I'm surprised no one has mentioned friends https://github.com/JacobEvelyn/friends a command line tool that does a lot of what Monica aims to do. A Ruby gem that will be "friendly" only to laptop users, but with a wide community and continued development.
Because when you talk to a salesperson you know you're being looked at (and reciprocally you're looking at them), and human memory is limited so it's unlikely they will retain any "data" about you when the contact is finished.
Here, instead, there is no indication that you're being watched, analyzed and kept recorded for indefinite amounts of time.
Reminds of a law here in Sweden and how car surveillance work on the bridge to Denmark. The law forbids the unnecessary registration of people so in order to avoid breaking the law the police have a live system in place where information of a car on the danish side get show on a screen on the Swedish side, giving border and toll guards enough time to react. The whole thing is legal only because the system operate live and never store any data, which otherwise would create a illegal register with personal information.
I assume that the data is being used for A/B testing on the display designs (we get 20% more attention from teenagers when the background is orange) - if that's the case, not very scummy.
If you are in public you are being looked at I do not understand your logic. When you go in a public place there are already public accessible web cams that people use to track this kind of thing i remember a thesis that used public accessible cams to try and track people and build up a database. I have always had the opinion you lose privacy when you leave your house since you are in public, and public like is opposite of private/privacy so to me it makes sense.
I have always had the opinion you lose privacy when you leave your house
Privacy is not black and white.
There is a world of difference between someone seeing you for a moment as they pass you in the street and forgetting you a moment later, and automated systems that permanently record everything, analyse it, correlate it with other data sets, make it searchable, and ultimately make automated decisions or provide information that will be used by others to make judgements about the affected individuals, all without the knowledge or consent of those individuals and therefore without any sort of reciprocity.
The idea that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place dates from a time when you could also expect to pass through town in relative anonymity, go about your business without anyone but your neighbours and acquaintances being any the wiser, and would probably change those neighbours and acquaintances from time to time anyway so the only people who really knew much about you would be your chosen long-time friends and colleagues. I think it's safe to say that that boat sailed a while ago, and maybe what privacy means and how much of it we should expect or protect aren't the same in the 21st century.
Just because there is no expectation of privacy does not mean that a reasonable person would assume that their every action is being recorded in precise detail to be stored away forever by a third party.
A lot of things are technologically feasible, and in many cases can't realistically be prevented ahead of time, yet are still considered socially unacceptable or even made illegal. Just because we can do something, that doesn't mean we should. This principle has never been more relevant than in the use of technology.
What's technologically feasible is irrelevant to our moral expectations. It's technologically feasible to brain you with a club and steal your stuff, and has been for millennia.
Preventing the misuse of Blunt Instrument Technologies™ is literally what laws are for. Surveillance is just a club we don't have laws about yet, but should.
If you find the subject interesting I suggest reading "The white road" by Edmund De Waal. It gives a more human, broad and intimate insight into the history of porcelain both in China, Europe and... the USA.
This really depends on your style of using git. If you are rebasing (or otherwise changing history), merge commits can come back to bite you. You've got to make sure that you are dealing with the correct side of the branch. One side will have the history you need, while the other side may not. This can lead to serious weirdness like git reverting changes without telling you.
If you are not changing history, then merge commit cause no harm at all. You've got to be a bit careful about reverts and again choosing the correct side of the history, though.
IMHO, the rebasing style is great when you are working with a group that understands how git is working under the hood. As long as they don't do anything to break stuff, then it's very nice. If you are working with a team which a bit more laissez fair, then merge commits are generally safer -- just make sure to tell then never to change history (rebase, force push, etc).
If you mix the two, you will be spending the odd afternoon piecing your git repository's history together by hand. It is seriously not fun.
Yep, as I mention down-thread, merges only happen at GitHub/GitLab/etc.
The two mistaken scenarios I run into the most are:
1. `git pull` when I'm not in the right branch, which will want to do a merge.
2. When I have commit access on the master branch, and I do a `git merge branch` when that branch hasn't been properly rebased on master. My preference is no merge commit here, so I like that Git can catch this.
The general bias seems to be in favour of treating sources as acceptable, unless there are reasons not to; though that may be just a matter of enforcement.
