that, because "alarmist" is so ambiguous nowadays 🙂 do you mean there's no cause for alarm, or that there is but some people exaggerate it?

pez17:07:32

I don't think we're doomed. I think we're still be here, thriving in a thousand years and beyond.

val_waeselynck17:07:50

Well, I mean, I guess it depends on one's notion of what constitutes "doom", right? Personally, I find the situation alarming without believing that Homo Sapiens will go extinct 🙂

pez17:07:55

Well, my comment was an answer to why some people still bring kids to this world. For me it is that I think my kids and their kids will be just fine. And that they will live in a world full of wonders and amazing things beyond what I have or will experience.

borkdude17:07:38

I was half joking, and half serious. The half joke was referring to a clip from The Simpsons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEA0EjMXsLc The other half I'm just too tired to discuss right now, especially when it's called alarmist propaganda, I'm just leaving it at that. I hope you're right.

val_waeselynck17:07:21

"Why people still bring kids to this world" - I don't think that's what @U04V15CAJ was questioning. I think it was only having a lifestyle inconsistent with the future of their kids (like making unsustainable management decisions as a corporate executive)? Anyway, that's how I understood it

borkdude17:07:47

Indeed, that is the correct interpretation.

pez18:07:15

I made an interpretation like that as well. I have no clue why people who think we're doomed on the time frame of their kids bring kids to the world. But for those who make a different analysis, like I do, there is no inconsistency to be explained. That's my point. It's hard to know what's a joke or not in a discussion like this. I merely wanted to highlight that we do different analysis and that might explain some strange behavior that we observe.

seancorfield19:07:24

I think the predictions of sea level rise by 2050 should be very concerning to anyone bringing kids into the world at this point -- you might be dead by then but your kids will definitely have to deal with loss of low-lying land mass (and continuingly crazy climate/weather -- fires, storms, floods).

seancorfield19:07:36

The West Coast of the USA, for example, is getting closer and closer to catastrophic and widespread wildfires each year and I can see a lot of the West Coast being uninhabitable in 30 years at this rate...

borkdude19:07:45

We're dealing with unprecedented draught in the last few years and the area we were on vacation last week is now flooded, cars are floating through the streets. thisisfine

pez19:07:34

I hope to be alive 2050. I don't think my kids will have those struggles.

borkdude19:07:11

Because you're living in Sweden, the last habitable country on earth ;P

😄 2
borkdude19:07:59

Btw, I followed a medical doctor for a couple of years. He was living in Santa Rosa (California), but one night his entire neighborhood burnt down, all of his personal belongings in flames. I know these are anecdotes and not science, but yeah, it does sound alarming. Propaganda I don't know.

borkdude19:07:13

A couple of colleagues of mine also dealt with floods this summer in Czech. He couldn't attend the meeting because he had to help his relatives whose house was flooded. 😅

seancorfield19:07:00

A friend of ours lived in Paradise, California and the entire town burned to the ground a few years ago in, then, one of California's biggest-ever wildfires and he lost absolutely everything. And we've had worse wildfires since. Lyttleton, British Columbia burned to the ground this year (last month?). It's getting much, much worse, almost every year at this point. Some places will not be hit too badly for years (cough Sweden probably) but it will kinda limit where people will be able to live 😐

seancorfield19:07:11

Maybe we can all come to live in your town @U0ETXRFEW?

pez19:07:30

I think it will always change what places in earth are inhabitable. It's an always changing and dynamic system. Floods and droughts have accompanied mankind for as long as we've kept record.

seancorfield19:07:36

Remind me @U0ETXRFEW where do you actually live in Sweden? (roughly, if you don't want to divulge too much detail)

borkdude19:07:22

I know: Stockholm

pez19:07:24

You're always welcome here, of course. I predict it will be a fine place to live for very long. You might make a different analysis, but it would be super to have you close around.

pez19:07:33

A Stockholm suburb. By the lake Drevviken.

seancorfield19:07:29

I like Stockholm 🙂 I've been there a bunch of times. I have friends there.

borkdude19:07:10

I also like Stockholm and I think it'll likely be one the best place to live in the presence of climate change, so it keeps getting better 🔥 🌊

metal 2
pez19:07:16

It is nice. Lots of water. People are very friendly. As they are all over the world, but it still is nice to observe that Stockholm is one of those places.

pez19:07:11

I'd prefer Copenhagen. I think I might have mentioned before. One of these days, maybe I'll afford the move. Not that I'll ever be able to convince the rest of my family. 😀

borkdude19:07:55

The grass is always greener.

pez19:07:15

I've never tried the grass in the other side. It looks beautifully green!

borkdude19:07:48

@U0ETXRFEW When I mention I live near Amsterdam, people tend to think about a different kind of grass

pez19:07:32

Haha, I'm one of those who have never tried that grass either. But I think it is super cool that in Amsterdam it would be my choice.

val_waeselynck20:07:31

> I think it will always change what places in earth are inhabitable. It's an always changing and dynamic system. Floods and droughts have accompanied mankind for as long as we've kept record. Just one remark about that - you might already know it, but the scientific fact is that the scale and speed at which regions are becoming inhabitable and climate conditions are evolving is unprecedented in human history, as well as the rate of biodiversity decline. Several degrees of global warming in a matter of decades is a shock on ecosystems that humanity has never witnessed. The global nature of the problem is why global food security is threatened. We did come though the end of the Ice Age, which was a +5°C warming, but that was much slower (also, the planet was less crowded). We've also known some climate stresses that caused humans societies to collapse, but those were more local and temporary (not that they were pleasant). Fun fact, since we could use a bit of fun: such a local catastrophic climate stress might be what caused the spread of the Indo-European languages that almost all of us speak here. Crop failures around the Black Sea might have prompted the domination of a formerly marginal pastoral horse-riding culture which then conquered Europe and India (see https://www.amazon.com/Horse-Wheel-Language-Bronze-Age-Eurasian-ebook/dp/B003TSEL1Y). Of course, that's just a conjecture, it doesn't have at all the same level of scientific evidence as what I wrote above, nor have I studied it as thoroughly.

emak12:07:07

My conclusion from this thread is that in a few generations we will all speak Swedish or a variant of a Sámi language. 🙂

😂 4
raymcdermott16:07:12

I think that's another example of misdirection: think of the children. Yeah, sure but also and more urgently, please think about the companies.

raymcdermott16:07:39

I mean I'm not against taking some personal actions and #climate #emergency is real but we need policy makers to do their job otherwise we are doomed

👍 2
raymcdermott16:07:18

apropos tech: China just pulled the plug on bitcoin mining. Maybe the EU should do that too.

👍 6
2
val_waeselynck17:07:43

The example of Exxon is famous because it's sensational, but I think it's over-represented. From what I've seen from meeting with executives and from testimonies of people who did, this kind of cynism is not at all the main origin of greenwashing in the corporate world. "At least we're doing something / every little counts" is a much more common driver of environmentally-misguided management than "we're gonna cheat those idiots." We've all witnessed how software systems can be absurdly and harmfully managed without anyone in the loop being a villain, isn't it natural that it's the same for ecological systems? So I stand by what I wrote: ignorance is the main inspiration of failed SER, not cynism. It's not just me thinking this. Jean-Marc Jancovici, founder of the Shift Project and Carbone4, who both works a lot with companies while still spending a lot of time criticizing them, presents the same diagnosis about executives and politicians: "they're not even cynical, they're just ignorant." It's not just big corps, btw. Individuals also do a lot of green-washing at their level, to themselves or others, with the best intentions. How many time have we heard someone say "yeah but I do X, so it's not that bad" ? I should probably clarify what I mean by "ignorance": ignorance is not just "not knowing" - it can also be "looking away". And about sensational: I submit that's this is another cultural issue we have wrt environmental action. When it comes to environmental issues, people and media currently tend emphasize intentions and symbols rather than results and reality. Perhaps it's human nature, or maybe judeo-christianism, or maybe Walt Disney, but we seem to be programmed in that way.

val_waeselynck17:07:46

Now look at that, I'm rambling again! Sorry folks, I just found that @raymcdermott touched on an interesting debate point 🙂

raymcdermott20:07:26

Lol I think it’s good that we all care about it. It’s hard to know what people truly think but I won’t give smart people with reasonable education excuses. To quote Upton Sinclair “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

pez21:07:45

That is an astute observation.