Yeah, no thanks. I switched to dbeaver already anyway, because pgadmin was annoying about to which postgres versions it could connect. Too much of a hassle to setup a new version from source back when I tried. With dbeaver I just run ./dbeaver from the extracted .tag.gz. dbeaver is also not a web interface, but a real desktop application (Java, though).
The fact that you need Docker to make it easy is already a mayor failure. What happened to single binary programs that you can just run? I don't want a whole virtualized OS installation just to get a desktop application to work.
Exactly. Except this way you can't build a complete biometric database if all citizen! Since it's so obvious how to do it correctly without creating such a database one could make the assumption the creation of such a database is the actual goal.
Register the mousemove event handler on window, then you will still get the events when the mouse moves out of the window/frame while dragging and it won't be that buggy.
Come on, HN, you can't let this information stay under the front page for 13 hours and everyone's like "ah yes of course". Please don't register the mousemove event handler on window, that old school hack never really worked and was obsoleted 10 years ago when the pointer API became standard.
2000 was peak except for them still having those tiny non-resizeable dialogs with long lists in them which you have to scroll horizontally and vertically. WTF?
Your typical Linux DE was better at that even back then.
I don't care about backing up unfinished hobby projects, I just write/test until arbitrarily sharing, or if I'm completely honest, potentially abandoning it. I may not 'git init' for months, let alone make any commits or push to any remotes.
Reasoning: skip SCM 'cost' by not making commits I'd squash and ignore, anyway. The project lifetime and iteration loop are both short enough that I don't need history, bisection, or redundancy. Yet.
Point being... priorities vary. Not to make a judgement here, I just don't think the number of commits makes for a very good LLM purity test.
you should push to a private working branch- and freqently. But, when merging your changes to a central branch you should squash all the intermediate commits and just provide one commit with the asked for change.
Enshrining "end of day commits", "oh, that didn't work" mistakes, etc is not only demoralizing for the developer(s), but it makes tracing changes all but impossible.
Exactly. We should always be asking these sort of questions and take these self-reported benchmarks with a grain of salt until independent sources can verify such claims rather than trusting results from the creators themselves. Otherwise it falls into biased territory.
This sort of behaviour is now absolutely rampant in the AI industry.
reply