Interestingly some zip codes just don't seem to work, but this appears to be an issue on AMC's side as I tested the same zip codes on their "find a theater" page and got the same results.
Yes. I swear every day I see a "new" fad targeted at fixing one's attention and every time they're doing so much mental gymnastics to not use the word "meditation."
The problem with the word meditation is that, if this counts as meditation, then I meditate every time I take a long train trip or go for a walk.
That might actually be true! But there are people who claim they cry, or experience infinite bliss, or that meditation gave them long lasting mental health problems and is dangerous. When I've emptied my mind and let the trees and houses fly past on train trips, I've neither cried nor experienced infinite bliss nor broken down mentally.
Meditation, like exercise, can be a lot of things.
Choosing a brief walk can be exercise, or a brisk walk that's a little longer - maybe doing some forms of housework can be exercise. But exercise can also be running marathons, swimming laps, playing street hockey, dancing in your kitchen, skateboarding or messing around on the monkey bars. Those would all make you feel your body in various ways, both during and after the fact.
I do think your empty mind train rides can be meditation. The fact that much more intense or demanding forms of practice exists does not invalidate that.
(To belabour the metaphor a bit, regarding potential dangers - if somebody has a knee injury, some forms of exercise will be safer for them than others. Take care of yourself!)
If someone wrote about how taking a twenty minute walk in nature made them more productive, I don't think anyone would reply 'I swear every day I see a "new" fad targeted at fixing one's mood and every time they're doing so much mental gymnastics to not use the word "exercise."'
Who cares if they're doing exercise or not? The person who takes walks presumably knows it's a form of exercise. They're not talking about the other forms, they may not be able to do Crossfit or go skiing, and they might not feel confident expressing opinions about the entirety of all exercise, but they definitely know that walking works for them.
I do somewhat see the value in promoting specific, accessible meditative practices without necessarily using the word meditation for it, simply because it can be needlessly intimidating and put some people off because they come carrying a number of assumptions.
Maybe that same principle does also apply to exercise - some people will do it by accident and have a good time, but still balk at idea of doing capital E Exercise as a distinct activity in itself. Sometimes it really is just a mindset thing.
That seems desirable? Like that's what commit messages are for. Describing the change. Much rather that than the m$ way of putting ads in commit messages
The commit message should complement the code. Ideally, what the code does should not need a separate description, but of course there can be exceptions. Usually, it's more interesting to capture in the commit message what is not in the code: the reason why this approach was chosen and not some other obvious one. Or describe what is missing, and why it isn't needed.
That sounds like design discussions best had in the issue/ticket itself, before you even start writing code. Then the commit message references the ticket and has a brief summary of the changes.
Writing and reading paragraphs of design discussion in a commit message is not something that seems common.
Ticket systems are quite ephemeral. I still have access to commit messages from the 90s (and I didn't work on the software at the time). I haven't been able to track the contents of the gnats bug tracker from those days.
And of course tickets can be private, so even if the data survived migration, you may not have access to it (principle of least privilege and all that).
if you've changed a function and are worried about the reason for the change not being tracked or disappearing, then add it as a comment, the commit message is not the place for this.
Not really about design, but technical reasons why this solution came to be when it’s not that obvious. It’s not often needed. And when it does, it usually fits in a short paragraph.
What you're describing here is a design. The most important parts of a design are the decisions and their reasoning.
e.g. "we decided on tool/library pattern X over tool/library/pattern Y because Z" – that is a design, usually discussed outside (and before) a commit message.
You discuss these decisions with others, document the discussion and decision, and then you have a design and can start writing code.
Let me ask you this: suppose you have a task that needs to be done eventually, and you want to write down some ideas for it, but don't want to start coding right now. Where do you put those ideas? How do you link them to that specific task?
So you'd disagree with style that Linux uses for their commits?
Random example:
Provide a new syscall which has the only purpose to yield the CPU after the
kernel granted a time slice extension.
sched_yield() is not suitable for that because it unconditionally
schedules, but the end of the time slice extension is not required to
schedule when the task was already preempted. This also allows to have a
strict check for termination to catch user space invoking random syscalls
including sched_yield() from a time slice extension region.
I think my post makes it pretty clear that I would. If you want, I could cite several examples of organizations which use the method I described, so you can weigh it against the one example you provided, and get the full picture.
In your example, for example, where was the issue tracked before the code was written? The format you linked makes it difficult to get the history of the issue.
Let me ask you this: suppose you have a task that needs to be done eventually, and you want to write down some ideas for it, but don't want to start coding right now. Where do you put those ideas? How do you link them to that specific task?
Everyone has its own system although companies do tend to codify it with a project manager. I used TODO.txt inside the repo. an org file, Things.app, a stack of papers, and a whiteboard. But once a task is done, I can summarize the context in a paragraph or two. That’s what I put in the commits.
Git was built for email, because that's the system Linux uses. Commits appear inline. Diffs are reviewed and commented inline.
Email is the review process, and commits contain enough information that git blame can get you a reasoning - it doesn't require you checking the email archive. Rather than a dead ticket that no longer exists.
I can also supply you a list of companies that make use of git's builtin features if you like. But thats probably not relevant to discussing management techniques.
Unfortunately GitHub Copilot’s commit message generation feature is very human. It’s picked up some awful habits from lazy human devs. I almost always get some pointless “… to improve clarity” or “… for enhanced usability” at the end of the message.
VS Code has a setting that promises to change the prompt it uses to generate commit messages, but it mostly ignores my instructions, even very literal ones like “don’t use the words ‘enhance’ or ‘improve’”. And oddly having it set can sometimes result in Cyrillic characters showing up at the end of the message.
Ultimately I stopped using it, because editing the messages cost me more time than it saved.
Honestly the aggressive verbosity of github copilot is half the reason don't use its suggested comments. AI generated code comments follow an inverted-wadsworth-constant: Only the first 30% is useful.
As opposed to outputting debugging information, which I wouldnt be surprised if LLMs do output "debug" output blurbs which could include model specific information.
The human developer would just write what the code does, because the commit also contains an email address that identifies who wrote the commit. There's no reason to write:
> Commit f9205ab3 by dkenyser on 2026-3-31 at 16:05:
> Fixed the foobar bug by adding a baz flag - dkenyser
Because it already identified you in the commit description. The reason to add a signature to the message is that someone (or something) that isn't you is using your account, which seems like a bad idea.
Aside from merges that combine commits from many authors onto a production branch or release tag. I would personally not leave an agent to do that sort of work.
I'm in the same boat when it comes to gaming. Primarily use a trackball mouse and have used it for some games like World of Warcraft or Path of Exile but a traditional mouse is still king for any FPS game.
I did learn recently that Zowie released an ergonomic version of their mouse that I plan on checking out though. Unfortunately there's just not a ton of options out there for ergonomic gaming mice.
Been experimenting with charmbracelet's[2] stuff recently to do something similar. Still very early stages so nothing to show off yet but would highly recommend it for anyone else looking into creating a TUI app/business.
I’m bringing charmbracelet to the web using gotty. The example is chat app that uses tailscale as the auth layer, and is exposed over ssh via charmbracelet/wish and over http via gotty. I haven’t written any docs yet; you should be able to run the example chat app on your tail net.
Would like to add some other forms of auth, but tailscale was just so easy to provide the same auth for both ssh & http.
My brand new Netgear router I just bought is so bright it's actually blinding if I catch a glimpse late at night so we might not be out of the woods just yet.
Very cool idea nonetheless.