ASP.NET has been out of the picture for a long time now - it was closed source, yes, it still remains closed, but it's legacy tech. Microsoft essentially left it on life support, and moved on to ASP.NET MVC - which, despite the name, is a complete rewrite with a very different design, and which was open source from the get go (indeed, it was one of the first large OSS projects at MS, and helped pave the way for more broad OSS acceptance within the company). So Mono didn't need to re-implement it. At this point, the vast majority of new.NET web code that's written, is written in ASP.NET MVC. The biggest website that's using it is probably StackOverflow.
But.NET Core went one step further, and rewrote ASP.NET MVC again, to get rid of any remaining vestigial dependencies on the old web stack (it was mostly low-level HTTP stuff), and simplify it further. That's called ASP.NET Core, and it's what you use to develop web apps on.NET Core.
This is a "Discard all changes" button on a tool pane that is labelled "Source Control: Git". Discarding state in this context, quite obviously, means going back to the last commit in the repo. Which is exactly what it did.
It prompts you if you want to discard, both for single-file operation, or for "Discard all changes" that he did. In the latter case, it tells you exactly what it is going to do, with screaming caps for emphasis.
That's exactly what it did. He had 3 months worth of uncommitted, unstaged changes in his local Git repo. And he asked VSCode to discard those changes.
It even pops up a warning dialog telling you that it's an irreversible operation (in screaming caps even!), and asking whether you're sure you really want to do that.
He was using a source code repository. Git specifically, in fact.
The problem is that he had three months of uncommitted changes in that local repo of his. Not just uncommitted - unstaged.
So then he opened the Git panel in VSCode. And it told him - hey, dude, you've got like 5000 changed files here. He didn't like it, so he dug around, and found "Discard all changes" command (it's not even prominently displayed, you need to bring up the context menu for that). For some reason, he decided that it's the magic thing that's going to make things better. He clicked it, at which point it popped up a warning dialog with this text:
"Are you sure you want to discard ALL changes? This is IRREVERSIBLE!"
And he clicked on the button in that dialog that said "Discard ALL Changes".
At which point it basically did git clean -f -q; git checkout --..
So this is a case of taking a shotgun, loading a shell into it, taking the safety off, aiming it at your foot, and pulling the trigger - because you have no clue about how guns work or what they do, but you've heard that having one is essential, so you got it, and then decided to do something with it without bothering to learn anything at all.
The thing that you missed in this story is that those changes were not commits. They were unstaged files in his local repo, and the command in question is only displayed in the window that shows you the list of such. I'm not aware of any meaning of "discard" wrt Git (or any other source control system really) that, in the context of local files with uncommitted changes, means anything other than what he got.
And there was no --force there, either - when you do this operation, VSCode asks first. In rather forcible language, even:
Are you sure you want to discard ALL changes? This is IRREVERSIBLE!
That's true, but saying it on your own website SHOULD be equivalent to saying it on the doorstep of your house.
On your own website, meaning that you host one yourself, sure.
If you rent one? Don't be surprised if the real owner objects.
You could maybe make an argument that DNS providers and ISPs should not be allowed to discriminate. Of course, that is essentially a Net Neutrality argument, which you guys have heretofore attacked. Karma's a bitch.
Anti-discrimination laws never referenced the First Amendment. It does not apply to any kind of scenario where your ability to speak is constrained by a private actor exercising their property rights, or rights to freedom of association.
I don't believe the civil institutions that liberals rely on to save our society are sufficient for fighting the threat of a genocidal ideology. Not any more. The government isn't going to save you when the government is run by a white supremacist who didn't get the most votes. We are at a boundary condition for the values of the Enlightenment.
Well, for one thing, there's more than one government in this country. There's the feds, and then there's the states.
Right now, the ground is still ripe for the liberals to establish their own "tenther" movement, taking over the momentum that the right had previously created for their own purposes. We have already done so, in action if not quite in name, with sanctuary cities. More will doubtlessly follow - but there needs to be a coherent political ideology behind it.
I only believe in violence as a means of self-defense. Fighting Nazis is the very definition of self-defense.
Nevertheless, that's not how the law sees it. Even the "fighting words" doctrine is extremely narrow, and most Nazi political speech does not fit it.
It's a reasonable proxy to judge proportions. In any case, I didn't say my estimates are based solely on the online communities - but online communities are where you gauge general interest in such topics. One's personal contacts don't grow so rapidly even when the larger movement grows.
I wouldn't be surprised, because I am a liberal gun owner myself, and I'm well aware of the existence of the community, and its size.
I also know that we're still vastly outnumbered. Even though the trends have been encouraging since the election - I've seen the size of some of online communities on these topics triple - it's still a drop in the bucket, compared to the capacity for violence that the far right and their allies have. We cannot match them on this turf yet.
'm not advocating for making anything illegal. I'm advocating for violence against Nazis, just like Churchill did, just like Roosevelt did. Just like most of the world did before the alt-Right SJWs tried to rehabilitate Nazism by dressing it in cartoon frogs.
Violence can be done through proper channels - that being the government and the judicial system - or not. If you do the latter without amending the law, then such violence is itself illegal, and you open yourself and others who partake in it to be prosecuted for assault, battery, and possibly murder depending on how successful you are. You also enable your targets to legally claim self-defense if they fight you back by lethal means.
Antifa are mostly engaged in "punch the Nazi" bullshit. This only works until the Nazis start shooting back - and they will (and be legally in the clear). Then what?
Are you ready to get into a shooting match? More importantly, do you have the tools and the skills to be in one?
It strikes me as strange that so many progressives these days try to tap into 1920-30s German vibe with socialist and communist militias battling Nazi paramilitaries on the streets. I mean, sure, go right ahead, meet violence with violence, but... where's our militias? Oh, it doesn't exist, because we have made ourselves the party of civil disarmament, so even to touch a "military style" gun is anathema to one's progressive creds.
Whereas the Nazis and their sympathizers do have militias. And you can laugh at them all you want, but they have guns, and they know how to use them well enough to kill people. And when it's guns versus baseball bats, I know which side I'll bet on.
You give everyone civil rights, because otherwise you never know what gets designated as "cancer". This strikes me as a particularly prudent strategy with right-wing nuts in full control of the federal government, and most of the state governments.
For example, if we make hate speech illegal, I bet you dollars to donuts the first target of that law won't be KKK. It'll be BLM. They'll dig out some New Black Panther guy raving about Jews on video, and go from there.
Or, suppose, advocating for murder (in abstract) is made illegal. Do you know how many states have "fetal personhood" laws on the books? Kansas is one of them. Now, how creative do you think someone like Kris Kobach can get, if you give him a tool like that? Pro-choice advocacy as hate speech, Planned Parenthood donations as funding extremism - jeez, they would be drooling all over themselves.
You know, enemy propaganda radio stations were considered military targets in WW2. And allies did take them down every now and then - by a judicious application of air-dropped high explosives.
It's rather pointless to talk to these people, other than to identify them for what they are.
We just need to start treating them like we treat Islamic extremists. Keep a close eye on them on the assumption that they are planning to do something violent. As soon as any evidence to that effect shows up, crack down hard on everyone involved.
Traditionalist Workers Party sounds pretty damn right-wing to me, since it's obviously an attempt to copy NSDAP.
Another organization that was particularly prominent at those protests is Vanguard America. These are the people carrying torches and chanting "Blood and Soil" (which happens to be their party slogan). Of particular note is that the man who drove that car was a part of that crowd. Oh, and their symbol is fasces. If you're not familiar with that word, you might recognize it as the root which gave us "fascism".
Yet another organization is Identity Evropa. These guys insist that they're not Nazis, but rather "white identitarians". Their membership rules restrict said membership to people "of European, non-Semitic heritage", so you make your own judgment.
The concern that overrides all this, is that the change makes it impossible to support existing protocols, that do not require Apple-specific cloud infrastructure, on iOS.
The complaint about Python not being refactorable is also weird. Any Python IDE worth its salt (on Linux this would mainly be PyCharm) is capable of doing type inference to handle things such as renaming a symbol across the entire codebase.
I'm Russian (both ethnically and a citizen), and I can confirm what he said.
It should be noted though that there are some people who don't necessarily disagree that Putin is authoritarian, or that Stalin was a bloody dictator. But they genuinely believe that it's how things should be run, either because it's in the "Russian national character" (and anything else leads to ruin), or because they genuinely believe it's a better form of government in general.
Slashdot Mirror
ASP.NET has been out of the picture for a long time now - it was closed source, yes, it still remains closed, but it's legacy tech. Microsoft essentially left it on life support, and moved on to ASP.NET MVC - which, despite the name, is a complete rewrite with a very different design, and which was open source from the get go (indeed, it was one of the first large OSS projects at MS, and helped pave the way for more broad OSS acceptance within the company). So Mono didn't need to re-implement it. At this point, the vast majority of new .NET web code that's written, is written in ASP.NET MVC. The biggest website that's using it is probably StackOverflow.
But .NET Core went one step further, and rewrote ASP.NET MVC again, to get rid of any remaining vestigial dependencies on the old web stack (it was mostly low-level HTTP stuff), and simplify it further. That's called ASP.NET Core, and it's what you use to develop web apps on .NET Core.
Let them show it, with their own resources. Why provide them with free speaking platforms and distribution channels on your own dime?
This is a "Discard all changes" button on a tool pane that is labelled "Source Control: Git". Discarding state in this context, quite obviously, means going back to the last commit in the repo. Which is exactly what it did.
It prompts you if you want to discard, both for single-file operation, or for "Discard all changes" that he did. In the latter case, it tells you exactly what it is going to do, with screaming caps for emphasis.
That's exactly what it did. He had 3 months worth of uncommitted, unstaged changes in his local Git repo. And he asked VSCode to discard those changes.
It even pops up a warning dialog telling you that it's an irreversible operation (in screaming caps even!), and asking whether you're sure you really want to do that.
He was using a source code repository. Git specifically, in fact.
The problem is that he had three months of uncommitted changes in that local repo of his. Not just uncommitted - unstaged.
So then he opened the Git panel in VSCode. And it told him - hey, dude, you've got like 5000 changed files here. He didn't like it, so he dug around, and found "Discard all changes" command (it's not even prominently displayed, you need to bring up the context menu for that). For some reason, he decided that it's the magic thing that's going to make things better. He clicked it, at which point it popped up a warning dialog with this text:
"Are you sure you want to discard ALL changes? This is IRREVERSIBLE!"
And he clicked on the button in that dialog that said "Discard ALL Changes".
At which point it basically did git clean -f -q; git checkout -- ..
So this is a case of taking a shotgun, loading a shell into it, taking the safety off, aiming it at your foot, and pulling the trigger - because you have no clue about how guns work or what they do, but you've heard that having one is essential, so you got it, and then decided to do something with it without bothering to learn anything at all.
If that's what you understand, then you haven't bothered reading the story. He was using Git.
The thing that you missed in this story is that those changes were not commits. They were unstaged files in his local repo, and the command in question is only displayed in the window that shows you the list of such. I'm not aware of any meaning of "discard" wrt Git (or any other source control system really) that, in the context of local files with uncommitted changes, means anything other than what he got.
And there was no --force there, either - when you do this operation, VSCode asks first. In rather forcible language, even:
That's true, but saying it on your own website SHOULD be equivalent to saying it on the doorstep of your house.
On your own website, meaning that you host one yourself, sure.
If you rent one? Don't be surprised if the real owner objects.
You could maybe make an argument that DNS providers and ISPs should not be allowed to discriminate. Of course, that is essentially a Net Neutrality argument, which you guys have heretofore attacked. Karma's a bitch.
Political affiliation is not a protected class in most places.
Anti-discrimination laws never referenced the First Amendment. It does not apply to any kind of scenario where your ability to speak is constrained by a private actor exercising their property rights, or rights to freedom of association.
I don't believe the civil institutions that liberals rely on to save our society are sufficient for fighting the threat of a genocidal ideology. Not any more. The government isn't going to save you when the government is run by a white supremacist who didn't get the most votes. We are at a boundary condition for the values of the Enlightenment.
Well, for one thing, there's more than one government in this country. There's the feds, and then there's the states.
Right now, the ground is still ripe for the liberals to establish their own "tenther" movement, taking over the momentum that the right had previously created for their own purposes. We have already done so, in action if not quite in name, with sanctuary cities. More will doubtlessly follow - but there needs to be a coherent political ideology behind it.
I only believe in violence as a means of self-defense. Fighting Nazis is the very definition of self-defense.
Nevertheless, that's not how the law sees it. Even the "fighting words" doctrine is extremely narrow, and most Nazi political speech does not fit it.
It's a reasonable proxy to judge proportions. In any case, I didn't say my estimates are based solely on the online communities - but online communities are where you gauge general interest in such topics. One's personal contacts don't grow so rapidly even when the larger movement grows.
I wouldn't be surprised, because I am a liberal gun owner myself, and I'm well aware of the existence of the community, and its size.
I also know that we're still vastly outnumbered. Even though the trends have been encouraging since the election - I've seen the size of some of online communities on these topics triple - it's still a drop in the bucket, compared to the capacity for violence that the far right and their allies have. We cannot match them on this turf yet.
'm not advocating for making anything illegal. I'm advocating for violence against Nazis, just like Churchill did, just like Roosevelt did. Just like most of the world did before the alt-Right SJWs tried to rehabilitate Nazism by dressing it in cartoon frogs.
Violence can be done through proper channels - that being the government and the judicial system - or not. If you do the latter without amending the law, then such violence is itself illegal, and you open yourself and others who partake in it to be prosecuted for assault, battery, and possibly murder depending on how successful you are. You also enable your targets to legally claim self-defense if they fight you back by lethal means.
And who will do that violence?
Antifa are mostly engaged in "punch the Nazi" bullshit. This only works until the Nazis start shooting back - and they will (and be legally in the clear). Then what?
Are you ready to get into a shooting match? More importantly, do you have the tools and the skills to be in one?
It strikes me as strange that so many progressives these days try to tap into 1920-30s German vibe with socialist and communist militias battling Nazi paramilitaries on the streets. I mean, sure, go right ahead, meet violence with violence, but... where's our militias? Oh, it doesn't exist, because we have made ourselves the party of civil disarmament, so even to touch a "military style" gun is anathema to one's progressive creds.
Whereas the Nazis and their sympathizers do have militias. And you can laugh at them all you want, but they have guns, and they know how to use them well enough to kill people. And when it's guns versus baseball bats, I know which side I'll bet on.
You give everyone civil rights, because otherwise you never know what gets designated as "cancer". This strikes me as a particularly prudent strategy with right-wing nuts in full control of the federal government, and most of the state governments.
For example, if we make hate speech illegal, I bet you dollars to donuts the first target of that law won't be KKK. It'll be BLM. They'll dig out some New Black Panther guy raving about Jews on video, and go from there.
Or, suppose, advocating for murder (in abstract) is made illegal. Do you know how many states have "fetal personhood" laws on the books? Kansas is one of them. Now, how creative do you think someone like Kris Kobach can get, if you give him a tool like that? Pro-choice advocacy as hate speech, Planned Parenthood donations as funding extremism - jeez, they would be drooling all over themselves.
You know, enemy propaganda radio stations were considered military targets in WW2. And allies did take them down every now and then - by a judicious application of air-dropped high explosives.
It's rather pointless to talk to these people, other than to identify them for what they are.
We just need to start treating them like we treat Islamic extremists. Keep a close eye on them on the assumption that they are planning to do something violent. As soon as any evidence to that effect shows up, crack down hard on everyone involved.
Traditionalist Workers Party sounds pretty damn right-wing to me, since it's obviously an attempt to copy NSDAP.
Another organization that was particularly prominent at those protests is Vanguard America. These are the people carrying torches and chanting "Blood and Soil" (which happens to be their party slogan). Of particular note is that the man who drove that car was a part of that crowd. Oh, and their symbol is fasces. If you're not familiar with that word, you might recognize it as the root which gave us "fascism".
Yet another organization is Identity Evropa. These guys insist that they're not Nazis, but rather "white identitarians". Their membership rules restrict said membership to people "of European, non-Semitic heritage", so you make your own judgment.
Actually, political affiliation is considered one of the protected attributes
On the federal level, at least, it isn't.
So, you would infringe on freedom of association to secure the right to a platform for free speech?
The concern that overrides all this, is that the change makes it impossible to support existing protocols, that do not require Apple-specific cloud infrastructure, on iOS.
The complaint about Python not being refactorable is also weird. Any Python IDE worth its salt (on Linux this would mainly be PyCharm) is capable of doing type inference to handle things such as renaming a symbol across the entire codebase.
I'm Russian (both ethnically and a citizen), and I can confirm what he said.
It should be noted though that there are some people who don't necessarily disagree that Putin is authoritarian, or that Stalin was a bloody dictator. But they genuinely believe that it's how things should be run, either because it's in the "Russian national character" (and anything else leads to ruin), or because they genuinely believe it's a better form of government in general.