... among others, all of which I had marked, with the correct answer set as "mandatory". If someone answered enough of these with the wrong answer, you won't even see them (if you do, you'll have a high "enemy" percentage), so you won't waste your time talking to them.
Maybe this is not really an issue for homosexual couples, but I would never have considered Tinder because unlike OK Cupid, there's no way to filter out Republican-hates-the-gays-hates-abortions types. The question/answer filtering and profile text was the most important part of online dating to me.
There are so many cabs that I don't really see the need for this, and most cabs take Apple Pay now, so I've never really seen the point of this and the other one (is there another one? I think there is?).
If I was somewhere where there aren't a lot of cabs I'd probably just use Uber, it's cheaper and cleaner anyways.
Small PRs are an issue because PRs are dependent on other users and can't be dependent on a prior PR.
Let's say we're adding an interface/typeclass/protocol and a concrete implementation. I'd say these should be two separate commits, as they're adding two different things. An interface doesn't require a provided implementation to work. But, if we were to create those as two separate pull requests, it would be more work for the project maintainers, and the initiator wouldn't be able to create the PR for the concrete implementation until the interface PR was merged - the concrete PR can't be added as a dependent PR of the interface one, or something to that effect.
Since you can "compare" almost anything on Github, small commits aren't really an issue, just view a larger-scope comparison to get an idea of the whole PR.
Another way to put this might be that commits are for individual code changes that build up to a pull request, which is a conceptual change?
This is a bad idea masquerading as a good idea. Before making a pull request (or doing any sort of merge), you should rebase against upstream master (or whatever you're going to push to). However, keeping distinct atomic commits that change one and only one small thing, when possible, is much preferable if bisect or blame is used. If you have broken or poorly written commits, use fixup, reword, squash, etc. in rebase -i.
Using fast-forward (and possibly only allowing fast-forward) is a good idea. Squashing entire pull requests that may change multiple things into a single commit is a very bad idea.
To be clear - this is a bike lane on a road with onramps? Uh, what? There aren't even bollards (in the part without an onramp, obviously) or any semblance of protection.
Non-"blatant spam" email advertising really isn't better. Purchasing a product from almost any non-Amazon company will instantly sign you up for an almost daily torrent of email.
Even worse is when you're automatically signed for dead trees being sent to your house, because those don't have unsubscribe links.
It's crazy. I already bought the thing! I don't need more things, or else I would have bought them when I bought the original thing. Yet, companies are treating their customers - people who have actually already bought things - in this terrible manner. Maybe we need legislation mandating opt-in?
Using a language in which 1 + "1" == "11" instead of one of the best type and null-safe languages to be developed in the past few years is not exactly my idea of a delightful experience, but interface as a pure function of state is a good idea.
In this case, though, as I understand it (I live in NYC and am thus not the target market for these types of products besides maybe lightbulbs), Apple's solution, HomeKit, does allow interaction between disparate products, and it's even the banner feature!
Both you and the OP are incorrect. The file is not included in the app (only referred to), but is only downloaded by iOS itself - or anyone who points a web client directly at it, of course.
> "HubSpot and John have decided to go separate ways"
That's not much better. It's very rarely mutual. Either John has been fired, or John has found another job - perhaps at a company where no one lights cleaning equipment on fire - and is quitting.
- Evolution.
- Whether or not dinosaurs were a thing.
- If the Moon landing happened.
- The relative size of the Earth and the Sun.
- If Astrology is scientifically accurate.
... among others, all of which I had marked, with the correct answer set as "mandatory". If someone answered enough of these with the wrong answer, you won't even see them (if you do, you'll have a high "enemy" percentage), so you won't waste your time talking to them.