> For example, in IPv4 each host has one local net address, and the gateway uses NAT to let it speak with the Internet. Simple and clean.

I assume you mean "interface", not "host". Because it's absolutely not true that a host can only have one "local net address".

EDIT: a brief Google also confirms that a single interface isn't restricted to one address either: sudo ip address add <ip-address>/<prefix-length> dev <interface>

I think siblings point needs to be made more sharply: this could've gone somewhere good, "I evaluated it and found the gain was not worth the cost to change", but instead went to "the gain from a change is insignificant 99% of the time, so it's not worth understanding it".

The latter is poor engineering.

That goes in the same bucket as rebase. Until you know what it does, you'll be fine avoiding it.

Since people are sharing their experiences and my recent one is relevant to edit, I'll go:

Working on a feature recently, I ended up making 3 changes ("commits") on top of each other and hopping between them via jj edit.

The first change wasn't feature specific, it was extending the base project in preparation.

The second change just added a doc describing all the changes needed for the feature.

The third change removed the doc as parts were implemented, bit by bit.

As I progressed on the third change & found stuff I'd missed at the start of this process, I jumped back to edit the first change (maybe I had a bug in that base project extension) and the second change (oh hey, I found something else that needed to be done for the feature).

It sounds crazy compared to a git workflow, but at the end of the process I have 3 changes, all tested & working. If I was doing this with git, I'd have to rebase/squash to get the final changes into a neat clear history.

Don't you bring nuance into this, this is the internet. Let alone suggest a populace would need to know it.

GNU Bazaar thoroughly lost, last release was 2016, Canonical retired it last year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Bazaar

GP is taking about this[0] but it's quite hilarious that a VCS exists with that name.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cathedral_and_the_Bazaar

It's not a coincidence, it was called like that as a reference to facilitating distributed development.

This is the "if you're already letting faults through, why not give up trying to stop faults?" approach.

The alternative might be "what if we could get the genie back into the bottle?"

We know some people are using LLMs to evaluate PRs, the only question is who, and how strong the incentive is for them to give up.

"better" in that sentence is very specific. Worse is also worse, and if you're one of the people for whom the "better" side of a solution doesn't apply, you're left with a mess that people celebrate.

Interestingly, this is the mathematical definition of "chaotic behaviour"; minuscule changes in the input result in arbitrarily large differences in the output.

It can arise from perfectly deterministic rules... the Logistic Map with r=4, x(n+1) = 4*(1 - x(n)) is a classic.

Which is also the desired behavior of the mixing functions from which the cryptographic primitives are built (e.g. block cipher functions and one-way hash functions), i.e. the so-called avalanche property.

Correct, it's akin to chaos theory or the butterfly effect, which, even it can be predictable for many ranges of input: https://youtu.be/dtjb2OhEQcU

No? I have locks on my house and car that I have the keys for. That an argument _for_ secure boot.

It is absolutely not.

It's a decent one for "locks on an apartment building that someone else owns."

But no, purchasing a house ought not include by default "a set of locks that you must work around, permission-wise."

Funnily enough, when you buy a house, the first task is to change all the locks.

Y’know, for security.

Sure. Now, of the people who buy houses -- how many of them would find this a difficult or onerous task?

And then, do computers.

Apples and oranges here, for this point.

Cost me $500 recently. Not difficult, but costly.

Sorry dwattttt, I’m unable to verify your identity and your keys are disabled. If you have an issue, please fax a copy of your DUNS number.

You don't have the ability to revoke my keys on this machine, that's the point. Not even MS could do that, because these are _my_ keys. The alternative proposed here is no keys at all.

It would work just as well if the instructions instead told you to enrol your own key and sign the cracks. Those instructions just aren't as popular.