Tootfinder

Something that just drives me up the wall about this particular area of Git (merge conflicts) is that, beyond the all-too-typical Git problem of sloppy terminology, this is bad feature design. In most situations, “use ours” and “user theirs” are •both• the wrong answer! There are two doors, and they’re •both• trapdoors.
If you have a merge conflict, that means that you changed something •and• somebody else changed something, and your job is to •synthesize• both changes. To use one is to discard the other, which is usually not what you want!
The thing Git (and every Git GUI) ought to surface is a three-way merge: show me what I changed and what they changed ••relative to the nearest common ancestor••. Yes yes yes, I know it’s possible to finagle that into view with Git. It should be the danged default. It is what I should see first. It is what I should see if I have no idea what I’m doing.
1/ https://hachyderm.io/@jeremydmiller/115741417416659492

The new level of scam hit me today. Got an e-mail: "Do you have a bounty program?" This would be fun, thought I, and I answered, "Yes!" The vulnerability they'd "found" was that you can use my domain in the FROM header of the email. How cool is that! So much spoofing!
After I described that that's how email works and the reason we have DKIM, DMARK, SPF, and all of those things, they asked for $20 for a heads-up as appreciation.