How do you handle publishing the stack?
It depends on what you're publishing to, but works with most other tools by using a bookmark for each publish target.
Readit Newswocram commented on Git Rebase for the Terrified brethorsting.com/blog/202... · Posted by u/aaronbrethorst
Valve has a weird obsession with maximizing their profit-per-employee ratio. There are stories from ex-employees out on the web about how this creates a hostile environment, and perverse incentives to sabotage those below you to protect your own job.
I don't remember all the details, but it doesn't seem like a great place to work, at least based on the horror stories I've read.
Valve does a lot of awesome things, but they also do a lot of shitty things, and I think their productivity is abysmal based on what you'd expect from a company with their market share. They have very successful products, but it's obvious that basically all of their income comes from rent-seeking from developers who want to (well, need to) publish on Steam.
There are numerous other ways to publish games. Is it really rent-seeking to own and maintain the most popular game publishing platform?
Does anyone have a good resource for a quickstart/high-level overview of just the terminology required to understand Nix? Flakes/overlays/nixpkgs/etc. I start wading in to try and understand it, and instead run into arguments and disagreements.
Unfortunately, without a base level understanding of the entire ecosystem, I stay lost.
Level 1 is using nix to install packages, which you can do by writing a flake like.
The arguments probably come from the fact that flakes are 'experimental', but de facto widely used.
wocram commented on C++ move semantics from scratch (2022) cbarrete.com/move-from-sc... · Posted by u/todsacerdoti
Whenever I'm dealing with C++, I get tripped by the most basic of things: like for example, why use "&&" for what appears to be a pointer to a pointer? And if this indeed the case, why is int&& x compatible with int& y ?? Make up your mind: is it a pointer to a pointer, or a pointer to an int?!?
I have steadfastly avoided dealing with C++ for almost 30 years, and I am grateful that I did not have to. It seems like such a messy language with overloaded operators and symbols ( don't even get me started on Lambdas!)
&& is not a pointer to a pointer, it's a temporary value. There is a huge amount of cognitive overhead in normal cpp usage because over time we have found that many of the default behaviors are wrong.
> Sticking to a Mediterranean diet that is light on carbohydrates and saturated fats is almost always the safest bet. Almost every health diet is some permutation of this.
A permutation that's currently making the rounds in the press (even though the original research is from 20 years ago) is the "portfolio diet":
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/196970
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.123.0...
Some press mentions:
https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/the-portfolio-di...
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/04/well/eat/health-benefits-...
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/11/05/the-portfolio-diet-what-it-i...
This is a lot of words to say eat a plant-based/vegan diet.
> In all these things, what impressed me most was Zig’s approach to safety when working with the metal. Not in terms of an on/off decision, but as a spectrum. Not aiming for 100% guarantees across 1 or 2 categories, but 90% and then across more categories. Not eliminating classes of bugs, but downgrading their probability. All while preserving the power-to-weight ratio of the language, to keep the language beautifully simple. - From TigerBeetles blog on this
Such an excellent summary. I've been trying to communicate this regarding the difference in Rust and Zigs approach to memory safety, and Joran does it so much better than I ever could.
Why is 90% enough?
I think jj is great, godspeed!
Unfortunately there is no replacement for it and I miss the feature too. The docs [1] mention:
> Unlike in Git, the remote to push to is not derived from the tracked remote bookmarks. Use `--remote` to select the remote Git repository by name. There is no option to push to multiple remotes.
I think this was an explicit design decision, which I'm guessing might be because bookmarks in other storage backends (non-git) may not have a notion of an upstream URL. I'm no expert on this, you'll probably get a better answer by asking the maintainers themselves.
Currently the best you can probably do is creating an alias to push a branch to a specific remote to save you some keystrokes. I hope that helps!
[1]: https://jj-vcs.github.io/jj/latest/cli-reference/#jj-git-pus...
In git remote branches have no notion of an upstream branch either, it's a fully local construct you end up responsible for annotating.
I've now seen a dozen of articles that explain that jj is wonderful and better than Git for everything. This tutorial is of the same kind. Now that I've read extensively about the good part, I'd be more interested by the bad and the ugly. Because my experience with jj was more balanced.
When I tried jj, I found a few pain points that made me return to Git. For instance, I was sharing a branch with a co-worker where we were just piling commits as soon as they were ready (after `pull --rebase` if necessary). Since jj doesn't have names branches, that workflow was easy with git and tedious with jj – even with the `tug` alias. The process in the "Tracking remote bookmarks" chapter of this tutorial still doesn't look nice to me.
Another pain point was that jj could not colocate with light clones, like `git clone --filter=blob:none`. Maybe that's fixed now.
https://github.com/jj-vcs/jj/discussions/3549 exists to simplify the tug workflow somewhat.
I'm advocating for JJ to build a proper daemon that runs "checks" per change in the background. So you don't run pre-commit checks when committing. They just happen in the background, and when by the time you get to sharing your changes, you get all the things verified for you for each change/commit, effortlessly without you wasting time or needing to do anything special.
I have something a bit like that implemented in SelfCI (a minimalistic local-first Unix-philosophy-abiding CI) https://app.radicle.xyz/nodes/radicle.dpc.pw/rad%3Az2tDzYbAX... and it replaced my use of pre-commit hooks entirely. And users already told me that it does feel like commit hooks done right.