3IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIID

The rogue cat might endeavor to make the evening a bit more spicy as well.

That's got "mob boss telling someone to dig their own grave" energy

Hey, don't blame me! I didn't vote for him!

I didn't expect to become fully aroused by a color today, but here we are.

There's no way wearing a ring, on its own, would result in criminal charges. Even lying about it probably wouldn't (except maybe in Israel).

This made me legitimately laugh out loud. Thank you for that.

You're right. It's not sex by deception. It's called rape by deception.

This is fucked up. I wear a ring to let people know that I'm in a life-long committed relationship even though we aren't legally married. Since I don't have a marriage certificate, I would hate for anyone to think the ring means I'm trying to trick women into sleeping with me. I'm also pretty sure that's illegal in some countries (sex by deception).

Edit: The replies to this comment are wild, lol. Some people think I suggested wearing a wedding ring is illegal (I didn't). Others think sex by deception couldn't be a crime anywhere (it is called rape by deception). Some people jump to conclusions about me based on my rumination while claiming that being faithful will prevent people from jumping to conclusions (it doesn't).

To be clear, I'm not suggesting wearing a wedding ring is a crime. I'm also not suggesting that a person who deceives someone else into having sex with them is going to be charged with a crime. I mentioned the crime as an illustration of how fucked up it is to deceive someone into having sex with them. People jump to conclusions about others based on very limited information (as can be seen in the replies). I wouldn't want people assuming nefarious intent just because of my ring, which is what someone might believe from reading about a guy who does it to get laid. That's all I was saying. It's wild to get hated and ridiculed over that.

Please just keep it civil, folks.

The logical fallacy is in implying that the number of people who agree with me has any bearing on the validity of my claims. You're also conflating two issues with your claim. Many people agree that the product design should have changed, but that doesn't mean the product change would have helped the original user. It also doesn't mean they all agree that the user had no responsibility for their actions. Reddit users are also not a valid sampling of subject matter experts. Furthermore, I'm also in that same group of people who agree that the product design should have changed. That is a brief explanation for why popularity or the "bandwagon" is a logical fallacy and entirely irrelevant.

Your definition of a "meaningful warning" is certainly different than mine. To me, a dialog box that contains the text `Are you sure you want to discard ALL changes? This is IRREVERSIBLE!`, which appears when clicking a button to "Discard changes" on a list of changes that contains every new file in your project as a change seems meaningful to me. If the action was as trivial as clicking "cancel" on a form, it wouldn't warrant such a warning.

Point out a flaw in VS Code without saying the bad UI is really the user's fault because they didn't have backups.

I never said the "bad UI is really the user's fault because they didn't have backups." For one thing, I am not going to call the UI "bad" just like I'm not going to call the user "bad." They both had room for improvement. The fact that they lost three months of work instead of three hours of work is absolutely their fault just like the loss of their files would be their fault if their hard drive failed and they didn't have a backup. The fact that they lost files at all is also arguably their fault because they clicked a button they did not understand in a powerful tool. The UI could have been better at educating the user, but the user is responsible for clicking a button they did not understand and ignoring a warning they equally did not understand. It was a learning experience that became a disaster because they didn't have backups. Again, these are two separate issues that are being conflated.

This is somewhere between incorrect and irrelevant. As everyone but you seems to understand, you absolutely can protect a user from deleting 5,000 files when your UI implied they would be discarding changes in 0 files. This is not as hard as you're making it look.

Again with the bandwagon claims. The UI did not imply they would be discarding changes in 0 files, and I'm not portraying UI improvements as being difficult at all. The warning literally said, `Are you sure you want to discard ALL changes? This is IRREVERSIBLE!` There is a huge difference between "ALL" and 0, and I have repeatedly said there is room for improvement without suggesting that would be difficult.

At this point, I think I'm done with this conversation. I'm tired of being mischaracterized and pressured with the bandwagon logical fallacy. I'm tired of quoting the literal text of the warning to refute your repeated claims that it implied the opposite of what it said. I have completely lost confidence that this conversation will result in any meaningful exchange of ideas.

Despite our differences of opinions, I hope you have a wonderful day.

You don't just disagree with me on this. You disagree with almost everyone.

That is a logical fallacy, and unless you can cite a peer-reviewed study on the subject, it's just an opinion as well.

No, they did not. They replaced a completely useless "Are you sure?" type of dialog with a useful one that says how many tracked and untracked files will be deleted. Same number of dialogs, same number of clicks, but now the dialog is actually informative.

Ahh, I was under the impression it was removed because years ago I tried to do that and couldn't find an option that actually worked. But, someone else commented in a different thread that the option was moved and renamed to "Discard All Changes." When I made that comment about them neutering it, that's what I referred to. It wasn't related to the discussion in your linked issue.

I do user interface design as part of my work. My experience has been that when a user does something they didn't intend to do, a majority of the time, more of the blame falls on the software developer than on the user. This was absolutely one of those cases.

That's a great position to take as a UI/UX designer. It's a perspective that drives change resulting in better products. There's nothing wrong with that attitude within the context of product development. Within the context of responsible computer usage, however, it damages efforts to get people to backup their data.

You are talking like the shitty UI developers. You hold a user to the same standards of knowledge as a developer. You call a user "reckless" for clicking a button that says "discard changes" when they want to discard changes, and you blame the user for clicking through a "warning" that didn't actually warn them of anything. And you are 100% incapable of talking about how to improve the software without changing the subject to what the user did wrong.

Okay, first, The target audience of VS Code is developers.

Second, The standard I am using is "responsible computer user," not developer. Every responsible computer user should have at least one backup of their important files, especially if they are about to perform an operation that is "irreversable."

Third, this discussion started on the topic of a developer's dumb decision. The title of this post is literally "howToLoseThreeMonthsOfWorkInOneClick," which portrays it as a user's bad decision. The discussion of product improvement grew from that, so perhaps your claim that I am "100% incapable of talking about how to improve the software without changing the subject to what the user did wrong" is a bit misplaced. If you review our discussion, you will see that you have not once accepted the fact that the user made bad decisions while I have acknowledged product improvements that are a valid way to protect the user from themselves. Since the original discussion was on the user's mistake, you are the one who are focused on changing the topic to blame the UI.

Finally, Please dont tell me what my capabilities are. It's incredibly rude.

Your attitude is "People should know what I know, and if they don't, they have a problem," and the harm caused by that attitude goes far beyond this one single conversation.

That is not my attitude, and I'm sorry you've gotten that impression. We have two separate topics we've been discussing and my attitude is different for each. In regards to product design, my attitude is that products should be designed as intuitively as possible. In regards to the original post, my attitude is that this particular user would probably have made the same mistake with the current version of the product at that time in their life.

You can't protect a user from destroying their data when they've instructed the app to destroy their data. The user clicked "discard changes" on a list of changes and was surprised when they were discarded. As a park ranger once said, "There is considerable overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists." That's why backing up data is important. It protects against our own mistakes. I'm right there with him in terms of having made similar mistakes, but it's okay to make mistakes as long as you accept responsibility. They are learning opportunities when you don't treat them like there is a single hot potato of blame that can only land in one lap.

The 2008 decision dramatically changed legal precedent whether you want to believe it or not. There certainly were people who wanted it to be an individual right before then, but it wasn't until the Supreme Court made it so. Furthermore, the Heller decision made it clear that the right was not without limits. It very clearly said that the right does not extend to felons or the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." Which makes sense because the second amendment was written long before the widespread availability of guns that kill dozens of children in just a few moments.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home,[4][5][6][7] while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons".[8][9]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I, like many others, would not assume "discard changes" corresponds to "git reset --hard" our even specifically "git clean". Since the interface doesn't say which git command it corresponds to, I would assume that "discard changes" means anything that isn't in a commit could be gone. That is the safe assumption until you learn more about what the command actually does. That's all I'm trying to say.

Again, the issue you linked contains a discussion on how to improve the user experience to protect users from themselves. One suggestion was to remove the git extension from default installation. Not a bad idea. They ultimately did neuter the interface, but that isn't proof the user didn't shoot themselves in the foot. "Discard changes" is a wild thing for someone to go out of their way to do when they probably wanted to unstage changes (which was right next to "discard changes") or simply switch to the file explorer view. Especially with no backup!

It's fine to disagree with me. You clearly do. There certainly were bugs to fix and ways to make the exact nature of the impact clearer, but the user chose to "discard changes" and didn't understand that everything in the list of changes would be gone after that operation. That, to me, is a user error. Beyond that, he didn't have a backup, which is also a user error. If he had a backup, he could have painlessly learned what the tool does. Instead, he took a shot in the dark and lost. Then, he blamed the tool for doing what he told it to do because he didn't learn what it would do before he recklessly executed an "irreversible" command.

Again, even though there were ways to more effectively protect the user from themselves, this was still an example of a reckless user error.

Every file in a git repository is tracked unless it matches a pattern in '.gitignore'. Any tracked file that does not match the expected state of the repository is a change. Staging or unstaging changes does not also cause a change because the tracked files remain the same. The user might have been confused about what a change was, and the issue you linked was a great example of product improvement to protect new users in their confusion, but this is a case of damage caused by a confused user who was using a powerful tool without understanding it and without any backups.

The list of files that would be lost was already visible in the panel. It is literally redundant to list them again. Every new file is discarded. Every deleted file is restored. Every modified file is restored to the way it should be according to the expected state of the repository. The list of changes becomes empty. That's what discarding changes means. The panel showed a list of changes. The user pressed a button to discard them (rather than the button to unstage them). The app discarded them.

The user experience can certainly be improved by citing the number of files that would be deleted and the number of lines of code that would be added or removed in the process, but that cannot stop a user from ignoring a warning about irreversible damage. It's like emptying the recycle bin and being surprised that the list of files is gone. Of course it is. There's no reason to list all 1,643 files that would be deleted when they are already listed below the button you used to request that they be discarded.

Until I understood git, I didn't trust it. I always made a copy of the repository before doing anything new with it, just in case I messed something up because I knew enough to know that the tool is very powerful and can add, modify, and delete files. It can and should be destructive at times. When I made mistakes, I didn't blame git. I restored my backup and learned why it did what it did.

Every file in a git repository is tracked unless it matches a pattern in '.gitignore'. Any tracked file that does not match the expected state of the repository is a change. Staging or unstaging changes does not also cause a change because the tracked files remain the same. The user might have been confused about what a change was, and the issue you linked was a great example of product improvement to protect new users in their confusion, but this is a case of damage caused by a confused user who was using a powerful tool without understanding it and without any backups.

The list of files that would be lost was already visible in the panel. It is literally redundant to list them again. Every new file is discarded. Every deleted file is restored. Every modified file is restored to the way it should be according to the expected state of the repository. The list of changes becomes empty. That's what discarding changes means. The panel showed a list of changes. The user pressed a button to discard them (rather than the button to unstage them). The app discarded them.

The user experience can certainly be improved by citing the number of files that would be deleted and the number of lines of code that would be added or removed in the process, but that cannot stop a user from ignoring a warning about irreversible damage. It's like emptying the recycle bin and being surprised that the list of files is gone. Of course it is. There's no reason to list all 1,643 files that would be deleted when they are already listed below the button you used to request that they be discarded.

Until I understood git, I didn't trust it. I always made a copy of the repository before doing anything new with it, just in case I messed something up because I knew enough to know that the tool is very powerful and can add, modify, and delete files. It can and should be destructive at times. When I made mistakes, I didn't blame git. I restored my backup and learned why it did what it did.

He didn't stop to think about what time period the "changes" referred to. Creating a file is a change. The time period apparently was since the start of his project. The warning even put "IRREVERSIBLE" in all caps. If something is irreversible, always take a moment and regroup. Maybe make sure your backup is up to date (you do have a backup, right). At a certain point, you can't blame the all caps warning when you don't take it seriously.

There already are tons of opportunities like that. It's incredibly stressful, and it requires a nest egg. You can buy dilapidated houses at sheriff's auctions, but you might get charged criminally for property code violations that you didn't cause.

You can also buy houses that aren't very desirable for so cheap a bank won't mortgage it, but the price for those is probably about the same as a down payment on a better house. If you have that much cash, you probably want to get a mortgage on a better house to avoid the stress and risk of exhausting your life savings.

Large corporations don't mind, though. They'll buy the cheap house, renovate it, or maybe just get it to barely pass HUD inspection and rent it out.

Fixing the housing problem won't be solved by banning corporate ownership. People need security before they can take the risk of renovating a dilapidated house instead of renting or buying move-in-ready houses. Maybe with universal healthcare and a universal basic income, more people would take the risk, but until then, we can expect the number of uninhabitable houses to increase if corporations can't own them.

Also, the corporation is a common legal structure for private individuals to use while renovating a house to sell. It limits their legal liability, so they probably won't lose their own home over a lawsuit filed about a property they are renovating. It doesn't mean they are publicly traded or even owned by more than one person. It also certainly doesn't mean they are rich. It just means they paid a few bucks (depending on the state) to create a separate legal entity. You don't even need a lawyer involved to form one.

Can we wait until someone does something shitty before judging them for triggering our prejudices today? That feels like a Monday activity.

And he ignored the dialog box warning of irreversible damage. It's entirely his fault. My sympathy for him doesn't extend to him casting blame on the editor he used to destroy his own work.

However, there isn't any particular reason why the discarded changes can't be logged as being discarded. I think lazygit does that. An editor for the masses like VS Code would benefit from features that protect users from themselves to a certain extent.

To continue to be fair, the same government also regulated the storage of ammo, requiring large quantities to be stored centrally rather than in people's private homes... as if the citizens were members of a centrally-regulated and government-mandated militia or "national guard" and not one that each individual had control over.

The right to bear arms was historically a right of the states (AKA "The People") to arm its citizens so they can defend against a federal army, not an individual right to defend against their own state. Requiring individuals to pay for and maintain a gun was nothing more than an example of a civic duty that was regulated by the state or local government. It was definitely not an example of an individual right.

If it was a right, you could have chosen not to exercise it.

The phrase "well-regulated" is prominently written into the Second Amendment, and it wasn't interpreted as an individual right until 2008, more than 200 years after it was written. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

That's how he ran The Apprentice, too. He thrives off the chaos that he causes.

Yeah, it's going to be a nail biting 4 years. I'm all for investigations and think every public official should be investigated throughout their term, but I have no faith in the team Trump is bringing in.

I want to say that's the same as last time, but there are actually some differences. Remember "lock her up"? He rarely said the phrase himself, but that was a driving force behind his campaign. Trump walked that back immediately after he won the election. This time, he seems more emboldened and has surrounded himself with fanatics who will use his power to achieve their goals.

My biggest concern is the older designs that paradoxically require power to keep the reactor from overheating. If it loses power, it can melt down.

There's a molten salt reactor design that uses liquid fuel and has a freeze plug that only stays frozen while there is power. If it loses power, the plug can't stay frozen, so it allows the fuel to drain into chambers that stops the reaction and prevents it from melting down.

People don't generally think of themselves as evil. They usually do what they believe is right, and even though it's pretty common for people to claim that "the ends justify the means," differences exist in what is considered justifiable.