If you switch to a free one, at least you can be sure that your money isn't being funnelled to people who you fundamentally disagree with, even if the creators have shitty beliefs.
> To me, the main advantage of the lecture format is the possibility to have me or others grill the lecturer for questions, benefiting the whole group.
I've rarely, if ever, seen this. And if I had, I think most of the class would have just been annoyed, which you probably didn't notice.
I have a hard time believing you've genuinely never had a lecturer take questions. I also genuinely have a hard time believing that last sentence is not, at best, a not-so-subtle attempt at putting my social awareness into question, or at worst, just being insulting for the sake of it.
> I have a hard time believing you've genuinely never had a lecturer take questions.
It was very very rare in my experience, from grade school all the way to harvard, and unless you went to some crazy exclusive school with something like a 10:1 teacher student ratio it was pretty normal. It was also very rare for just practical reasons, like the lecturer needed the full time without interruptions because of class schedules.
~/code
» cd foo
~/code/foo
» git init
± foo:main:/
» touch .env
± foo:main:/
» git add .
± foo:main:/
» g s
On branch main
No commits yet
Changes to be committed:
(use "git rm --cached <file>..." to unstage)
new file: .env
± foo:main:/
»
File is added, kaboom. "It should be in .gitignore" yes, true, but that has nothing to do with it not getting committed because it is hidden.
And even with it in .gitignore, I've dealt with multiple security incidents where someone has managed to commit it anyways. (And yes, I'm aware there are commands to do this, but what I haven't figured out is why someone would work around the safety and not think "what's the point of this?" prior to the bullet ending up in the foot.)
I hate that it's hidden too. There's no reason for it to be hidden and arguably some reason for it not to be hidden.
I did discover one reason for it not to be just "env" though, which surprised me, which is that "source env" will yield "bash: source: /usr/bin/env: cannot execute binary file". I did not expect the source command to use the $PATH to resolve the filename. Probably some minor security issues that can result from that out there in the world. Arguably anyone loading it should use "source ./.env" or equivalent, with full path.
It's documented in the bash manual, of course. But it is rather complicated as to when it will and will not use $PATH.
> If filename does not contain a slash, . searches for it. If -p is supplied, . treats path as a colon-separated list of directories in which to find filename; otherwise, . uses the directories in PATH to find filename. filename does not need to be executable. When Bash is not in POSIX mode, it searches the current directory if filename is not found in $PATH, but does not search the current directory if -p is supplied. If the sourcepath option (see The Shopt Builtin) is turned off, . does not search PATH.
From "The Open Group Base Specifications Issue 8 - IEEE Std 1003.1-2024" [2]:
. file
> If file does not contain a <slash>, the shell shall use the search path specified by PATH to find the directory containing file. Unlike normal command search, however, the file searched for by the dot utility need not be executable.
So it seems that it's not something Bash specific.
> Does this come off as wildly tone deaf to anybody else? "We love your product and what you do, but could we get it without associating with or paying you in any way?"
While there are valid complaints about animation production, I don't see any real comparison between the arts and broad manufacturing segments, especially when discussing arts tied so strongly to a particular regions and artists. I'm also not sure how your statement relates to this particular article and what they've written.
> So what's the value here? Single responsibility? That kind of thing is now so known that it doesn't really need talking about
Except I see people getting it wrong constantly, even in the comments here. Its not about keeping code together that's related in functionality, this about keeping code separate by stake holder. For example, if you have two bosses that keep asking for changes related to their departments, you keep their relevant code separate, so when you have to keep updating it for one boss, you don't break the code related to the other boss, and vice versa.
Does it work? I don't know, never been in this situation.
Lectures are just a jobs program for academics who are stuck on thousands of years old teaching traditions. If a sane world, they'd polish their material, record a video, add graphics, and make it available for students to watch it and rewatch it at their convenience. Pretty much what they do on youtube and in documentaries.
reply