Squashing

The s “squash” command is where we see the true utility of rebase. Squash allows you to specify which commits you want to merge into the previous commits. This is what enables a “clean history.” During rebase playback, Git will execute the specified rebase command for each commit. In the case of squash commits, Git will open your configured text editor and prompt to combine the specified commit messages. This entire process can be visualized as follows:

Note that the commits modified with a rebase command have a different ID than either of the original commits. Commits marked with pick will have a new ID if the previous commits have been rewritten.

https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/rewriting-history

You can also amend for a softer approach, which works better if you don’t push to remote after every commit.

The git commit --amend command is a convenient way to modify the most recent commit. It lets you combine staged changes with the previous commit instead of creating an entirely new commit. It can also be used to simply edit the previous commit message without changing its snapshot. But, amending does not just alter the most recent commit, it replaces it entirely, meaning the amended commit will be a new entity with its own ref. To Git, it will look like a brand new commit, which is visualized with an asterisk (*) in the diagram below.

You can keep amending commits and creating more chunky and meaningful ones in an incremental way. Think of it as converting baby steps into an adult step.

Who would use that kind of type coercion? Who? I want to see his face.

No, no, I come to Lemmy for petty moneylaundering tips.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum

“The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion” By Joyce Arthur (copyright © September 2000)

Now this is what “I just wanna grill” should refer to.

Cultural Evolution of Pants https://peterturchin.com/cultural-evolution-of-pants/

If you are in North America or Western Europe and look around, on any particular day, you will find most people wearing pants. But why is it the standard item of clothing for people, especially men belonging to the Western civilization. Why not a kilt, a robe, a tunic, a sarong, or a toga?

So you were purposefully undermining yourself?

Because I wanted to give you some leeway to understand the some of nuances in this complex issue.

The fact that you’re trying to accuse me of NOT CHERRY PICKING THE MOST FAVORABLE ARTICLES is exceedingly disappointing.

🙄

I love how you think that I didn’t read it. As if you can imagine what’s in my head. Very disappointing for a so called skeptic.

I expect you to understand that some topics are more ambiguous, which means that there are more contradictory bits of information which are tied to different setups in context.

As the practice of raising these invertebrate animals is not happening at a large scale, the data for it is also weak and based on immature research. The ambiguity with decline over time, if there’s more research into this and it actually happens at a large scale.

In terms of food traditions, eating land insects is usually a luxury, which reflects the scarcity: https://www.finedininglovers.com/article/insect-delicacies-around-world The simple notion that “insect protein is cheap” is misleading.

Yes

Can anyone EILI5?

Sure. A lot of people voted for bullies who can talk themselves out of consequences.

easy emotional messaging × a lot of funding from rich assholes of all types × great means of communication that can target audiences even in isolation.

abducted thousands of Palestinians

Yes, I read it. Plants are still the superior option. I was being generous for your middle ground position.

If you knew anything about animal farming, you’d know that “garbage” can mean a lot of things. This hope of waste feeding gets trickier with invertebrates who don’t regulate their own body temperature. I’m saying that you’re being excessively optimistic about it.

Crickets Are Not a Free Lunch: Protein Capture from Scalable Organic Side-Streams via High-Density Populations of Acheta domesticus https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118785

It has been suggested that the ecological impact of crickets as a source of dietary protein is less than conventional forms of livestock due to their comparatively efficient feed conversion and ability to consume organic side-streams. This study measured the biomass output and feed conversion ratios of house crickets (Acheta domesticus) reared on diets that varied in quality, ranging from grain-based to highly cellulosic diets. The measurements were made at a much greater population scale and density than any previously reported in the scientific literature. The biomass accumulation was strongly influenced by the quality of the diet (p<0.001), with the nitrogen (N) content, the ratio of N to acid detergent fiber (ADF) content, and the crude fat (CF) content (y=N/ADF+CF) explaining most of the variability between feed treatments (p = 0.02; R2 = 0.96). In addition, for populations of crickets that were able to survive to a harvestable size, the feed conversion ratios measured were higher (less efficient) than those reported from studies conducted at smaller scales and lower population densities. Compared to the industrial-scale production of chickens, crickets fed a poultry feed diet showed little improvement in protein conversion efficiency, a key metric in determining the ecological footprint of grain-based livestock protein. Crickets fed the solid filtrate from food waste processed at an industrial scale via enzymatic digestion were able to reach a harvestable size and achieve feed and protein efficiencies similar to that of chickens. However, crickets fed minimally-processed, municipal-scale food waste and diets composed largely of straw experienced >99% mortality without reaching a harvestable size. Therefore, the potential for A. domesticus to sustainably supplement the global protein supply, beyond what is currently produced via grain-fed chickens, will depend on capturing regionally scalable organic side-streams of relatively high-quality that are not currently being used for livestock production.

Could consumption of insects, cultured meat or imitation meat reduce global agricultural land use? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211912417300056

Animal products, i.e. meat, milk and eggs, provide an important component in global diets, but livestock dominate agricultural land use by area and are a major source of greenhouse gases. Cultural and personal associations with animal product consumption create barriers to moderating consumption, and hence reduced environmental impacts. Here we review alternatives to conventional animal products, including cultured meat, imitation meat and insects (i.e. entomophagy), and explore the potential change in global agricultural land requirements associated with each alternative. Stylised transformative consumption scenarios where half of current conventional animal products are substituted to provide at least equal protein and calories are considered. The analysis also considers and compares the agricultural land area given shifts between conventional animal product consumption. The results suggest that imitation meat and insects have the highest land use efficiency, but the land use requirements are only slightly greater for eggs and poultry meat. The efficiency of insects and their ability to convert agricultural by-products and food waste into food, suggests further research into insect production is warranted. Cultured meat does not appear to offer substantial benefits over poultry meat or eggs, with similar conversion efficiency, but higher direct energy requirements. Comparison with the land use savings from reduced consumer waste, including over-consumption, suggests greater benefits could be achieved from alternative dietary transformations considered. We conclude that although a diet with lower rates of animal product consumption is likely to create the greatest reduction in agricultural land, a mix of smaller changes in consumer behaviour, such as replacing beef with chicken, reducing food waste and potentially introducing insects more commonly into diets, would also achieve land savings and a more sustainable food system.

There are plenty of amino-acids in plants, there’s no need for wasting resources on insects.

In reality, the subsidies meant for these invertebrate animal farms will be lead to more feed for the vertebrate animal farms, in the shape of “concentrated protein feed”.

And is the dose of mercury in the old vaccines enough to do cause such effects?

The autism fear stems from a grifter doctor.