Power users rebase with squashes and fixups multiple times a day. Especially if the job’s integration process isn’t enforcing long living branches.

Reflog is useful then, because you literally rewrite history every rebase.

This is one of those times when the attempt to address the wrong part of a statement immediately goes into Ackermann-like recursion.

The only irony present is the pretense of validity of the supposed contradiction.

I love the choice of standard to hold yourself up to.

It did solve my impostor syndrome though. Turns out a bunch of people I saw to be my betters were faking it all along.

Do not visualize wealth as volume, it vastly understates the disparity. Represent linear things through linear analogies for comparison purposes.

https://youtu.be/8YUWDrLazCg

Any claim of universal system of morality existence shatters at the minutest contact with history.

The idea of morality is dominant and potentially universal across human societies. The actual definitions are invented and reinvented constantly and fairly rapidly.

However you like, REST doesn’t dictate anything there. Just be consistent and use hypermedia.

JSON APIs almost never follow REST because they almost never use JSON as hypertext. Worse, no complete stable hypertext JSON standard exists. There’s JSON-HAL, but it lacks a way to represent resource templates (think HTML’s <form>).

Therefore, with JSON APIs ignoring one of the most basic idea behind REST, why would anyone expect them to follow another idea of REST - consistency?

REST is a deceptively simple concept. Any time you build an HTML website a human can navigate without consulting documentation, you’re doing it better than vast majority of swagger documented corporate APIs.

JSON API almost always means “not REST”. In other words, it works as intended.

I can’t muster any sarcasm out of sheer disappointment. You win this time…

It’s just that I can’t avoid seeing irony in Americans (or people overfocused on US) dismissing literally everyone to build their worldview around US faults.

I mean, take a look at dessailnes’ essays repository. The whole thing is built around US, and fuck anyone else who dares to exist in the real world, because only US and recognize adversaries of US matter, apparently.

Oh look, „America first”-ers have arrived!

I’d probably add that for something like nextcloud granted scopes can be an „orthogonal”–for the lack of a better word–subset of requested scopes.

The set of requestable scopes has to be defined by the system itself, not its specific configuration. E.g. „files:manage”, „talk:manage”, „mail:read” are all general capabilities the system offers.

However, as a user I can have a local configuration that adds granularity to the grants I issue. E.g.: „files:manage in specific folders” or „mail:read for specific domains or groups only” are user trust statements that fit into the capability matrix but add an additional and preferably invisible layer of access control.

It’s a fairly rare feature in the wild and is a potential UX pitfall, but it can be useful as an advanced option on the grant page, or as a separate access control for issued grants.

https://oauth.net/articles/authentication/

That aside, why is nextcloud asking for scopes from remote API in the diagram? What is drawn on the diagram has little to do with OAuth scopes, but rather looks like an attempt to wrap ACL repository access into a new vocabulary.

Scopes issued by the OAuth authorization server can be hidden entirely. The issuer doesn’t hold any obligation to share them with authorized party since they are dedicated for internal use and can be propagated via invisible or opaque means.

I really can’t figure out what’s going on with that diagram.

As a Ruby fan having a blast with Elixir, where the hell is anything BEAM related?

The compass is truly political.

Yeah, something tells me that’s gonna need a persistent internet connection.