diff3 conflict is basically what you always want to see, either by setting it as the default as per stackoverflow.com/questions/27417656/should-diff3-be-default-conflictstyle-on-git:git config --global merge.conflictstyle diff3git checkout --conflict=diff3With this, conflicts now show up as:
++<<<<<<< HEAD
+5
++||||||| parent of 7b0f59d (6)
++3
++=======
+ 6
++>>>>>>> 7b0f59d (6)7b0f59d is the SHA-2 of commit 6.instead of the inferior default:
++<<<<<<< ours
+5
++=======
+ 6
++>>>>>>> theirsWe can also observe the current tree state during resolution:so we understand that we are now at 5 and that we are trying to apply our commit
* b4ec057 (HEAD, master) 5
* 0b37c1b 4
| * fbfbfe8 (my-feature) 7
| * 7b0f59d 6
|/
* 661cfab 3
* 6d748a9 2
* c5f8a2c 16So it is much clearer what is happening:and so now we have to decide what the new code is that will put both of these together.
We now reach:and the tree looks like:So we understand that:
++<<<<<<< HEAD
+11
++||||||| parent of fbfbfe8 (7)
++6
++=======
+ 7
++>>>>>>> fbfbfe8 (7)* ca7f7ff (HEAD) 6
* b4ec057 (master) 5
* 0b37c1b 4
| * fbfbfe8 (my-feature) 7
| * 7b0f59d 6
|/
* 661cfab 3
* 6d748a9 2
* c5f8a2c 1and after resolving that one we now reach:
* e1aaf20 (HEAD -> my-feature) 7
* ca7f7ff 6
* b4ec057 (master) 5
* 0b37c1b 4
* 661cfab 3
* 6d748a9 2
* c5f8a2c 1These are good free newbie GUI options:
sudo apt install meld
git mergetool --tool meld
sudo apt install kdiff3
git mergetool --tool kdiff3
git-tips-2.sh
#!/usr/bin/env bash
set -eux
add() (
rm -f f
for i in `seq 10`; do
printf "before $i\n\n" >> f
done
printf "conflict 1 $1\n\n" >> f
for i in `seq 10`; do
printf "middle $i\n\n" >> f
done
printf "conflict 2 $2\n\n" >> f
for i in `seq 10`; do
printf "after $i\n\n" >> f
done
git add f
)
rm -rf git-tips-2
mkdir git-tips-2
cd git-tips-2
git init
for i in 1 2 3; do
add $i $i
git commit -m $i
done
add 3 4
git commit -m 4
add 5 4
git commit -m 5
git checkout HEAD~2
git checkout -b my-feature
add 3 6
git commit -m 6
add 7 6
git commit -m 7- kimchi
- reverse debugging
- E Ink
- web archiving
- Buildroot
- integrated development environments
- degreaser
- UML: while it might seem like a over-thought thing and likely is, the basic idea that understanding "one to one vs one to many vs many to many" relationships between objects and which object can see which object, is a fantastic approach towards understanding complex object oriented code
- open source software, including open source scientific computing consultancies
- computer
- FOSDEM. Ciro Santilli attended in 2016, and felt extremely good together with all those amazingly smart open source hackers: www.quora.com/What-are-the-best-open-source-conferences/answer/Ciro-Santilli
- Sass
- vimium
- bisection
- vector graphics, notably scalable Vector Graphics
- ASCII art
- OAuth
- command-line interface
- virtualization
- Anusol
- autodidacticism and self-directed learning
- end-to-end encryption
- The Criterion Collection
- version control
- SQLite
- Guerrilla Mail
- POSIX
- static website
- Freeman Dyson
- open access academic publishers
- unconditional basic income
- transhumanism
- 2FA, and notably 2FA apps
- human-readable formats
- wealth tax
- Reproducible builds
- F-Droid
- Can't get you out of my head by Adam Curtis (2021)
- drug liberalization
- Wiki-binge
- molecular Sciences Course of the University of São Paulo
- meal deal
- clade, as opposed to taxonomic ranks
- lingua franca, see also: having more than one natural language is bad for the world
- rsync
- zip hoodies
Looking at most astronomical object through a telescope is boring because you only see a white ball or point every time. Such targets would likely only be interesting with spectroscopy analysis.
There are however some objects that you can see the structure of even with an amateur telescope, and that makes them very exciting.
Some good ones:
- The Moon, notably crater detail.
- Saturn. Clearly visible to the naked eye, but looks like a ball. But under an amateur telescope, you can clearly see that there is a disk. Clearly discerning that the disk is a ring, i.e. seeing the gap, is a bit harder though.
- Jupiter. Clearly visible to the naked eye, it is quite huge. The four Galilean moons, being Earth-sized, are incredibly clearly visible, tested on Celestron NexStar 4SE 25mm/9mm eyepiece. Colored gas clouds are hard though, you will likely just see it bright white. www.reddit.com/r/telescopes/comments/35xrbb/how_can_i_see_the_color_of_jupiter_with_my/
- a double star. As mentioned at www.relativelyinteresting.com/10-astronomical-targets-new-telescope/ Albireo are incredibly separated. Also it is is easy to find manually being in a major well known constellation. It is no wonder it is not quite even known if they are gravitationally bound or not!
- Andromeda Galaxy. This is when things start getting hard. You can see a faint cloud, but it is not super clear that it has a center.One important understanding is that it is not possible to see stars outside of the Milky Way by naked eye.It is at this point that you start to learn that pictures of faint objects require longer term exposure and averaging of the images taken. For this you need:Just looking through the scope to immediately see something is not enough.
- a digital camera attached to the scope
- a computerized scope that slowly moves to track the point of interest
- image processing software that does the averaging
Video "Andromeda Galaxy with only a Camera, Lens, & Tripod by Nebula Photos (2020)" gives a good notion of expectation adjustment.
When they disabled this from Chromium, it was one of the things that prompted Ciro Santilli to switch to Proton Pass.
Wikipedia reads:so basically exactly what Ciro Santilli wants to do on OurBigBook.com. Ominous.
Any contributor could create and own new Knol articles, and there could be multiple articles on the same topic with each written by a different author.
Like any closed source "failure", everything was deleted. wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/Knol
Infinitely many SQL answers.
As mentioned at Ciro Santilli's Stack Overflow contributions, he just answers every semi-duplicate immediatly as it is asked, and is therefore able to overcome the Stack Overflow maximum 200 daily reputation limit by far. E.g. in 2018, Gordon reached 135k (archive), thus almost double the 73k yearly limit due to the 200 daily limit, all of that with accepts.
This is in contrast to Ciro Santilli's contribution style which is to only answer questions as he needs the subject, or generally important questions that aroused his interest.
2014 Blog post describing his activity: blog.data-miners.com/2014/08/an-achievement-on-stack-overflow.html, key quote:so that suggests his contributions also take a meditative value.
For a few months, I sporadically answered questions. Then, in the first week of May, my Mom's younger brother passed away. That meant lots of time hanging around family, planning the funeral, and the like. Answering questions on Stack Overflow turned out to be a good way to get away from things. So, I became more intent.
www.data-miners.com/linoff.htm mentions he's an SQL consultant that consulted for several big companies.
The discovery of the photon was one of the major initiators of quantum mechanics.
Light was very well known to be a wave through diffraction experiments. So how could it also be a particle???
This process "started" in 1900 with Planck's law which was based on discrete energy packets being exchanged as exposed at On the Theory of the Energy Distribution Law of the Normal Spectrum by Max Planck (1900).
This ideas was reinforced by Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect in 1905 in terms of photon.
In the next big development was the Bohr model in 1913, which supposed non-classical physics new quantization rules for the electron which explained the hydrogen emission spectrum. The quantization rule used made use of the Planck constant, and so served an initial link between the emerging quantized nature of light, and that of the electron.
The final phase started in 1923, when Louis de Broglie proposed that in analogy to photons, electrons might also be waves, a statement made more precise through the de Broglie relations.
This event opened the floodgates, and soon matrix mechanics was published in quantum mechanical re-interpretation of kinematic and mechanical relations by Heisenberg (1925), as the first coherent formulation of quantum mechanics.
It was followed by the Schrödinger equation in 1926, which proposed an equivalent partial differential equation formulation to matrix mechanics, a mathematical formulation that was more familiar to physicists than the matrix ideas of Heisenberg.
Inward Bound by Abraham Pais (1988) summarizes his views of the main developments of the subjectit:
- Planck's on the discovery of the quantum theory (1900);
- Einstein's on the light-quantum (1905);
- Bohr's on the hydrogen atom (1913);
- Bose's on what came to be called quantum statistics (1924);
- Heisenberg's on what came to be known as matrix mechanics (1925);
- and Schroedinger's on wave mechanics (1926).
Bibliography:
Bibliography:
- Subtle is the Lord by Abraham Pais (1982) chapter III "Relativity, the special theory" has a good sketch as you may imagine.
This book series appears to be the one: global.oup.com/academic/content/series/h/history-of-the-university-of-oxford-huo/. A mere 250 pounds+ each.
- youtu.be/uol4V1Wa8B0?t=343 at the University of Bologna, the original system was for students to decide what they would learn, and hire and fire teachers as they decided. This is opposed to the system of the university of Paris, in which teachers make the final decisions. He mentions that this is the system that the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge use: the "congregation". He mentions that Oxbridge are one of the few universities that maintained this structure (as opposed to having funding sources select the final decision makers)
- youtu.be/uol4V1Wa8B0?t=1327 mentions the quadrangle architecture which served as the basis of the Colleges: make a closed square with everything students need: Chapel, Hall to eat, classes and accommodation. This is based of course on monastic cloisters.
As "deadlines" approach, feature sets get cut down, then there are delays, and finally a feasible feature set is delivered some time after the deadline.
The only deadlines that can be met are those of tasks which have already been done but not announced.
This is of course Hofstadter's law.
Extremelly ironic that it was bought by Oxford University Press and ceased to be "Home University". University is broken.
How can a chemical substance be unstable but not flammable? Updated 2025-07-11 +Created 1970-01-01
Their crash system does not have an amazing user interface.
Tested on Ubuntu 21.10.
After something crashes, look under
/var/crash for a crash file, which helps to determine which package to report under on Launchpad.E.g. a file
/var/crash/_usr_sbin_gdm3.0.crash makes you want to file the bug under gdm at: bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gdm/+filebugThen, while reporting the bug, you want to give the developpers access to that Ubuntu's crash report system has already uploaded the
.crash file. But you can't publicly upload it because it contains memory dumps and could contain secret information. The way to do it is to look at the ID under:sudo cat /var/crash/_usr_sbin_gdm3.0.uploaded.crash for you, so you just have to confirm it and give the ID on the ticket.You can view a list of all your uploaded errors at:and each of those contain a link to:which you yourself cannot see.
xdg-open https://errors.ubuntu.com/user/$(sudo cat /var/lib/whoopsie/whoopsie-id)https://errors.ubuntu.com/oops/<.uloaded error id>askubuntu.com/questions/434431/how-can-i-read-a-crash-file-from-var-crash asks how to read the
.crash files.Running:splits it up into a few files, but does not make any major improvements.
sudo apport-unpack /var/crash/_usr_sbin_gdm3.0.crash /tmp/appapport-retracesudo apt install apport-retrace
sudo chmod 666 /var/crash/_usr_sbin_gdm3.0.crash
apport-retrace -g /var/crash/_usr_sbin_gdm3.0.crashTried:but then
echo "deb http://ddebs.ubuntu.com $(lsb_release -cs) main restricted universe multiverse" | sudo tee -a /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ddebs.list
echo -e "deb http://ddebs.ubuntu.com $(lsb_release -cs)-updates main restricted universe multiverse\ndeb http://ddebs.ubuntu.com $(lsb_release -cs)-proposed main restricted universe multiverse" | sudo tee -a /etc/apt/sources.list.d/ddebs.list
sudo apt install ubuntu-dbgsym-keyringsudo apt update fails with:E: The repository 'http://ddebs.ubuntu.com impish-security Release' does not have a Release file.There are apparently two methods:
- in the script, e.g. as in the Genesis block message
- in output addresses
Specific implementations:
- eternitywall.it/ Eternity WallLaunched 2015 www.newsbtc.com/news/bitcoin/eternity-wall-records-1150-documents-blockchain-first-year/Shutdown sometime after 2019, working archive: web.archive.org/web/20190417074034/https://eternitywall.it/ says "Sorry, the service is not properly working at the moment..." and last working message timestamped "April 16, 2019 8:02 PM GMT".
The approach many courses take to physics, specially "modern Physics" is really bad, this is how it should be taught:
- start by describing experiments that the previous best theory did not explain, see also: Section "Physics education needs more focus on understanding experiments and their history"
- then, give the final formula for the next best theory
- then, give all the important final implications of that formula, and how it amazingly describes the experiments. In particular this means: doing physics means calculating a number
- then, give some mathematical intuition on the formulas, and how the main equation could have been derived
- finally, then and only then, start deriving the outcomes of the main formula in detail
This is likely because at some point, experiments get more and more complicated, and so people are tempted to say "this is the truth" instead of "this is why we think this is the truth", which is much harder.
Related:
- settheory.net/learnphysics and www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MKjPYuD60I&list=PLJcTRymdlUQPwx8qU4ln83huPx-6Y3XxH from settheory.net
- math.ucr.edu/home/baez/books.html by John Baez. Mentions:Ciro Santilli is trying to change that: OurBigBook.com.
This webpage doesn't have lots of links to websites. Websites just don't have the sort of in-depth material you need to learn technical subjects like advanced math and physics — at least, not yet. To learn this stuff, you need to read lots of books
- web.archive.org/web/20210324182549/http://jakobschwichtenberg.com/one-thing/ by Jakob Schwichtenberg
People will be more interested if they see how the stuff they are learning is useful.
Achieving novel results for science, or charitable goals (e.g. creating novel tutorials) are also equaly valid. Note that those also imply you being able to make a living out of something, just that you will be getting donations and not become infinitey rich. and that is fine.
Projects don't need of course to reach the level of novel result. But they must at least aim at moving towards that.
This is one of the greatest challenges of education, since a huge part of the useful information is locked under enterprise or military secrecy, or even open academic incomprehensibility, making it nearly to impossible for the front-line educators to actually find and teach real use cases.
There are unlisted articles, also show them or only show them.