They've been sending me a bill for three years now on an account they closed. I could not get the assholes to kill the account so I changed credit cards. The support was helpful but gave me phone numbers to call that did not exist and just kept saying they can't do anything else.
I threatened with lawyers and I have full correspondence on my behalf kept safe so they can just fuck off with their bills.
Strangely I find the Volt spacious and quite wide and long. Lowering the seats it can fit in a huge amount of cargo and the trunk is quite large to begin with.
It also consumes just about the same in gas as a Prius even when not charged which just shows Toyota does not know what the fuck they are doing.
And the Prime has horrific acceleration, an annoyingly noisy engine, terrible road noise, and doesn't even get enough mileage range on the battery to qualify for the California HOV lanes.
Toyota needs to go back to the drawing board for a hybrid rather than bolting a battery to a Prius.
- Prius Prime does qualify for HOV lanes
- Prius Prime is much quieter than previous generation Prius
- Prius Prime acceleration in my experience is just fine.
Also, I regularly see 62 MPG on highway driving at 65 MPH.
Wind drag goes as something like the 4th? power of velocity--so highway speeds are a function of how aerodynamic you are (and everybody pretty much is) and how efficiently you convert stored energy to wheel torque (and at highway speeds at 2000-3000 RPM ICE is pretty much at max efficiency).
Your ICE commuter is burning lots more gas than any electric/hybrid if you are stuck in traffic at low speed for any amount of time.
Search this source of emotion and thought. Who is it that experiences it. The answer can not come from the mind since what you perceive can not be you. This is self enquiry and can lead to revelations.
Rebasing on rebased branches means everyone has to do the same conflict resolution again and again, and you're in trouble if one person decides to do it differently. Whereas when you merge, the first person does the conflict resolution and everyone else just picks it up.
But you can't safely rebase that branch! Having rebased it, you would have now broken it for others working on it. So this is a great example how the damage spreads and taints other branches around the history rewrite.
(And even arriving at the "ok i could fix this with rebase" diagnosis will have been painful and frustrating and eaten time & energy, and you can't be sure you got away with it before actually doing it and waiting if your teammates will come kick you in the nuts. or worse, silently spend a day untangling their work.).
Huh? You don't rebase their branch. You rebase your own changes on top of their branch, which they happened to recently rewrite. Just like you might rebase your changes on top of master after master has undergone changes. I think the parent's point was that it doesn't matter if the branch was rewritten or just extended; either way you rebase the same commits on it the same way. (If you're one of those people who's against the notion of rebasing entirely then that's a separate debate we can have another time, but you need to separate that from the force-push issue.)
The common case is that I'm working on a feature branch, and realistically, nobody else is on that branch. If it's so big that someone else has a need to start using the code, I start looking for ways to subdivide the work that don't conflict/depend (i.e., the new work can be a separate branch based off master).
There are definitely exceptions, and a co-worker that I work closely with have one just last week. My stuff is based off his. If he changes anything (adds new commits, or rewrites current ones), my "pull" is just to rebase onto whatever his new tip is. If I have a fix to his commit, I just commit that in my branch; at that point it isn't work the trouble. When we're done, we either merge his (and I rebase onto master) or we just feel lazy and merge both by merging my branch.
Having a branch on a branch on a branch has yet to happen, and honestly, at that point, I think we'd just wait for the upstream branch to land.
Honestly, for 99% of cases, you know what the effects of rebasing/rewriting will be. It's feature branch that only you're touching? Go wild! In the middle of a code-review? Maybe write the commits in the --auto-squash format, and wait until approval before actually running rebase. Someone else is based off it? Maybe give them a heads up. For the few spots where it's ambiguous, a little bit of "hey, I'd like to X for reasons Y, ok?" is all it takes.
So then anyone building on it would rebase the same way you just did? Which was the same way they would have done so if you had just pushed a new commit?
yeah exactly, all the FUD about rebase and shared branches is baffling to me. are people regularly getting stuck on 'git pull --rebase' and slamming into merge conflicts?
I would seriously throw Leaflet down the cliff and replacd with Mapbox for just the performance alone. All of the features plus documentation are there with Mapbox and the performance is ridiculously better.
I threatened with lawyers and I have full correspondence on my behalf kept safe so they can just fuck off with their bills.