If it's the pneumonia style (i.e. the infection is in the lungs, not the lymph nodes) you have to start antibiotics very quickly or it's basically 100% fatal. So it's treatable, but only to a point. The good news is basic masks and quarantine are extremely effective, so the risk of outright spread beyond the initial patients and very early health care workers is very small.
I've tried JJ multiple times, but always tapped out after a day. Having to work with raw SHA1 hashes is so utterly tedious and I never quite figured out how to... just use it in normal day to day work.
The book looks well done and a labor of love, but the #1 issue Git users have, merge conflicts, isn't discussed until chapter 13 (reminds me of a Neovim tutorial I read recently where "editing text" isn't until chapter 6).
> Having to work with raw SHA1 hashes is so utterly tedious
Wot? You're holding it wrong. With jj you use raw hashes far less than git.
When you start, you use bookmarks mostly because your using as alternate porcelain git and still thinking in terms of git HEAD. Later you will grow comfortable with stacks of changes, and then you will start using change-id's (not SHA1's). Much later, you will learn revset's, and create a few revset aliases of your own, and be moving around the commit tree so fast a git person looking on won't understand what's happening. Then, one day, you will be forced to move back to git, try do to something, and wonder how you every did anything with it and hate every minute you are forced to use it. That's over a year away.
I'm like 30% sure this is satirical but if it's not...
I never, during daily driving, use hashes in git, it's all branch names. If I'm using hashes it's because something went quite wrong and I'm into https://xkcd.com/1597/ territory. Why would I want to move whatever a "revset" is around commits? Doesn't that just... break the point of a commit as a confirmed set of changes?
JJ seems like a thing for people who like managing code vs writing it.
> JJ seems like a thing for people who like managing code vs writing it.
No, I'm serious. jj doesn't have git commands you use regularly, like commit and add. It does them automagically. Most rebases happen that way as well. If your goal is to spend less time screwing around, typing VCS CLI commands, use jj.
But it will be less time only in the long term. In the very short term you will flounder around just like you did when you started out with git, which you used "rm -r repo; git clone ssh://../repo" to recover. (No need for that in jj, because "jj undo" works for all jj commands. Consequently unlike git no jj command can lose information.) Then you will spend months using it as alternate git porcelain. It's only after the many more months it takes to absorb its ways via osmosis that you start using it the way its makers intended.
You said you used it for a few hours. If so, you didn't get very far into the floundering stage, let alone start to work your way out of it. You need to be decidedly more persistent than that to become familiar with any new tool. Until you do, "you're holding it wrong" is a pretty accurate description of why it didn't work for you.
I know you mean well, but if it takes me more than a few hours to figure out a tool before it's even basically useful I'm out.
Git didn't take me hours to figure out while floundering, you `git add .`, `git commit -a -m "hello!"`, `git push` and it's instantly useful for doing the basics of making sure your code is somewhere else besides your laptop. The rest is details and comes up only when you need it.
"It's only after the many more months it takes to absorb its ways via osmosis that you start using it the way its makers intended." This is an insane take, and means jj will never take off (I will bet a large amount of money on it). Even with Vim or Emacs you can start writing within the first hour of opening it.
> I know you mean well, but if it takes me more than a few hours to figure out a tool before it's even basically useful I'm out.
Fair enough, but I suspect in this case it's your previous experiences with VCS that make it take more than a few hours. JJ is actually simpler than git. There is no staging, no committing, less need for rebase, undo just works, it has better history - lots of things. The need to learn all those git concepts disappears with JJ. For a new user that makes life easier. But someone who comes from git has to unlearn a lot of things before they can adjust to the JJ mindset.
If all you ever do in git is "git pull; git add -A; git commit -a -m ...; git push", then switching to JJ is hard justify. Dropping the need to type "git add -A; git commit -a -m ..." isn't a big win. That's all most people do, so I expect most won't change.
But there is a reason that's all most people do in git - it's because everything else is far more messy, and dangerous. If you haven't lost work to "git reset --hard", you haven't been using git for long. Once you notice it easy to do more in JJ, things like breaking up big PR's in a series of commits that spell out a narrative of how you got from A to B, which eases the burden on the reviewer, become downright easy. Shuffling code between commits to achieve that in git is a right proper PITA, so JJ users tend to have a much tidier commit history.
That change only happens when you've become so familiar with JJ concepts, you are no longer "thinking in git", so much so the shift back to git's CLI becomes painful. It takes months. Until you get that payback, the switch is wasted time.
To be honest, it sounds like you just like managing code more than writing it. That's fine! Many people like to customize their editor for hours, but for me I'm more interested in the code.
> If you haven't lost work to "git reset --hard"
I haven't, because why would I ever need to run that? I've reverted individual files, but never a full repo (I've been working with Git for 15 years)
Stock options are wage theft for the vast majority of employees taking it, it's gambling and the vast majority of bets don't pay off. It is genius, convincing people to work for less or free.
Except employees aren’t working for free. They’re working for normal salaries, plus stock. What Jim pioneered (and Marc built on) was the idea that founding engineers might end up insanely rich, and because Marc is an investor he can push this ideology to all of the companies that take investment from him
It's the same show, Nova just rebranded it in the US. BTW, here's a full video of the BBC version but available everywhere. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x223gx8
I was explicitly referring to PEP. I'm not sure why you would make assumptions about where I have or haven't been when you have absolutely no information.
PEP remains largely free in SSA post-USAID/PEPFAR cuts.
> but if someone is unwilling to go on PrEP, why would they suddenly be willing to get a vaccine?
Because PrEP at even its best and most modern version requires an update every six months for life. If you're well-off and in SF or NYC or London that might be easy, but there's so many externalities such as:
- People who misjudge the risk they're at, so don't go on the meds in the first place
- People who live in regions where getting to a doctor even every six months is a challenge
- The six-month injection is extraordinarily expensive and a life-time treatment, for a disease you don't even have yet.
If instead it becomes a once-in-a-lifetime series of shot, like many other vaccines are already, we can start considering a path to extinguishing the disease, not just teaching people to live with it.
Then there's the financial savings of a series of three shots once vs a lifetime of them.
That's absolutely not correct. Truvada has had the same formulation since it was introduced in 2012. Descovy hasn't changed since it was approved in 2019.
You may be thinking of STD tests and bloodwork that is done every 3-6 months depending on your risk level to ensure that you're still HIV negative and that your kidneys are functioning normally, as kidney issues is a rare but serious side effect, especially for Truvada.
Now, what I believe is correct is that most people on PrEP would love to have a vaccine instead of needing a daily pill or even 2-6 injections per year as long as they remain sexually active.
If you read Roberts's opinion he literally explains the definition of jurisdiction as it stood when the amendment was drafted (he cites three different dictionaries) and cites floor arguments directly from the Congressional record. It's not long, takes about 15 minutes to get through.
The rest of the documents are the concurrences (Jackson) and the three, frankly insane, dissents. Thomas's is 90 pages long somehow (I couldn't get through all that one, it's properly crazy).
