A Claude Code plugin for upgrading Ruby projects safely — including Ruby on Rails apps. Supports any Ruby version upgrade (2.7→3.x and beyond) and any Rails version upgrade (5→8), separately or together.
You are right! I've updated my article since then. At the time I was solving this problem however this wasn't supported, I just happened to blog about it now. Good to know though!
Sure, I understand this was definitely a problem for a long time, it just seemed odd to post it now (I initially thought maybe it was a new submission of an old blog post).
FYI Your shell script is still not really valid. You should either fix the bash-isms (best option) or target bash specifically in the shebang line.
So, this isn't really related to which interactive shell you use. The script is executed in the shell named by the shebang (#!/bin/sh) line.
/bin/sh though, is a bit of a "special" case - back in the day, it would have been the Bourne Shell (as distinct from Bash, which is the Bourne Again Shell).
These days, it depends on your platform - macOS uses Bash to provide /bin/sh, Debian/etc use Dash, and I believe the BSD's use Almquist (ash).
Dash and Ash (which Dash is a 'descendant' of) are pretty close to POSIX compliant, but 'Bash as /bin/sh', while being 'more strict', doesn't drop support for all Bash-isms, so your script probably works fine on macOS but will fail miserably on a recent Linux or BSD.
Edit: FYI, if anyone wants to properly test portable (i.e. POSIX /bin/sh compatible) shell scripts on macOS, Dash is pretty simple to install from source. I'd still suggest using VM's to test in a variety of shells (Ash, Dash, Posh would give pretty decent coverage) but for quick tests, native Dash will be more representative than Bash.
Instead of it being a 9th Planet (formed along with others as our solar system was created), it's perhaps just an enormous object (black hole?!) whose gravitation causes the sun to tilt ?
Interestingly enough, the new IAU definition of "planet" makes no reference to origin:
A planet is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.
Whether a black hole could be considered a planet would hinge, I believe, primarily on b: Arguably, any black hole has sufficient mass to overcome rigid body forces, but does the notion of hydrostatic equilibrium apply?
More broadly, the definition of planet would allow for bodies of extra-solar origin captured by the sun....
I'm going to assume both of these options have been considered and ruled out. Also, the article mentions that this Planet 9 explains the orbits of Kuiper belt objects as well.
just so you know, all the information that's stolen from people without their knowledge, also happens to you, so the sense of knowing exactly what you share is honestly just an illusion.
My only gripe with the shift to client side MVC frameworks and such (which although I like!), is that it often makes handling security (from authorization perspective) a bit difficult, at the end of the day I cannot have my authorization based presentation logic in the front end since it can be easily manipulated.
I don't think anyone is advocating this kind of development. In general you can't trust anything the client tells you, so to release information to a client that has not provided proper authentication credentials to the server is a mistake.
I couldn't agree more! I ended up settling for a Dell XPS laptop instead, although I was contemplating buying a macbook pro and hope to get comfortable on it. I am glad I didn't go ahead with it, there are so many such simple but significant differences in a mac that just don't seem to justify spending time trying to get comfortable with a machine when I can easily get a better one at half the price and not have to spend any effort on getting comfortable with it.
Is that information available though? My understanding is that when Microsoft threatens companies (Amazon, for example) that they don't reveal the specific patents that Linux infringes on. If that information were public then the open source community would make an effort to rectify the situation and Microsoft would lose their hand. It makes sense but it feels so wrong that it makes me cringe.
EDIT: JamieEi has a post with a list of the patents. I think that I'm right about the Linux patents being kept secret though.
Are you seriously suggesting that anyone in their right mind would pay a patent license without knowing the patents that they're supposed to be infringing?
How many millions of dollars do you think major multinationals tend to hand over on faith without seeing some sort of evidence and paperwork?
MS may create FUD by talking about patent infringements in general terms but the minute you ask someone for money you need to make your case.
Not at all. Even if the patents are totally invalid or irrelevant, it would take years of multi-million(billion?) dollar patent litigation to prove it. Everyone loses. This way Samsung gets to ship Windows Phones, Android phones, and no one has to deal with a protracted and expensive (probably more expensive than this license) legal battle.
It wouldn't make millions of dollars to actually get the patent details, they'd need to be in the first court filing against you which you could see without even having a lawyer.
If the judge then found out that they'd not revealed the patent details to you before coming to court, he'd almost certainly kick the thing out for being frivolous (you're obliged to try to settle before coming to court and that would include actually telling someone what they'd done wrong).
The minute they go into court filings they're public and there would be nothing to stop someone like Amazon publishing or leaking them (you can't bring a case against someone on the condition they don't talk about it).
Monitoring users clicks over the web is not the same as monitoring users clicks on a competitors web site (google search results).
The whole point of generating 100 unlikely search terms is the fact that these wouldn't be items that exist in any web page on the web. Hence if one searches for them it should not return any results!
How is monitoring people's clicks on google's search results not copying ?
On a different note, I am of the opinion that this practice is acceptable, only as long as one acknowledges it. The fact that M$ is not, to me is appalling.
