Let’s take a little recess and circle back.

You seem to be making this very complex. But it really isn’t. Yes, git doesn’t track renames. So you are working around it by splitting your operation into 2 commits.

1. A pure rename.
2. A file change.

This way 1 is always considered a rename and 2 is just a regular file change with the same path. You may also consider tweaking the default rename detection threshold with flags like --find-renames or options like diff.renameLimit.

Would it be nice if Git tracked renames? Probably. But that isn’t how the data model works so it is unlikely to happen soon. But maybe they could add some metadata.

I think it doesn’t really make sense. Because you can’t “squash” one commit. squash is taking multiple commits and making them one.

When you do a “squash merge” you are really saying “squash all the commits that are on this branch and not the target” then merge.

So you can’t “squash a merge commit” you need at least one additional commit to squash in.

Of course, but because the law is so protective you won’t need to 99.9% of the time. Canada also isn’t a very litigious place and even if it does get raised it will probably get thrown out quickly. To most doctors it is also a huge stressors to watch someone that they can help die. So overall the balance is well worth trying to help out.

Of course it can only surely be decided in a court. But in this case it would be something like was not actively trying to cause harm.

In Canada all provinces have some form of Good Samaritan law which means that you aren’t responsible other than gross negligence. So any off-duty doctor would be very safe to help out unless they were doing something very stupid.

You have obviously never tried dereferencing a null pointer.

They are legal if you follow the regulations. The problem with the “rideshare” companies is that they don’t. We should just call them “unregulated taxis” rather than pretending that they are a different service. I think just about every taxi company these days is on some app or another (often the same that call unregulated cabs in countries that actually got their shit together and banned the unregulated ones).

Nah it’s worse. Bitcoin actually has legitimate uses. (Yes, they are a minority of actual usage, but they exist.) NFTs are only useful for speculation, gambling and money laundering.

“Rideshare” is also the least accurate term used to dodge regulations. It is just a taxi/cab. You are paying someone to get you from one place to another. They aren’t sharing their ride, they were never going where you are going before you told them to.

Nah, 90% chance that they do something stupider.

Yeah, I get it. It is definitely dry and it is shampoo 😆

You are thinking of something else. Bar shampoo is intended to be used with water much like bar soap. Dry shampoo is just sprayed or rubbed into hair without any water.

I guess it depends how you look at it. From my point of view the speaker isn’t actually talking about themselves. That is the “royal” part. And I mean she does say “as if” to back up that yes, she is not actually including herself.

No, this is the right meaning royal we. If you say “we are going into battle” it is talking about the person being talked to not the person talking. So in this case “We don’t eat that” would be implying that the cat doesn’t eat that, not actually saying anything about the speaker even though “we” would imply they are included.

Gotta wish for a 64-bit genie.

Off topic. But I can’t help but rate the trash cans.

• 1995: Excellent can. Obviously not that many pixels to work with but it is clear, legible and clean.
• 1998: I mean its fine, but a bit of a downgrade. Why so much black? Especially that top rim that apparently was painted black. The shading on the arrows also just hurts legibility, why do 2D arrows have shading anyways?
• 2000: Nope. The only good thing about it is that it is throwing away Windows. The shading is to simple arrows are strange colours and lacks a sense of depth.
• 2001: I don’t love the theme but the execution is great. It looks clean shiny and bright. The only real weird thing is the bag inside, it is a bit strangely round despite seemingly not going over the edge.
• 2006: This is a nice refinement of the last one. Cleaner look, skip the bag, more realistic trash. This is the second best executed after 1995.
• 2015: This one is bland and lacks contrast and detail. The arrows are also oddly stubby for some reason. It’s not bad, but also not good.

I believe that OP’s point is that “artificial” and “natural” are about how the thing is made. However neither reject that it is actual intelligence. “Simulated” means that it is not that thing. It is like intelligence, and resembles it in some ways, but it isn’t intelligence.

I uh, wouldn’t recommend that with fire bars.

with no changes to the salary they received during the production stage

But this just isn’t how it works. These people aren’t paid minimum wage. This will definitely be played in salary negotiation as part of the compensation and will almost certainly result in less base salary.

So now the studio is shifting some risk onto the workers.