Do you have the source code for the scripts you wrote to help? I'd be interested in seeing them

They're in two gists here:

https://gist.github.com/kaspermeerts/781f0137b361b51224dcab7...

https://gist.github.com/kaspermeerts/b6f158b1278de307e48a200...

I just hacked it together, but I do think it's not unreadable code

> but I do think it's not unreadable code

hopefully your boolean conditionals are easier to read than that

The compiler will fix it.

Is. Not. Not. = Is.

Hah!

If you scroll fast, only two icons would blink

They'd need to produce 1% more grain as compared to the world's output, not their own output. This could be a significant increase.

Digging 100m down is difficult and dangerous

While the methods described don't seem realistic for the average residential lawn (e.g. My own), this was still entertaining. Thanks for for sharing

git provides a couple of options for running a script against the code for every commit

Even without built in options, writing a for-loop over the result of git log or rev-list is more or less two lines of scripting. Same with a walk over rev-parse HEAD^.

Then you also have git bisect but that's more for finding when some metric started to show anomalies.

Would that be git for-each-ref [1] or something different?

[1]: https://git-scm.com/docs/git-for-each-ref

Commits are not refs, only the head of a branch (or tag) is a ref.

I found this article on it: https://writingcooperative.com/the-anatomy-of-an-amazon-6-pa...

To give you an explicit answer - yes.

Is this a reference to something that I'm not picking up on?

I don't think that I get it. Could you explain?

Shertainly. That key functionality is normally used for shaving.

His accent means that he pronounces 'S' as 'Sh':

Save -> Ctrl+S

Shave -> Ctrl+Sh