Sup Forums cringe thread

It's been a while since I've seen a good cringe thread on here

youtube.com/watch?v=k2vJNNAQZlg

I know next to nothing about github or its terminologies and am prepared to accept everything in your picture as fact.

here are some better definitions:
"reposotory" (repository): 'repos' contain the source code for programs that contributors push to using git, but they can really include any type of file including data and program binaries.
"forked" - a fork is a clone of a repo at a certain point in time that is developed differently and may be merged back into the repo.
"pull request" - a request to one of the managers to the repo to pull your changes and merge them. this does not give you edit access.

Congrats, now all the people watching your broadcast are now even more clueless about what the terms mean. These descriptions are written for the lowest common denominator, because that's who watched news shows like that.

This image triggers me pretty bad. Almost as bad as the time I (programmer) was talking to someone in marketing and they ask "what's the difference between git and github?"

What is so cringey about that? Not everyone is interested in tech and code. It's like if you would talk to an attorney odds are that you won't understand half of terms and concepts.
>muh people are so dumb bc they do not understand my job

And they're this retarded about everything else too. Journalists are people too stupid to do anything but mislearn and mislead.

repository: A collection of files for a software project.
fork: To make a new repository based on an old repository.
pull request: A request to change a repository.

American right-wing media at its finest

Git is like a car, GitHub is like a gas station you go to refill that car

If it's so boring then don't attempt and fail at explaining it on television.

Holy fuck, kill yourself. Git is a program that keeps track of changes to files. It's like having undo and redo buttons that never forget. GitHub is a place people can share files they keep track of with Git. Git and GitHub are mainly used for code written by programmers.

Calm down, his post was clearly meant to be ironic.

I can't tell anymore. ;_;

Non-technical people will be able to make more sense of my explanation than your explanation

Good job on being autistic though.

No, it actually wasn't.

Car analogies are stupid and people who make them should be shot.

Tell that to the boss who fired the autistic guy who couldn't explain things in simple terms without sperging out about tracking changes to files :^)

>Non-technical people will be able to make more sense of my explanation than your explanation
You didn't give an explanation; you gave two similes.

>Hey user, explain what a data base is.
>It's like a gas station.
>Thanks, user! Consider yourself promoted!
Things that never happened.

Speaking of car analogies, I've just made myself cringe. A younger me once made this monstrosity:
>CPU determines your top speed
>Ram is how much you can carry while still travelling at top speed
>hard drive size is your max towing capacity

The point was to quickly explain to a non-technical person, without using many words or spending a lot of thought, why there's a difference between git and github.

The car analogy captures the essence: git is the primary thing that's being used here, github is just one auxiliary resource, but you could easily just go to any other git hosting solution (just like you could go to any other gas station).

It explains the fundamentals of the situation without going further into depth than warranted. Stay mad autist

>CPU determines how fast you can process things
>RAM determines the maximum size of your high-speed working set
>Hard drive determines the maximum size of your low-speed working set

Analogy seems fine to me

You didn't explain what Git and GitHub are. Instead, you did a terrible job at explaining how they're related. Fuel is required to run a car, but Git doesn't need GitHub. Fuel is consumed in use, but GitHub isn't. Cars are for transporting things, but Git isn't. All your shitty attempt at an explanation did was say Git and GitHub are related, but anyone who wanted to know what they are already thinks that, otherwise they wouldn't be asking about them together. You are retarded and probably don't even know what Git is.
>inb4 rused

No. You're forgetting cache.
The farther from the CPU you get, the slower I/O is.

Leave it to an autist to take an analogy literally to the extreme. I'm serious. Failure to abstract away the essence of something is a literal symptom of autism

I don't understand how that relates to this analogy.

Does the existence of L1-L3 cache somehow falsify the fact that your CPU determines how fast you can process things?

>Everyone magically knows what I meant even though I didn't explain it.
No user, you are the autist.

pull request confuses so many people. they learn basic pull & push with Git and suddenly there's a "pull request", so they think it means to download the latest code.

What's the difference between a branch and a fork?

A branch is like your car running on diesel and a fork if it is running on regular gas

There are multiple kinds of fork

On a technical level: Branches are to commits what forks are to repositories. A repository is a collection of branches. A fork is like a “meta-branch” (or copy) of the entire repository (including all branches). GitHub uses this terminology extensively (i.e. the “fork” button just creates a copy of the repository for your own use)

On a political level: A branch is part of the same “project”, whereas a fork generally implies that there's some sort of political divide between developers, with the fork seeking to distinguish itself from the original (often by changing the name or development style)

A fork is a new repository based on an old repository. A repository keeps a list of all file changes. A list of changes is called a branch. A list of changes is called a branch, because different lists of changes represent different possible repositories. This is different from a fork because in a fork we have two different repositories, but in a branch we only have a list of changes.

*holds up spork*

>cringe thread
>devolves into an autistic shitspree over github lingo instead of just posting more cringe
good job Sup Forums, you faggots will argue over anything.

Sorry dude, but I did not know what Got a and Github were until this thread and I gotta say your explanations were shit. I can't even make sense of your stupid similes knowing what they meant.

>be me at work
>used GIT before
>explain it simply to managers and non-technical leaders, similar to the Fox shits
>switch to more technical explanations on the drop of a hat when talking to developers
>>usually need to compare it to ClearCase when talking to older folks
>get rave review in year end review
>now bosses #1 when gone because I can communicate without sounding like a pretentious asshole like the neets who can't explain what a paper bag is without getting into how a tree is selected before being cut down.
>talk of adding a new manager position for me to fill

Technically not promoted yet but looking forward to getting out of the coding trenches for new and interesting issues.

A programmer is like a car and a manager is like the gas station.

Can I get a promotion now?

And manager's dick is like a hose.

a git is a flea and a github is dog

You used the term "high-speed working set".
The registers, followed by the cache, etc. are the highest speed working sets.

>Sorry dude, but I did not know what Got a and Github were until this thread
0/10, I don't believe you

You can't possible be on Sup Forums and not know this.

No, no, a gît ils a butter churner, and a github is the container

I don't consider L3 cache large enough to be considered a working set of any description, at least for most relevant workloads (e.g. database lookups)

Also, there is a pretty big distinction that I feel we have to make here: architecture

While you can conceptually layer everything into a gigantic tree of cache layers from fast registers to slow internet storage (like those fancy log graphs of access times you usually see in introductory CS courses), this simply isn't the case in practice: The hardware/software design is completely different.

L1-L3 cache is just a transparent cache in front of your RAM. It might as well not exist from the perspective of both the OS, and the program (assembly). It transparently fits into the stack without disturbing either the lower level or the higher level components. It's just there to make highly localized fetches from RAM faster. (L3 cache vs system RAM is not even an order of magnitude on modern platforms)

RAM vs disk however is a pretty big distinction because the access methods are completely different, partly because RAM is volatile while disk is not. Your workloads like databases, NFS servers or whatever that you're running will generally have to be written to be mindful of the distinction between the two, and a system that's swapping will generally be in a much worse place than a system that's simply missing the L3 cache.

Anyway, you're right to some degree that it's oversimplifying, but given that you can't exactly choose how much L3 cache to buy, but you *can* choose how much RAM and memory to buy, it's still a reasonable suggestion to make.

The only thing I really take offense to is the fact that the advice seems to be mostly applicable to high-throughput servers, rather than home users - and high-throughput server admins probably don't need your car analogies.

Why is it only autistic people who post this image, is it the same person?

>how a tree is selected before being cut down
Well?

>neets who can't explain what a paper bag is without getting into how a tree is selected before being cut down
fuck this is salt in the wound, having fucked up selling stuff to managers two days in a row this week

Why do you want money? You are only having fun on your PC!

DON'T YOU POST IT

>having managers who don't understand technical concepts

Why is this a thing?
What good do these people do if they don't understand technology?

Because they understand PEOPLE and how to INTERACT with them to get the best results.
If you're too autistic to understand that, you're too autistic to ever have a shot of being a manager.
Being a manager is more about being able to get the most out of people around you than it is about being good at what you do.

>Because they understand PEOPLE and how to INTERACT with them to get the best results.

That presumes that they actually know what the best results are. But if they don't understand the underlying technology, how can they know the range of possible results?

Because believe it or not, what you call best results and what they call best results don't always match up.
You think best results is 100% about profit margins. It's not. It's also about not having to worry about people throwing a shitfit because someone's being a prick.
Now believe it or not, the people who know about these technology things also tend to be either autistic, pricks or autistic pricks.

Just shut up and get back to work, drone.

m m mommm i posted it again

You sound like such a people person, user. One day when I get a job at software megacorp inc. I hope to have you as my manager instead of some autismal nerd.

you knock on it with an excavator (ideally 8350) to make sure there's no animals in it

the role of a manager is to motivate staff to do their best. don't need to know the product, but you do need to know what engagement looks like.

Thanks, I guess.

Is that why most project managers are qt females?