1741: Work

2016-10-03T14:28:21Z

Ericm301: I fixed a typo! Yay me!

{{comic
| number = 1741
| date = October 3, 2016
| title = Work
| image = work.png
| titletext = Despite it being imaginary, I already have SUCH a strong opinion on the cord-switch firing incident.
}}

==Explanation==

This strip details a set of theoretical examples of how much work went into the design and manufacture of everyday objects. The joke centers around the fact that most people in modern times are constantly surrounded with human-built objects, which we generally use without giving them much thought. Munroe implies that he occasionally imagines what went into seemingly simple objects around him (like water glasses and desk lamps), and finds it overwhelming. This is because there are so many built items around us, many of which are inexpensive and mass-produced, which nonetheless resulted from a great deal of human effort. (This is similar to the thesis of the classic essay [http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html I, Pencil]). Presumably, this kind of realization is more likely for people who've worked in design and engineering, because they have some insight into what's involved in bringing a product to market.

There's a possible double joke in the title. The objects in question are all part of his work desk. The potential implication is that he's so distracted imagining the work that went into creating his workspace that he can't get his own work done.

The roll-over text hits another aspect of the design issue. Companies that design and manufacture goods will inevitably have human conflicts, where decisions will be argued over, and human personalities and office politics will impact the final design. He's apparently come up with an entire fictional narrative about a conflict over whether to put the lamp's switch on the lamp body itself, or to attach it to the lamp's power cord, and developed a strong opinion about who was right.

A distaste for lamps where the switch is on the cord is also mentioned in the title text of [[1036: Reviews]].

==Transcript==
[On a desk sits a glass of water and lamp]

[Points to lamp shade]
An engineer worked late drawing this curve in AutoCAD

[Points to back of lamp]
Extra vents added to avoid California safety recall

[Points to the lamp 'stem']
9 hours of meetings

[Points to lamp information sticker]
Ongoing debate

[Points to glass]
Years-long negotiation with glass supplier

[Points to the sides of glass]
4 hours of meetings

[Points to bottom and 'top' of glass]
Months of tip-over testing

[Points to desk]
Wood source changed due to 20 year legal fight over logging in the Great Bear rainforest

[Points to cord]
Argument over putting switch on cord got someone fired

[Caption under frame]
Sometimes I get overwhelmed thinking about the amount of work that went into the ordinary objects around me.

[Title text]
Despite it being imaginary, I already have SUCH a strong opinion on the cord-switch firing incident.

{{comic discussion}}

Talk:1597: Git

2015-10-31T02:26:11Z

Ericm301: my comments!

If someone is interested, the best book I've read on it is [http://www.git-scm.com/book/en/v2 Pro Git]. The chapters 2 and 3 explain pretty well this mess of branching and merging. But it's true that it takes a bit of patience to go over it all. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.228.35|108.162.228.35]] 08:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Also take a look at [http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ GitFlow: A Successful Git Branching Model]. Though Randall is correct there usually comes a time when it is easier to give up and "start again". [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.147|162.158.34.147]] 08:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I never liked the name of this piece of software; in British English, the name "git" is mildly rude :-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(slang) . [[User:Gearoid|Gearóid]] ([[User talk:Gearoid|talk]]) 09:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
:According to word of god it was on purpose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_(software)#History [[Special:Contributions/162.158.22.46|162.158.22.46]] 11:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

'Internally, Git works by saving the differences between various versions of the files, rather than creating a new copy each time the user "commits" the current version of the code.' - It is exactly the opposite. It stores whole files, or rather all committed pieces of data (blobs). See http://gitready.com/beginner/2009/02/17/how-git-stores-your-data.html [[Special:Contributions/141.101.88.202|141.101.88.202]] 09:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)TK

: It is stored as diffs in pack file. Whole file (loose object) are packed automatically by default.
:
: See https://schacon.github.io/gitbook/7_the_packfile.html and https://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-pack-objects.html

[[Special:Contributions/162.158.177.59|162.158.177.59]] 10:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

::Not sure what pack files are used for, but data is stored as is and named by the SHA-1 of its contents. See [https://schacon.github.io/gitbook/1_the_git_object_model.html object model] in the same reference. [[User:Walenc|Walenc]] ([[User talk:Walenc|talk]]) 16:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I feel like this article should end with a quick guide to git commands. {{unsigned ip|108.162.216.27}}

Well, I feel this article focuses on explaning git too much that it loses the point of the joke. We have Wikipedia to refer readers to ... The thing is, not just users who are unable to use git beyond a few basic commands, but also those who understand git often use some sort of "start over" method because an action looking perfectly legit got the repository into unusable state, where recovery is much more difficult than reapplying patches. For one of the most common, search for "detached head", for example - especially funny when git insists on falling into that state after checking out master which is in direct contradiction to what docs say when it happens. But I don't feel like rewriting that, sorry :-/ --kavol, [[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.206|141.101.96.206]] 16:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I feel you've all been nerd-sniped. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.8|108.162.216.8]] 19:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Pat

The problem is not about the working copy and about the branching tree structure and some git internals that is quite confusing.
This 4 years old reddit post can be used as a funny reference: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/embdf/git_complicated_of_course_not_commits_map_to/

http://tartley.com/?p=1267
"One of the things that tripped me up as a novice user was the way Git handles branches. Unlike more primitive version control systems, git repositories are not linear, they support branching, and are thus best visualised as trees, upon the nodes of which your current commit may add new leaf nodes. To visualise this, it’s simplest to think of the state of your repository as a point in a high-dimensional ‘code-space’, in which branches are represented as n-dimensional membranes, mapping the spatial loci of successive commits onto the projected manifold of each cloned repository." {{unsigned ip|108.162.210.212}}

Should someone mention how git is by default used through a terminal - which is often more confusing than a GUI for most people - and that while there are graphical shells for git, some people refuse to use them because they're not fully-featured? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.36|108.162.221.36]] 11:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Shit. I use git for almost a year and I delete my repos more often than I'd like to admit. I'm going to read [https://www.git-scm.com/book/en/v2] and (hopefully) fix this once and for all. [[User:Kripmo|Kripmo]] ([[User talk:Kripmo|talk]]) 02:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The really sad part of all this is that if you work in a multi-dev environment and <i>anyone</i> on the team is doing what Cueball suggests, it negates every other user's ability to use the main trunk properly. [[User:Ericm301|Ericm301]] ([[User talk:Ericm301|talk]]) 02:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

1741: Work

Talk:1597: Git