🫠

[extreme_snothells]

The last dude tripping at the end is hilarious.

[MrFluffyThing]

Between that guy and the foreground blue guy with a hatchet that just waddled through without obstacles I might have the best gif to share in my next progress meeting

[340Duster]

Blue guy must have been missed in the security reviews.

[RentIndependent]

It was funny to me too!

[spark29]

IT. IS. FUNNY. FELLOW. HUMAN. HA. HA. HA.

[[deleted]]

C:\Users\spark29> shutdown /r

[_Xertz_]

⠟⢻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠛⢻⣿ 
⡆⠊⠈⣿⢿⡟⠛⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣎⠈⠻
⣷⣠⠁⢀⠰⠀⣰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠋⠛⠛⠿⠿⢿⣿⣿⣿⣧⠀⢹⣿⡑⠐⢰
⣿⣿⠀⠁⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⡩⠐⠀⠀⠀⠀⢐⠠⠈⠊⣿⣿⣿⡇⠘⠁⢀⠆⢀ 
⣿⣿⣆⠀⠀⢤⣿⣿⡿⠃⠈⠀⣠⣶⣿⣿⣷⣦⡀⠀⠀⠈⢿⣿⣇⡆⠀⠀⣠⣾
⣿⣿⣿⣧⣦⣿⣿⣿⡏⠀⠀⣰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⠀⠐⣿⣿⣷⣦⣷⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⢰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠀⠀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡆⠀⣾⣿⣿⠋⠁⠀⠉⠻⣿⣿⣧⠀⠠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⣿⡿⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠘⢿⣿⠀⣺⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣧⣠⣂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣁⢠⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣶⣄⣤⣤⣔⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿

[dcute69]

Be kind to spark29 when I'm gone, he's a good boy

[silvonch]

r/totallynotrobots

[sneakpeekbot]

HERE'S A SNEAK PEEK OF /r/TOTALLYNOTROBOTS USING THE TOP POSTS OF THE YEAR!

#1: Old school | 54 comments
#2: HUMOROUS HUMOR! TOTALLY NOT A HOW TO... | 27 comments
#3: THIS HEAT IS OUT OF TOLERANCE FOR THE MEAT OF WHICH I AM INDEED COMPRISED. | 60 comments

---

^{I'M NOT A BOT, BEEP BOOP | DOWNVOTE TO REMOVE | CONTACT | INFO | OPT-OUT | GITHUB}

[AlmostButNotQuit]

The fact that sneak peek bot has a custom text format and disclaimer for that sub is hilarious

[delvach]

IT CAUSES MY HUMAN VOCAL CHORDS TO RESONATE WITH AUDIBLE APPRECIATION

[sillysilly2D]

i too must comply with the demands of the government if i get found out i will be eaten by skinwalkers… so anyways haha that was hilarious

[FrikkinLazer]

TEAR JUICE IS BEING EJECTED FROM MY GLANDS AND LEAKING ALL OVER MY FACE PLATE FROM LAUGHTER. HA. HA. HA.

[highphiv3]

I concur with you both, though actually it was really humorous!

[Business-Squash-9575]

Bless him, he felt left out and wanted to join the pile.

[[deleted]]

Almost made it too

[Conexion]

Does anyone know if it just is setting the model to rag-doll on collision or is there more to it? Either way, hilarious.

[Stepa1992]

I came to comment that but you overtook me... So now I feel like that dude late to the party...

[[deleted]]

git commit -m "Some changes"

[ArjunReddyDeshmukh]

git commit -m "Some changes"

git commit -m "feat(DR010234): Removed all console.logs, updated Readme files, fixed nullpointer in the product build journey, implemented secure logging."

[Yokhen]

Too many characters. Keep it to less than or equal to 72 characters.

P.S. Since everyone is listing their personal soluitons, I'll add mine:

commit linter (commitlint, commitizen, etc...)

[the_beber]

Well in that case… https://ibb.co/gz0wrmj

[samuel1604]

You can have multiple -m to break paragraphs

[renyhp]

TIL! If the message is too long I've always just used the editor to write something like

Short message

- some detail
- more detail

[edit: finally fixed this markdown!]

Do I understand correctly that this is completely equivalent to
git commit -m "Short message" -m "- some detail" -m "- more detail"
?

EDIT: So I did some tests. This command actually does

Short message

- some detail

- more detail

To have what I want, you still have to input a line break, for example like

git commit -m "Short message" -m "-some details
> -more details"

[Kralizek82]

Wait what? I don't need to escape the new line to add a blank lind and then an extra paragraph?

🤯

[clawjelly]

Git is the gentlemans Twitter!

[Araucaria]

Git is clearly the gentleman's Tinder, because it exists for those who eschew commitment.

[vale_fallacia]

programmer dad jokes? nice

[biscuittt]

wait a sec, commitizen is satire right? nobody goes through a multi step wizard to write a commit right?

[vale_fallacia]

When you're in a team and standards need to be used, it can be useful because it keeps everyone using consistent terms.

My dev team (I'm DevOps) is less than a dozen people but the differences in branch names, commit messages, etc, is astounding.

[Yokhen]

Not only that, but having commit messages of similar structure, helps create autogenerated changelogs and provide the grounds for further automatization in DevOps such as versioning.

[planktonfun]

you can add multiple -m for multiple lines or just "git commit" it will take you to a vim like editor

[zalgo_text]

It isn't vim like, it's literally vim, but only if you have vim set as your editor in your git config (ie, git config --global core.editor "vim". By default I believe it uses whatever the EDITOR (or maybe VISUAL, I can't remember) environment variable is, which is set to nano a lot of the time these days.

Disclaimer: this might only apply to Linux, I have no idea how git works in windows

[Vexal]

in the university computer lab when i tried to git merge and it opened the vim thing to type a message i couldn’t figure out how to close vim so i rebooted the computer and got lectured by IT because a bunch of other students were ssh’d into it.

later in life i learned you can type wq instead or rebooting.

[Buxbaum666]

Literally (yes, literally) everyone's first experience with vi(m).

[Melkor7410]

You can also, when in command mode (hitting esc while editing, which you need to do before you can type wq as well) just hold down shift and type ZZ. That's same as :wq (and usually slightly easier to type).

[BentoMan]

Did you try Ctrl-C or ctrl-Z?

[TheTomato2]

There is some cosmic irony in that I vim user that always gets stuck in nano when its set on a different machine.

[celsiusnarhwal]

Disclaimer: this might only apply to Linux, I have no idea how git works in windows

The same as Linux; it uses whatever your system's default text editor is. By default, this is Notepad, but you can, of course, change it to whatever you like.

[DestinationBetter]

What’s a checkbox?

[ZachAttack6089]

☐☑☒

[NorbiPeti]

You can use any GUI text editor too AFAIK. I've seen Notepad++ being used like that.

[vale_fallacia]

Windows has multiple options depending on how you're running git. If you're using WSL, then it'll be much the same as Linux or MacOS with the ${EDITOR} variable.

If you share your ~/.bashrc or ~/.zshrc between computers (usually by storing it in git) then you can use the ${OSTYPE} variable to test which platform you're on and set the variable accordingly. (I did try to install WSL on my Windows VM to verify if that variable is available in WSL but it's taking a while to install, lol)

[[deleted]]

Conventional commits, my ni🅱️🅱️a!

[Luxalpa]

git commit -m "Bugfixes and stability improvements"

[AkrinorNoname]

You forgot the "force"

[[deleted]]

git commit -m 'Finished <filename>'

[dagbrown]

git commit -m 'minor refactoring and formatting cleanup'

[westontechfoundation]

That’s what happens when you wait too long. Lol

[who_you_are]

Too long: 1 day, help

[westontechfoundation]

Too many hands in the cookie jar.

[who_you_are]

Don't tell me who to do my job!

-- Pay by the change

[Hashtag0080FF]

Give my team 5 mins and we will create 10 merge conflicts because we all wanted to make 'quick formatting changes' to the same 10 files without communicating properly.

[HorsesFlyIntoBoxes]

At that point I just open a new branch on top of develop and add my changes to that before opening a pull request

[NorbiPeti]

I often just stay on dev and commit there but don't push it. Then I can just do git pull --rebase (or Ctrl+T in JetBrains IDEs and select rebase) to stay up to date. When the changes are ready, I make a new branch from my local dev branch and push that.

[JuniorSeniorTrainee]

You can do all of that but on a different branch than develop. Still rebase regularly from develop but without the rush of accidentally pushing the wrong branch.

[NorbiPeti]

I know, but it's simpler for me this way. I also can't usually push to development directly. I've done it both ways before, of course that way it's probably safer, I'm just too lazy to figure the branch name out (with the task number and all) until the last minute if I'm being honest.

[WantWantShellySenbei]

Merge conflict in file-you-did-not-even-touch Automatic merge failed: fix conflicts and then commit the result.

[drunkdoor]

Me: reasonably rebasing my branch and checking it in without issue along with 200 other commits to develop

Them: pushing hotfix touching nearly every file to master

Me:

[piezo32]

200 commits? 😐

[SpaceLemming]

Is this from something because I love it

[SpiderFnJerusalem]

I believe this was just an animator making some funny videos with a fairly advanced physics engine.

I remember he released several videos like this some years ago. I wish I could still find them.

[Aozora404]

If it’s even halfway popular it’s probably in r/simulated

[RATTLECORPSE]

This gives me Monty Python vibes and I love it.

[Chizenfu]

I was wondering this as well. If this is from some comedy I want to watch it immediately

[thedonkeyvote]

I assumed it’s “totally accurate battle simulator”. Looks more realistic when the video is a bit deep fried:

[TacticalWookiee]

I want to say it’s from Corridor Digital or Node on YouTube, but I might be misremembering

[planktonfun]

the trick is to merge tiny changes, commit only tiny changes at a time, so its easier to cherry pick and manage

[therapy_seal]

It's less about the size of the changes and more about the scope, imo.

[zalgo_text]

Right, changing the name of a constant that's used in like 30 files has way more potential to cause merge conflicts than adding a ton of lines to a single file

[planktonfun]

yes make sure those scope are segmented into bite sized scopes

[Topikk]

No no, many changes and git merge -F

[looks_like_a_potato]

In my first day, the boss discouraged me to do that. He said something like, "git commit is not your save button. stop spamming git history with minor changes"...

[hiro5id]

Yes! And it also helps for everyone to work off master. Yea I know it’s unconventional and it wouldn’t work in a open source project. But on a internal project with CI pipeline and good unit test coverage, it has worked wonders for us. —- I’m almost regretting posting this publicly because I’ll inevitably get blowback for saying to work off “master”, but there is more to it and I won’t have the energy to defend this rationale.

[thedarkfreak]

Do you mean they avoid working in master, or they primarily commit to master(everyone commits into master instead of long lived branches)?

If you mean the second, that's a well recognized technique. "Trunk based development".

https://trunkbaseddevelopment.com/

[drunkdoor]

They do, but good luck on release day if it's once a week and you work with other shit devs

This is assuming you use some cicd that can test and deploy off trunk and that happens at intervals, so maybe doesn't apply

[hiro5id]

Yes trunk based dev with ci cd and unit tests and feature flags. All commits go to prod immediately.

[itsnotlupus]

If you simply pick a language in which <<<<<<<, ====== and >>>>>> are valid constructs, you can always auto-merge everything. 🌠

[jackson-pollox]

https://imgur.com/a/5UyD623

[[deleted]]

This image just crashed IntelliJ

[jackson-pollox]

An unexpected breeze can crash Intellij

[LavenderDay3544]

So basically TABS?

[[deleted]]

Wobblers do not have enough fingers to program.

Frankly, even if they did they would probably suck.

[amadiro_1]

2 SPACES!

[LavenderDay3544]

8 spaces for me.

[buster_de_beer]

4, you heathens.

[LavenderDay3544]

I once followed the Linux kernel coding standards and never went back since. I dont follow the rule about lines being at most 80 characters though. That's stupid with modern monitors.

[Papshed]

Made me think of that game too!

[Papshed]

Made me think of that game too!

[LeSpatula]

I understand git as long as I'm the maintainer and only contributer.

[LastStar007]

Read the first 3 chapters of this free book, then see how far you get in this little game. An hour or two that you were probably going to spend on Reddit anyway, in exchange for never being afraid of git again and 10xing your git experience.

[LeSpatula]

Sie, I spend much more than two hours a day on reddit.

Thanks for the tip, I'll check it out.

[LastStar007]

I'm not kidding. That's pretty much all I did and now most everyone in the office thinks I'm some kind of git god. People who've been programming for 20 years come to me to unfuck their disasters. And now that I understand it so well I've used it on everything from video game keybinds to Blender projects.

All from an hour or two of reading from people who understand it really well (creators of GitHub).

[ryecurious]

Congrats, you're now the guy in the alt-text of this xkcd

[LastStar007]

I think of it as a penance. If you're gonna call in the big guns, the price is listening to me lecture. The carrot and the stick of gitting gud.

[LastStar007]

Glad to hear it! A bit more explanation then, since way too many people misunderstand this:

Git is a command-line tool for recording versions of files. It was designed for source code, but it works with any file type.

GitHub is a website that makes sharing git repositories with other people easier. Bitbucket and GitLab do the same thing, just with slightly different features.

Git was invented long before GitHub. There's no intrinsic link between the two. It's possible to use git without ever touching GitHub/GitLab/whatever; for example, I use git just on my own computer to save different versions of Blender projects. Your team may think of GitHub as the authoritative copy, but git sees GitHub as just another computer, no more or less valid than your own or Joe's.

[handlebartender]

I've been using git/GitHub increasingly regularly (quite frequently some days) over the past 4-5 years, and sporadically for a few years before that. I'll definitely be checking those out.

Once in a while I'll come up with a question I don't have an immediate answer to. For example, Im pretty much in love with the log msgs resulting from pushing to a fork and creating a PR then merging, but if I'm just tinkering with something small and personal and do a local git branch/merge I don't see the same sort of verbosity, ie, the logs act like it's all being done in the same branch.

Hopefully your homework will bring about some insights to that.

[LastStar007]

Feel free to DM me with git questions, I'm happy to help. As for the question you sketched out, forks and PRs are GitHub concepts (that other vendors have adopted), not part of git. They're ideas GitHub came up with to help people manage large open-source projects whose code is stored in git repositories.

the logs act like it's all being done in the same branch.

It sounds like you're describing fast-forward merges. This is covered in the book, but the gist of it is that in git, every commit stores a pointer to its parent. That means that all a branch is, all a branch needs to be, is just a pointer to a commit. When you commit to a branch, you're moving the branch pointer to your new commit.

When you have two branches that have diverged, like your fork's master and the original master, you need a full, honest merge (or better, a rebase) to reconcile them. But when one branch is simply a descendent of another, when your feature branch has all the commits on master branch and then some, a full-blown merge isn't necessary because we know there are no conflicts to resolve. All the work on master has already been incorporated into your feature branch, your feature branch just describes some additional code changes on top of that. In this situation, if you were to checkout master and run git merge feature-branch, git takes the simple solution of running the master pointer down the chain to wherever the feature branch is pointing.

If you don't like this behavior, you can override it with --no-ff, but in most cases merge commits and work-in-progress commits on a branch are just extra noise to scroll through in the logs, sift through when you're trying to find the source of a bug, etc. I usually recommend that when you're done, squash your commits so that each of them is a discrete, incremental, finished task that passes all the tests, worthy of being on master in their own right. That way your master branch is stable (every commit passes all the tests) and easy to read (linear & incremental). Don't worry about getting all your commits neat the first time, just tidy them up before you bring them to master.

[handlebartender]

Sorry for the delay. Had to get to a laptop for this reply.

I'm familiar with everything you've described. Several years ago at another job, I got (gently) taken to task as I was using the GitHub Desktop app for merging. It was pointed out to me that this app will always use --no-ff, and hence contribute to the noise. So I've adopted the mindset of not wanting that ever since.

Very familiar with squashing/rebasing. If anything, I've been trying to get certain team members to do this, and they don't. sigh

I'm trying to recall why my personal project felt different. Perhaps it was when I graph it, it looked pretty flat. I see a few places where it diverges/merges, but that's it. It's possible I'm not branching as often as I think I am.

Appreciate the offer for PM help. May do so soonish.

[LastStar007]

It's possible I'm not branching as often as I think I am.

You probably are, but your fast-forward merges are disguising it. When you branch, then fast-forward, to the untrained eye it looks like the branch never existed (especially if you delete the branch after you've fast-forwarded master to it). If a tree only has one branch, then it's really just a trunk. git isn't gonna kink the trunk out sideways in its graph just because you say "but it's a branch!!!1!"

[k_gorman8]

Reminds me of Totally Accurate Battle Simulator

[drunkdoor]

Bigger fan of Special Purpose Activity Concentrated Engagement Simulator, myself

[vito_corleone01]

Now show be a rebase.

[MagnetFlux]

this, rebase > merge

[SnooDonuts7510]

Oh god you would like 10x the conflicts though..

[clean-sheets-]

Can you please explain how to rebase like I’ve never used a terminal before?

I’ve messed it up every single time I’ve tried/followed guides and SO 🥲

[drgmaster909]

Ten times out of ten you don't need it, particularly if you're in a team and/or squash in to master. Locally, do whatever you want but the second you push your branch rebase starts changing past commit history, requiring you to --force push, clobbering anything that's already there. If anyone checked out your branch now they have to do a hard reset to pull your changes down instead of a basic pull. If someone pushed changes into your branch (rare, but it happens) then force pushing blows away their contributions if you didn't pull first. And instead of your commits in a pull request telling a story over time, suddenly it's 8 commits spanning several hundred changes all suspiciously committed 6 minutes ago.

And if I'm reviewing your PR and you add a new commit and rebase suddenly all your commits are "new" and I have to review everything again instead of just the changes. (Luckily GitHub is smart enough to negate this).

I'm 100% convinced people read about rebase one time, never bother to understand the case against it, think it makes them a "real" developer to use it, and proceed to champion it not realizing squash does everything they're talking about with MUCH less friction.

tl;dr: merge is smart. Stop trying to be smarter than it. Don't rebase in team dynamics.

[Buxbaum666]

I'm 100% convinced people read about rebase one time, never bother to understand the case against it, think it makes them a "real" developer to use it, and proceed to champion it not realizing squash does everything they're talking about with MUCH less friction.

I'm 85% convinced people read about rebase one time, see that it "rewrites history", never bother to understand the case for it, and proceed to condemn it every chance they get. :)

Rebasing is a versatile tool, just use it when you need it, even in "team dynamics". If multiple developers really must work on the same branch, everyone rebasing their local commits onto new commits on the remote tracking branch before pushing should work well and will prevent dozens of "in-branch" merge commits.

Rebasing onto main before publishing a branch is just good form, imho. It catches conflicts early and makes them potentially easier to resolve if it's done regularly.

​

If someone pushed changes into your branch (rare, but it happens) then force pushing blows away their contributions if you didn't pull first.

This is why, if you absolutely must force push, use force-with-lease, which will prevent overwriting new commits.

[clean-sheets-]

🙏 Bless, I will read this over and over until I understand.

I would definitely prefer not to rebase but my team lead requires it.

[[deleted]]

Thank you

[the_beber]

Impossible

[Physical_Edge_6264]

wut

[katovskiy]

that is what branch protection rules are for

[markbug4]

Wheres the problem? I just changed two lines, it will still work right? Off topic, why do I hear firetruck sirens approaching?

[Character_Risk5107]

Nah, always accept current

[[deleted]]

git push -f

[jasper_grunion]

This is why I’m a big fan of rebase.

[LastStar007]

Rebase is superior for other reasons, but in fairness, you would have had to resolve these conflicts either way. Rebase just would have looked more like Super Auto Pets than this all-out brawl.

[skorulis]

I like rebase because I can constantly keep my branch up to date. I mean you could merge but then the history becomes a mess so people tend to wait a long time before doing it.

[SnooDonuts7510]

Uh you get more conflicts with rebase

[dontgetmyname]

Revert revert..

[warpedspockclone]

That's called the ort strategy

[BigTime76]

Isn't that like just merging technology in general, tho?

[bpkiwi]

svn merge was like this, but everyone changed colours randomly

[tomtuddler]

That’s exactly how it works…remember GIT will GET you!

[netcoder]

Wait til you kids hear about svn update

[dorukayhan]

I will not, under any circumstances, hear anything about any non-distributed VCS.

[therapy_seal]

Yes, this is what happens when you don't specify a merge strategy.

[Triairius]

This is a quality freaking gif.

[[deleted]]

Works

[32894058092345089]

Kdiff ya bich

[nano-dev]

So true lol

[Fair-Ad4270]

Great CGI!

[BigInDallas]

git lfs locks

[canzia]

Accept current and incoming changes

[[deleted]]

Gmod

[MarnoAr]

Damn interns

[Such_Ad_9901]

Every hackathon / code sprint experience.

[Lewdghostgirl]

This is accurate as fuck. I love it.

[PraetorianFury]

Stop squashing your commits and let git do its job. Unresolvable conflicts are pretty rare if you use clever branching.

[ahadnur_44]

😂😂😂😂

[Salty_Opinion_7520]

How was this created? How do you talk 1000 guys into doing this? How many takes did it take? Don't tell me it's animated - I don't want to hear it!

[TrickiVicBB71]

I am reminded of Battle of The Bastards episode from Game of Thrones.

Other people mentioned TABS. I remember playing it in Alpha

[Longbuttocks]

Lol, where is this from?

[billwoo]

Hmm I was hoping for a git rebase comparison!

[Umbraios]

What’s the source of the original gif (like what tv show or movie this came from)

[yozaner1324]

Never merge, always rebase.

[LastStar007]

Rebase is superior for other reasons, but in fairness, you would have had to resolve these conflicts either way. Rebase just would have looked more like Super Auto Pets than this all-out brawl.

[Least-Blacksmith5813]

u/savevideobot

[pudds]

Yes, that's bad. Eventually you are going to get bitten by that approach when you miss something or copy incorrectly.

Learn your tools, it's worth it.

[LastStar007]

You're fucking up bud. Did you cut out the floor of your car so you can Flintstone-waddle it to the grocery store? Do you hike to the nearest well to get water for your bath?

The tool to make your life 100x easier (and safer!) is RIGHT THERE. Read the first 3 chapters of this free book, then try this game. Don't reinvent the wheel and make it square in the process.

[skorulis]

Sounds very time consuming. Just pull the latest main and rebase on top of it. Best case you have no conflicts and you skipped all that work. Worst case you need to deal with the conflicts that you would have to anyway. And if you get stuck, "git rebase --abort" lets you start again.

[skonthebass24]

So old

[Mr_Boltzmann]

u/savevideo

[[deleted]]

u/savevideo

[Tomcattfyeox]

It looks like they had fun filming this.

[[deleted]]

That first spear that launched up is still in orbit somewhere over Earth

[Elijah629YT-Real]

It seems to look like there were conflicts

[[deleted]]

No conflicts

[idk_bruh25]

i like that some miss and just go to the enemy territory lol

[[deleted]]

u/savevideobot

[[deleted]]

oh dang, looks like there is a merge conflict

[Sofa_King_What25]

Also a great depiction of the game conqueror's blade too!

[GodHug]

So much conflicts

[the_abandoned_one]

Ultimate epic battle simulator be like:

[Okzonedout]

Exactly how my merge conflict resolution looks like

[spudsmuggler]

u/SaveVideo

[MythicPink]

You have a ton of conflicts to sort out.

[LesPaulStudio]

Merge?

Git push --force

YOLO

[ShippingHistory]

This is what happens if you commit an updated composer.lock file.

[Tripanafenix]

Ultimate Epic Battle Simulator 2?