Amusing to imagine the red diesel of sport shooting - better hope the tax authority doesn't find any combustion-proof dye on the self-defense shell casings!

I don't think we need to store any additional metadata to make the rebase just slightly more smarter and able to skip over the "obvious" commits in this way, but I'm also just a code monkey, so I'm sure there are Reasons.

Yeah, and I kind of see how git gets confused because the squashed commits essentially disappear. But I don't know why the rebase can't be smart when it sees that file content between the eventual destination commit (the squash) is the same as the tip of the branch (instead of rebasing one commit at a time).

The update branch button works normally when I don't stack the PRs, so I don't know. It just feels like a half baked feature that GitHub automatically changes the PR target branch in this scenario but doesn't automatically do whatever it takes for a 'git merge origin/main' to work.

Right now I manually do "stacked PRs" like this:

main <- PR A <- PR B (PR B's merge target branch is PR A) <- PR C, etc.

If PR B merges first, PR A can merge to main no problems. If PR A merges to main first, fixing PR B is a nightmare. The GitHub UI automatically changes the "target" branch of the PR to main, but instantly conflicts spawn from nowhere. Try to rebase it and you're going to be manually looking at every non-conflicting change that ever happened on that branch, for no apparent reason (yes, the reason is that PR A merging to main created a new merge commit at the head of main, and git just can't handle that or whatever).

So I don't really need a new UI for this, I need the tool to Just Work in a way that makes sense to anyone who wasn't Linus in 1998 when the gospel of rebase was delivered from On High to us unwashed Gentry through his fingertips..

Please do find those papers! They may be describing a radical new chemistry that I'm not familiar with.

To be clear - methanol boils at 64C and ethanol boils at 78C. Are you suggesting that in standard distillation, there is still some non-trace methanol coming over at 78C? If I personally observed that in a laboratory setting, I'd quickly assume measurement error or external contamination.

Also something about how AI is not special and we haven't added or needed invisible watermarks for other ways media can be manipulated deceptively since time immemorial, but that's less of a practical argument and more of a philosophical one.

There are millions of people moving between the proposed age brackets every day. This is a DoB-gifting firehose to ad tech.

Love to see it. I'm still mad about the Sony rootkit[0] and the people sued for absurd amounts over downloading a few MP3s back in the 00's.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47464134

Points: 402

# Comments: 403

And honestly this is more than they really should even have to do. I think it does go above their obligation. They're doing Offcom a favor here, they don't even have to figure out how to block it themselves.

It would serve UK legislators well to explore that tingling sense some more before they consider any further efforts in this direction, but that's just my two pence.

How are you not outraged? People are missing the above forest for the "oh but it's a tiny little easy API and I don't see any downsides" trees.

It seems metaphor is important to you, so hopefully this thoroughly illustrates the insanity of this law.

The point is there are no carve outs (for open source). Your toy operating system is just as liable as Microsoft to implement this. In the real world, the health department does not require your home cocktail hour beverages to meet industrial water supply mineralization standards.

Perhaps you believe that analogue is "a few people raising a stink" because you don't really believe the "health department" would go after my "little open source water faucet." But the way the law is written, there's nothing stopping them. And none of us want to be the test case. And that's not even getting into the whole "compelled speech" problem, but I'm going to have to leave that line of argument to someone else to analogize.

I doubt that anyone authoring these laws even thinks about the two concepts on the same day. I think these issues are totally separate.

I also don't base my principles on the desires of the masses. It's our duty as people who understand the technology to prevent the controversy-de-jour from wagging our dog.

I share your feeling that if everyone did it this way and the world promised to stop making bad, privacy-invading ID laws I could grin and bear it. I don't see that happening, thus I am hostile to it in any flavor.