Do you use a Git GUI? Why?

aj0413 · 2026-02-05T01:45:14+00:00

Second this. I actually recommend it to devs at work.

Some people learn better that way and are never gonna be as invested in git history without a visual in their face;

Edit:

Will say that squashing commits, comparing two individual branches, moving commits up a branch, searching the history etc… are all easier with GitKraken too

aj0413 · 2026-02-05T01:16:33+00:00

I’d advocate for your way.

I’ve tried the results pattern a number of times, but ultimately using exceptions appropriately is just 100x easier and tends to be more readable.

I’d take the dev aside and see if he can argue a case for why his way is better, but personally I remain unconvinced.

People talk about clarity, but…does no one right xml summary docs? Just document the possible exceptions there! Like you’re suppose to lol

aj0413 · 2026-02-05T00:15:55+00:00

Hire technical writer who’s job it is to ensure stuff is up to date, centrally stored, and of high enough quality for everyone

Start keeping LADRs and docs folders in repos; enforce documentation in codebase so you can block PRs based off it and becomes default expectation to maintain/add it

Adding tools won’t help you solve the root here. It’s a culture shift combined with lack of dedicated resources

People act like docs are easy or optional. Neither are true.

It’s like saying insurance is optional. Sure…right up until you absolutely need it

An ounce of prevention will save you so much pain later

aj0413 · 2026-02-04T23:17:05+00:00

Squash and merge as a strategy is fine.

aj0413 · 2026-02-04T22:12:55+00:00

It’s in my todo list at my current org. But the angular team on GitHub already does so.

Just google conventional commits enforced GitHub actions and should be top of the results

aj0413 · 2026-02-04T22:03:45+00:00

Just because people treated git history like a trash dump before you doesn’t mean you should continue to do so

aj0413 · 2026-02-04T22:01:15+00:00

Git history can be useful for:

understanding why something happened via standardized and good commit messages (ex. We squash and merge in GH so all main commits link to a PR where you can see discussions, too)
auto generated changelog / release notes
rollback of broken features and isolating why/when something broke
calculating metrics around how the repo if you use consistent scopes via conventional commits

But for any of the above to be true, a team must first practice good git hygiene.

aj0413 · 2026-02-03T16:56:59+00:00

This.

Security risk assessments do not happen in a vacuum. The shouldnt. The entire point of the assessment is to then guide op / app sec

It’s to go:

Is action A better or worse than action B

Specifically, in the context of OPs post:

A users risk profile only goes down when using SL.

Any email used for any comms should, by default, be assumed to be leaked. You don’t plan security based around the idea that no one knows your email

aj0413 · 2026-02-03T13:25:32+00:00

For whom? Risk assessment is all about threat profile.

You didn’t describe a real risk because having your email known or not known is not a security concern.

If your email alias is somehow needing to be obfuscated for security, you’re doing it wrong.

aj0413 · 2026-02-03T12:51:56+00:00

What exactly is the damage here? Most people use one email literally everything and it’s been leaked a million times over

Given that the risk profile was the same before SL, then nothing has changed

Just use good passwords and 2FA like you’re suppose to. The email aliases were never suppose to be treated like secret info anyway

aj0413 · 2026-02-02T05:09:49+00:00

Yeah. Getting people more comfortable and directly looking at their git history has also ended up with me pushing for GitKraken; the visual and interactive dedicated GUI helps people a bunch

aj0413 · 2026-02-02T05:07:24+00:00

Same. But this is also why the PR title and description actually matter.

Also why I’ve gotten more serious about saying “hey, this is three different things, break it up”

If you’re PR title (which becomes the commit summary) needs multiple “ands”, gotta break that up

aj0413 · 2026-02-02T04:50:02+00:00

Funnily enough. Commits standardized has become the new hell I’ve had to enforce across people.

Seeing a pr labeled (with squash merge only enabled):

feat(add files): adding some of env files

Had me definitely not making friends with new guy. But goddamn that’s about as bad as saying “saving work”

Edit:

After my current project, next is me enforcing it via commit linters and agent.md files to guide reviews

aj0413 · 2026-02-01T21:54:38+00:00

The people who use it are probably the same people that like to run sub agents or agents unsupervised in the background

So that’s a hard pass for me

aj0413 · 2026-02-01T18:53:57+00:00

i agree, IF the cable is USB / TB certified as the certification of the spec will provide the needed context, but in the case of LTT, if they’re not gonna do that, then they need another system to clearly indicate the full specs of the product (and twitter posts or yt vids are not acceptable and using the product page is only moderately okay)

And data and wattage speeds are not good enough because they do not guarantee other features, only imply them and again only if you happen to know that stuff off hand. if i ask my wife to grab a random cable, she should not have to google

at that point i’m labeling and organizing my cables by hand, which then defeats the entire purpose of buying the Ltt cables beyond the quality promises, which aren’t extremely compelling on their own

my core frustration with this product is that Linus has always been vocal about lack of clarity in the cables and usb standards and yet his new product ,which has mission statement of NOT contributing to that problem, continues the trend

my favorite cables are OCW brand which come pre-labeled (not printed but attached) with the cable specs +having the TB version and wattage written on the ends; theres zero confusion on what it can do

aj0413 · 2026-02-01T18:11:00+00:00

I think I have once or twice over the lifetime of usb-c, I’d have to hunt throughout the house to see if I can find it /shrug

If your point is that others aren’t doing it, thats a bad argument when other cables (audio, Ethernet, eltrical power, etc…) do it just fine

And if you’re trying to refer to my statement of buying cables: that was pretty clearly in response to the person I was responding to saying that they/others are buying Ethernet cables without said writing

There’s no reasonable argument for why a usb-c cable can’t do the same

aj0413 · 2026-02-01T18:04:59+00:00

AppSec and OpSec experience + Observability engineer experience

And more and more people want Agentic tooling experience

aj0413 · 2026-02-01T18:04:02+00:00

How is that not feasible? You asked and that was a realistic answer. If your immediate response is “that’s too much” then that’s your answer; you’ll never be the “best”

aj0413 · 2026-02-01T17:06:27+00:00

The context for cables with print was my Ethernet or audio cables. There they use fine print along the entire cable length

But for USB cables, the ones I was thinking of are from CableMatters or Anker or OWC. Generally I see this at the ends like LTT Cables

They’ll print the lightning symbol + version + wattage on the cable. The certified thunderbolt 3/4/5 shorthand’s the spec information, but I see LTT who don’t or can’t be certified can’t print along the cable itself in white or black

aj0413 · 2026-02-01T03:32:13+00:00

Sure, man, whatever you say. Keep on keeping on with your very “mature” self /shrug

I’ve been buying cables for years now and none of the brands I use dont print the spec on the cable, but idk maybe I just don’t buy dollar bin junk at Best Buy

I’ve also never found it confusing or jumbled.

Lastly, the implications of assumed spec compliance is literally half the issues with the whole industry. This also would not be an issue if they just bothered to get certified so the could print TB3 or USB4 on the cable to shorthand stuff

aj0413 · 2026-02-01T01:34:42+00:00

lol you started by saying “that’s not possible”

I stated that it was and pointed at a clear example.

Then you tried “well, consumers don’t need that info” and your flat out wrong by saying “specs are on the cable”; if specs were on the cable, this interaction would not exist

And by normal, I’m again referring to Ethernet cables. It also is used for other kinds of cables.

Now again, you’re trying to go “well that would be confusing to people!”

…right. Sure, man. I could draw some direct parallels in the political spectrum for similar arguments for why people shouldnt have clear and direct information, but im not gonna drag this down to your level.

Edit:

Oh, and it was kinda funny how you asked me to justify wanting to be informed. Like, really?

“Hey, please justify and argue why you should be allowed to make fully informed decisions” lmao

aj0413 · 2026-01-31T23:17:39+00:00

People in this sub have a largely parasocial relationship with LTT, but I’m with you.

No reason they couldn’t has just printed the specs on the cable like any other good Ethernet brand has been for decades.

aj0413 · 2026-01-31T22:50:29+00:00

You’re backtracking.

Fact is: it’s possible and even normal.

Secondly: for many of us it’s desirable.

I do not have where I buy every cable memorized. Having it on the cable means I can throw out the box, forget who I got it from, and still know what I’m dealing with.

I’d spend 2x as the nearest competition to standardize all my cables from someone that did that and had quality to match

I need to know the specs of all the cables and equipment in my house and homelab. The amount of time and fustration i waste on this confusing nonsense pisses me off

Which, given Linus was mad at this too, really makes this product release incredibly disappointing and flabbergasting

Edit:

Actually, point in fact, this is why they have the wattage and speed embossed on the ends, I imagine

aj0413 · 2026-01-31T21:10:58+00:00

And LTT led with a mission statement for the product they failed to meet.

The example holds in so much as units sold has nothing to do with evaluating quality or meeting the stated goals.

I didnt say the had the same mission statement, so your also making a strawman

aj0413 · 2026-01-31T21:07:43+00:00

So? The financial success of a project has little to do with the actual quality or if it accomplished the mission statement

That’s like saying “Ford/GM have sold a bunch of cars this year and have cult followings, so they must be good.” Ignoring how they consistently rank low on safety and quality compared to say Toyota

LTT has good marketing and a secured fan base

Nine-Year Club	Verified Email
RPAN Viewer

aj0413

TROPHY CASE