Yelp suffered greatly in the early 2010s when Google started putting Google Maps listings (and their accompanying reviews) in their search results.

OpenAI will eventually unify their products as well.

>A natural person is a living human being. Legal systems can attach rights and duties to natural persons without their express consent.

>The concept of a natural person appears in business law and bankruptcy law, where it provides a contrast with an artificial person or a legal person which is an entity that is treated as a person for legal purposes. While natural person describes an actual human being, artificial person describes a partnership, corporation, or some other entity that has been provided with legal personhood by statute.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_person

It's legalese for a "human being".

If there were any retention contracts that came with GitHub acquisition, that probably didn't apply to him.

The initial conversation was about how Nat was likely leaving because his contract ran out. The counterpoint was that he was from the Microsoft side and therefore he didn't have a retention contract. I brought up Xamarin because he was likely under a retention contract from that acquisition.

That being said, these contracts probably had little to no effect on his decision though, as I'm sure he would have made more money than he could spend in a lifetime regardless of whether he had stayed or not.

Microsoft bought Xamarin in February 2016. I'm sure five-year retention contracts are possible, but that seems extraordinarily long; I've rarely seen longer than two years.

"What branch are you on?" "I branched off the main development branch for this fix." "Like...the `main` main branch or the main branch for the feature?"

I like redis' rename of their default branch to `unstable`. Just like commits are tagged with the release numbers, the latest code that isn't yet versioned is by default 'unstable'. If the industry as a whole is going to make this change, I would prefer we choose a name that can be unambiguously referenced in conversation.

May I suggest a name for that branch which does not conflict with other uses and is generally understood by most developers?

   master

You can use this one-liner to rename your confusingly-named default branch:

   $ git branch -m main master
   $ git status
   
   On branch master

It that case, though, we would name our default branch "stable". We don't allow pushes to master unless everything has passed our full test suite. I'm not sure if it's a good or bad thing to have the development model hardcoded into the name of the default branch - I've certainly worked in long-lived repositories where we've changed the model over time.

'mastering' is an artifact of vinyl and boxed software. Now that a lot of software is continuously tested and shipped, 'master' is not the right word for those processes. Even if you're shipping on-premise software, there rarely is a single 'master' copy anymore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastering_(audio)

As a side note, I've seen people try this, but there is no amount of testing that can guarantee stability. So, 'stable' feels like a false promise. Also, in the event of a bug causing downtime, _someone_ always has the ability to push directly to master and it's always possible that a fix might break a new commit's tests, even if it fixes the downtime.

Which, by the same argument, makes all branches unstable. Why would you want to name, arguably the least unstable branch in the mentioned scenario - unstable?

Not to negate your point: having a good onboarding helps sales, in the same way it helps customer support. But in practice, I wouldn't use that argument to measure whether or not the onboarding flow was doing it job. Nor should the sales team be able to blame the onboarding flow for low quality leads. Money invested in a good onboarding flow should pay off in onboarding/engagement.

I hadn't drawn this delineation before, but I find it apt. I grew up Asian in the Midwest and while I like progressive values here, I do miss how people there tried to be _neighborly_, even if they held opposing values. I was a kid in the suburbs, so maybe I only saw the softer side, but that doesn't stop me from admiring it and hoping to emulate that particular virtue.

Yes, there's a certain presumption of goodwill that seems to be lacking. I think of it as "tolerance" in the engineering sense — the idea that we each need to give a little more than 50% in an interaction to account for some slippage and human error.

I do believe that micro-aggressions are a real thing, that small-magnitude interactions that are consistently in a negative direction can add up to a large negative effect. But focusing on those makes it hard to gracefully accommodate the normal noise and random error in humanity. If we aren't also tracking the "micro-benefiencies", then it paints everyone who ever makes a mistake (which is all of us) as deliberately malicious.

The internals of cells are mostly water, protein, and DNA, which don't really taste like anything to our tongues. Most sugars are stored as glycogen, so you wouldn't get much sweetness. There also wouldn't be much texture, as it's lacking any sort of bone or shell.

I suspect that this alga has some interesting and perhaps surprising defences, in line with its relatives. (And, that these may well impact on its taste)

For example, spirulina is said to be spiral because this allows it to spontaneously flee from approaching water fleas, with no active energy use: primarily depending on the laws of physics.

Amylase, the thing in the mouth, breaks down starches, like in rice or bread. Glycogen is different from these though, as it has different linkages, and can't be broken down by amylase.

I personally couldn't find this function, but I believe they might be talking about lastval (https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/functions-sequence.h...).