A percentage information for a network upload is very much not useless information. In fact making the user wait without any indication of progress is very bad UX.
I feel like you’re either misunderstanding the entire thread or being obtuse on purpose.
The point is that “Delta compression using up to 10 threads” means nothing to most users - it’s also not a progress thing. Hide it unless the user does -v or something.
It's not useless information, any more than the tachometer or a temperature gauge instead of an "idiot light" in a car is useless information. Again, "because git is an open-source project written by nerds, it shows you all of this information. Feel free to ignore it!"
If you don't want it, use `--quiet`. I like that it's there by default since it's useful when I need it and ignorable when I don't.
How often do you really need to look at that info while doing normal work?
Because to me and to the very vast majority of git users it is totally irrelevant.
It is nice that the info is available, but the more sane default would be to hide under a verbose flag not the other way around.
Imagine typing cd folder/ and have the whole filesystem subtree be displayed in the terminal. You are free to ignore it, but it is useless and inconvenient nonetheless
Are you not a programmer? Do you not ever find yourself having to debug an issue? When you have to, are you not glad when there's sufficient information in the log files to do so, even though 99.9% of the time you never look at the logs?
> Imagine typing cd folder
It's not comparable. `cd` is a local command (technically a shell built-in) that completes instantly (unless you cd to a hung NFS mount...). So it honors the Unix philosophy of emitting nothing on success.
But cloning is a network operation. And it's normal for networking tools to output progress by default. See `wget` and `curl`.
The problem with hiding progress under `--verbose` is that by the time you need the information (why is this taking so long?), it's too late to add `--verbose`. You'd have to cancel the command and run it again losing progress.
If you don't want it, then use `--quiet` and move on with your day.
(Sure you could make it smarter by deferring outputting anything until it realizes the operation is taking some time. Patches welcomed.)
This has bothered me ever since I was using git for the first time: what do you mean I have to 'add' and 'commit' and then 'push'? I just want to save my stuff, this is SO many steps.
These criticisms of git always seems so shallow to me.
'add' tells git to start tracking some file(s)
'commit' tells git to save the currently tracked files
'push' says "upload my changes to some other location." Git isn't dropbox magically 'rsync'ing the directory to some server.
'pull' says "download any changes from some other location." Same deal as push.
That should satisfy the majority of git casuals that get frustrated with it. You should learn the tools of your trade, and version control (specifically git) is one of the tools of the software trade. If you work adjacent to software why is it so hard to learn a little about git?
I hate the word mansplaining but this comment could go into the dictionary as an example.
The point was that this bothered me when I used git for the very first time (what is it like 15 years ago at this point) and indeed did not understand it yet. Hope your comment made you feel better about yourself at least.
> The point was that this bothered me when I used git for the very first time
and that is fine. From your original comment, you "just" wanted to save things and got confused why you had to `add`, `commit` and `push`. Its just that you didn't know that git isn't a word processor that gives you a way to save your work - you've done that already when you saved the file with your editor.
When I came to git, I was also confused why commit and push are different steps - so much work, I thought. Until one day it finally hit - wait, this lets me keep "saving" my work locally until I'm ready to upload it - which is when I push.
> I was also confused why commit and push are different steps
I think most people think about file access in the word processor terms, like you mentioned. You "edit," "save," "upload," and "download." Actions like that.
Then they have to use git for the first time and the terms/actions are really foreign. It's likely made worse if they have experience with auto-syncing file software, since that software does the whole remote management process for them.
You don't have to do add as a separate step unless you're adding it to the repo for the first time. You can (and I do) just `git commit file1 dir2` or whatever. I don't conceptually think commit+push should be combined; committing a version is separate from pushing it to a remote.
When I was getting started with programming I often forgot to do one of those steps and often ended up losing my work because I was working from a library computer or something.
When I got more experience I finally understood why it is like that, and it makes sense now, but its still a lot of steps for someone learning to remember.
> I feel like other commenters are being obtuse on purpose and avoid the point?
nah, people are just built differently. Not everyone gets frustrated with "learning to remember", and then some do. Both are valid. The people who seem to be obtuse to you are in the first group, myself included. I didn't instantly catch the fact that instead of `svn commit` I have to now do `git add`, `git commit` and `git push`. But, and this is the key difference, when I forgot I just checked my bash history to recall the sequence. It doesn't bother me because I know either of two things will happen:
A. Over months and years, you then understand how things work and its second nature.
OR B. The tool was just a one-off and you won't use it after some time, so it doesn't matter you won't recall the steps.
Its the same with any professional tool, really - even outside software (think carpentry, for example).
He's been wrong a few times, but has been right far more than ONCE and appears to be profitably making decisions. For example:
Short dot.com stocks (55% return), short subprime mortgages (Massive return), long Gamestop 2019, short ARKK 2021, The shorts on Palantir and NVDA are probably still running (PLTR 25% in profit, NVDA 20% loss).
The Gamestop 2019 play was a fundamental analysis on supply and demand of the shares of the stock vs financial performance. TSLA seems to be similar. There is just a lot of demand for the the stock.
Its frustrating; you grind out a living making consistent solid double digit returns for investors and all anyone talks about is a guy who made 5bn for their investors 20 years ago and has lost 25bn for them since.
Neither Anthropic, Open AI nor SpaceX in its current form is a good candidate for an IPO at valuations that all but guarantee hundreds of billions of dollars in "passive capital" aka pension funds and ETFs will have to buy in.
SpaceX might have been a candidate on its own core business (aka: launching spacecraft and Starlink), but ever since the weird side deals with all of the other companies in the Muskverse (Twitter, xAI, Tesla) it is far too contaminated.
Sooner or later the AI bubble will burst - and assuming that the pension funds and ETFs buy in as projected, they stand to lose a lot of money that will make Covid's first lockdown + dotcom + 2007 Lehman combined look pale.
Elon must be looking to merge the new amalgamation of SPCX into TSLA and join all his sinking ships in one. Starlink itself won't be able to save that, but make it too big and the government might. That is the way to get to the ridiculous valuations needed for Elon's pay package.
If you make a very rough estimate of the emotional maturity of a person that abuses a neighbor for not “buying American”, I think the answer become reasonably clear
Oh damn, I love this one. I’ve been vibe coding a ‘public benefit’ app on the side that has a few hundred users but never thought of doing something for an actual non-profit.
Care to elaborate on your process? Curious how you approach them and come up with the best path forward with limited time (assuming you have a full time job as well on the side). Thanks!
I would recommend finding a local non-profit you're interested in helping, and start volunteering. Don't go in guns blazing "I'm here from Hackernews to save you" but get to know the people and what they do, and then how to help will become apparent.
By local I would recommend truly local and not a "division" of a national non-profit; those are an entirely different beast.
Most people don't spend a lot of time wistfully considering their CO2 usage, myself included. The religious zeal by which people feel the need to tell me about the ever-warming planet is honestly more off-putting than most actual religions.
Of the very few "f*cks" I can give in my life, I prefer to spend mine as I choose rather than being scolded for not giving mine to the pressing issues that others deem important.
The thing is that everyone alive today and in the future is footing the bill for that indifference. It's nice that you don't care, but it's not something I'd brag about.
I too don't want to be a martyr hermit who don't travel and consume just to cur my CO2 emissions in half, while someone else generates 10x of that living a full life. That's just dumb, and I consider this whole movement rich people telling poor people that they should be considerate and sacrifice themselves.
If you truly care about the planet, don't have children.
It's an "all hands on deck" situation, yet everyone seems to think that someone else has to do something. You don't need to be a martyr, just to make an effort.
At the very least don't brag about not giving a crap.
> If you truly care about the planet, don't have children.
That's a fallacy; people care about the planet precisely because of children. I don't care about the planet for its own sake; I care because of the humans who inhabit it and their future lives.
Also, humanity spent 100,000 years without flying around the globe, and I doubt they were all living hermit martyr lives.
Is the OP flying a private jet or something? Unless he is, it's a useless metric. The people flying private are responsible for a 1000x a regular persons emissions. It's offensive to suggest regular salaried people are supposed to be "doing something" in this CO2 effort.
It's true that a single private jet is causing tons of CO2 emissions. But in the end, all consumers control the market.
You can jump one link further in the chain to regions with much lower emissions. Somalia/Congo emit over 200x less CO2 per capita in comparison to the US. Do you think that's fair for them if the "regular salaried people" don't care?
If responsibility always gets dismissed by pointing to someone emitting more, nothing changes.
I don't feel it's properly engaging in good faith to say that I don't care. I don't specifically care, in the "feeling shame" sense that the GP had mentioned. As I pointed out, we all have a limited number of things we can realistically care about.
The fact that I happen to care about other things more than this specific flavor of global catastrophe is morally OK.
The way I see it, "from each according to their ability" is the right approach here. If you can afford 30% less flying, red meat etc, then it's your duty to do it. You don't need to make your cat go vegan; just... do what you can, even if imperfectly.
Shame is not necessary, but callous indifference is not acceptable. There is a middle ground where you treat it like a habit to improve, like a step count.
And this is it. This is why we are where we are today. That it is seen as taking a religious zeal to realize how flying very frequently is disastrous for the climate. That's our bar and what we have to work with. Yes, we are properly fucked.
I refuse to worsen my life for an absolutely minuscule abstract benefit to someone, eventually, maybe. I am going to continue eating meat and flying when I want to, and I don't feel the least bit bad about it. It's unfortunate that climate change is happening, but my personal actions are not meaningfully contributing. My choices do not have cascading effects on others; whatever I do, the climate will change in the same manner as it otherwise would have. In that light, I am not going to reduce my QOL just to feel self righteous for no actual benefit to anyone.
You may wonder how this is consistent with my propensity to recycle and follow traffic laws and not do crimes and other socially beneficial minor things to which a comparison could be made to CO2 output: because those all have a greater benefit:cost ratio than flying and eating meat, by far. I am including the benefits of living in a high-trust society in that analysis.
Me planting a tree results in a tree existing for progeny. Me skipping a flight results in absolutely no difference for progeny. I pick my battles. I also plant a lot of trees, literally.
I would totally do this without any shame if I had the need/desire. CO2 isn't going to be solved by well intentioned individuals making absolutely no impact. It will be a generic solution that solves it for everyone, or it won't be solved at all.
I'm also not going to take shorter showers when people are farming in a desert and shipping the crops to China.
You might think this makes me a terrible person. That's probably good. Because it will help people understand what we're up against and what needs to happen to actually solve the problem.
The point is that it's fun and you learn something.
reply