I re-traced my steps, and the source was both dogshit, and didn’t site primary sources. I edited the original comment to convey non-compliance before hospitalization was required.

Ultimately “was sick, didn’t listen when doctors said to stop drinking” conveys the same doubts that “tried to stop but failed” does about suitability for a donor liver.

In isolation it’s not great, but in conjunction with your own advocate talking about you not following a doctor’s orders? It doesn’t bolster confidence that the individual would follow doctors orders in the future.

It means she hasn’t been able to quit drinking!

Yes, that’s exactly the point. It’s quite unlikely her medical troubles started when she was hospitalized.
A history of not following medical advice casts doubt about a future of following medical advice.

Yes, addiction is a disease that the individual may lack the ability to control. That doesn’t change that it’s a risk factor for non-compliance that’s absent in others who need the transplant.

Not made up, I just read a couple other articles that mentioned it.
It’s also part of the whole “the only people who can talk freely are the people with an interest in the doctors being wrong”.

People aren’t turned away because they didn’t exercise or because they work too much or they don’t get enough sleep or they didn’t follow doctor’s orders. So, in Nathan and Amanda’s case, you’re seeing someone being told, ‘You didn’t follow doctor’s orders, so we’re not going to help you. We’re going to let you die’

As a quote from the other interested party, as well as the “in documents shared with CTV News, notes show […] their decision was based on ‘minimal abstinence outside of hospital.’” is pretty much spelling it out.

It actually takes surprisingly little if it’s done consistently and without giving your body time to rest.

A standard drink has roughly 14g of ethanol in it. People with notable liver damage tend to have a history of a decade or more drinking 30-50 grams a day, or two to three drinks.
People who drink more than 80g a day for a decade are almost guaranteed to have liver problems (~5-6 drinks).

Obviously drinking a half gallon a day is worse, but consistent long term drinking is also not great.

It is essentially a poison that’s only around because it’s easy to make and traditional at this point.

Well, stopped drinking when she got the diagnosis, not before, didn’t comply with medical advice to stop drinking before hospitalization, and as they said in the article there are a lot of criteria for a living donation, and it’s only an option if you otherwise qualify for a donation because of the possibility of rejection requiring an urgent transplant.

A different article said they were trying to raise funds to get the transplant done at an unspecified European hospital, so “yes”. I think it’s telling that they didn’t go to the US, a north American country, or specify the country.
It’s worth remembering that the only people who can talk freely are the people who were decided against and are talking about suing.

No one wanted her to die, but with organ transplants it’s a case where you’re more or less picking who will die. Phrasing it as being punished for bad behavior is unfair to the people who need to decide which people are likely enough to benefit, which isn’t easy.

So, you’re correct that active emergencies take priority.

That being said, in essentially every place that has 911, both numbers connect to the same place and the only real difference is pick-up order and default response.
It’s the emergency number not simply because it’s only for emergencies but because it’s the number that’s the same everywhere that you need to know in the event of an emergency.

It should be used in any situation where it should be dealt with by someone now, and that someone isn’t you. Finding a serious crime has occurred is an emergency, even if the perpetrator is gone and the situation is stable.
A dead person, particularly a potential murder, generally needs to be handled quickly.

It’s also usually better to err on the side of 911, just in case it is an emergency that really needs the fancy features 911 often gives, like location lookups.

In the sense that they have a manager? Sure. In the sense that there’s one individual dictating the design of the software? I’ve never even been on a team with that dynamic, to say nothing of the entire codebase.

Modern software teams tend to eschew design by decree.

What’s the dynamic that you’re thinking is typically what teams use?

I’m not sure I’d construe a manual you can find, or a variety of guides, as a negative. :) most days my usage of git consists of “pull, commit, push, merge” in different orders. You might be overestimating how much effort goes in to managing the tool.

Most of my professional experience has been working on projects that consist of multiple teams of between 4-6 developers, and between 5 and 40 teams. I’m not entirely sure what you mean about git not mirroring the development patterns of most “real life” projects.
“Real” projects are frequently developed by groups of people working on the same goal adjacent to other groups working on related but distinct goals.

We very clearly work in different professional environments. :)

In no particular order: Administrating a git server is similarly trivial. A repository is a folder (easy to backup, easy to repair, easy to host), and setting up a new server usually a matter of ssh key management. Don’t even need to install sqlite or anything beyond the git package. Or, because the tool has wide support, you can install a wide selection of tools that manage it for you, or use a free hosting service, or a paid one.

I’m startled that you would say you can’t think of anyone who would care. My entire professional experience has been developer stories about bad jobs often include details about using old or esoteric VCS systems, usually met with “ew” or “wtf” comments. Sets the flavor of the story.
Personally, in a business environment, I would take using anything except git for the org as a red flag. It’s a sign that someone in leadership at the company values doing things unrelated to the core mission “their way” above doing it the easy or “paved path” way.

The standard tool is indeed not constant. Before git existed, using CVS would have been the better choice, as well as for years afterwards until it had clearly been usurped. Most projects aren’t Linux when it made the switch to git.

You joke that no one really “knows” git, but… This is literally the first time I’ve ever seen a fossil command. I just searched for “fossil manual” and I get analog watches. It’s not even available in any of my systems package managers.
Developer familiarity is a big advantage that I think you’re downplaying in comparison to “there are metadata files in .git”, which I don’t know has ever been relevant to me in any significant way.
(Also, I thought the different systems all work basically the same? 😛)

I’d handily agree people should be using the best tool for the job. Familiarity and ease of use are significant factors in what makes a tool better.
Ability to integrate with other tools is also a major factor. Setting up continuous integration or code review tools with git is trivial with any number of different systems.

What are any of the tools you’re using doing better than git? The biggest selling point you’ve shared for fossil is that it’s functionally similar to git, and that it has better merging. I can’t find anything related to merge conflicts outside of years old forum posts, and barely anything relating to merges at all, so I’m not entirely certain what makes it “better”.

If it’s biggest advantage is that it’s similar enough to git that you can pick it up fast, why wouldn’t I just use git?

Like I said, there are always factors.

For a company starting from scratch though, the usage base factor becomes vastly more significant.
Using a tool that radically limits your integration capabilities is a poor choice, to say nothing of most likely needing to onboard every new employee to an entirely new VCS.

I don’t know that I’ve encountered anyone using svn that wasn’t interested in moving in recent memory, so “developer experience” would be a reason to move.

Of course it’s not the only factor, but all things being equal, the most prevalent tool should be preferred.

Why?

How does fossil or svn protect you from a remote server going down making it’s contents unavailable?

Are those advantages worth others not knowing how, or caring to bother, to access or contribute to your software?

What are you gaining by eschewing what is effectively the standard tool?

File1, file2, file_3.new, etc would be bizarrely stupid. A home rolled solution involving rsync, tar, gzip, crons or inotify would also be bizarrely stupid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_version-control_software anything on that list that’s marked anything other than “active” as a more serious answer. So like DCVS, visual source safe, or bitkeeper. Anything that’s not getting bug fixes or maintenance.

Anything that doesn’t have significant enough usage to give confidence that bugs or glitches are being caught by common usage would be risky, since you don’t want to be the person to find that edge case.

There’s things other than git that aren’t wrong, but I see little compelling reason not to use the most ubiquitous tool.

There’s a difference between “can’t code” and “can’t work”.

A lot of people use git for version control: super good idea, basically anything else is at best unorthodox, at worst bizarrely stupid.
A lot of people also use github for repository hosting, continuous integration, code review, deployment, packaging, etc, etc. this is more of an opinion thing than a standard practice thing, and there are plenty of other ways to get the same tools, either all in one package or from a variety of different ones, self hosted, in the cloud, or some hybrid in between.

If GitHub goes down, you can make code changes and everything to your hearts content. But you might not be able to run your full integration testing pipeline on it, get a code review, or package your software.

If your local build process pulls packages from GitHub or refreshes a remote repository automatically, it can also powerfully mess that up, but that’s nothing to do with git. You can use “ctrl-c/v” backups and still have a build process that tips over when GitHub goes down.

That’s called a timeshare, and they’re not a good idea. Very sketchy, almost impossible to get rid of if you don’t want it.

You have to sign up because although you bought the apartment, you’re not the only one who bought the apartment.

You buy it and then get to sign up to use it, and then you pay a fee to use it every year even if you don’t end up using it.

You don’t get to live there.

Most of them are mediocre. Most burger places were mediocre, and then the American gastropub trend saw burgers being made nice as opposed to diner food or bar food. They could also charge more money because they were making nicer food.

Eventually a bunch of the mediocre places shifted to try to also be nice, but mostly just increased prices, changed decor, and started using the word aioli more than mayo. Oh, and pretzel buns on burgers that got taller without being bigger and are cumbersome to eat.

In the plus side, if you like a Swiss burger with a garlic aioli, a burger with a fried egg on it, or a burger with 2 pieces of bacon, a spicy BBQ sauce, and fried onion strings and you’re in the mood for some fries with bits of peel on them and a garlic Parmesan butter, then you know exactly what they’re going to put in from of you and exactly what it’ll taste like.

Mediocre. Not bad, but definitely not the best you’ve ever had.

Google analytics is loaded by JavaScript. There are also other things like Google analytics that are also loaded by JavaScript.

Updating a website can take time, and usually involves someone with at least a passing knowledge of development.

Google tag manager is a service that lets you embed one JavaScript thing in your page, and then it will handle loading the others. This lets marketing or analytics people add and manage such things without needing to make a full code deployment.
It also lets you make choices about when and how different tracking events for different services are triggered.

It’s intended usage is garbage tracking metrics and advertising. Some sites are built more by marketing than developers, and they’ll jam functional stuff in there which causes breakage if you block it. These sites are usually garbage though, so nothing of value was lost.

Okay? What does that have to do with the new advertising API the added support for in 128?

Very persuasive argument, definitely shows a strong grasp of the technical matters.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/privacy-preserving-attribution

Hardly qualifies as “sending your data to advertisers”.