As you will no doubt be aware, the speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 metres per second exactly. It always has been, and it always will be. In fact, so confident are physicists that it has never changed that since 1983, it has been used as the definition of the metre in the SI system of units.
And now, here it is, in a sudoku.
Normal sudoku rules apply. Digits on thermometers increase from the bulb end. Cells separated by a knight’s move in chess can not contain the same digit.
git bisect is one of my favourite features of Git. It is a binary search tool that lets you quickly track down the revision that introduced a bug. Surprisingly, it doesn’t seem to be all that well known, so I thought it would be worth writing a refresher on what it is and how to use it.
git bisect: an introduction
The idea is very simple. If you know that your latest revision has a bug that wasn’t there a few weeks ago, and you can find a “known good” revision from round about that time, you can conduct a binary search of the revisions in between to find out which one introduced it.
So let’s say that you have 500 revisions to start off with. You’d mark the latest one as bad, then test, say, the 100th revision, find that it works as expected, and mark that as your last known good revision. Git will then automatically update to the 300th revision (halfway in between) for you to test. Mark as good or bad as appropriate, lather, rinse and repeat until you’re done.
Each test halves the range of revisions left to be tested, quickly narrowing the gap. In total, you have to test just revisions. This means that 1,000 revisions would only take one more test than 500, and one million would only take one more test than 500,000 and ten more tests than a thousand. Once you’ve found the offending change, you can very easily zoom right in on the problematic lines of code, rather than having to spend ages stepping through it all in the debugger.
How to use it
Before you start your bisect session, save your work using git commit or git stash. Then to start off your bisect session, type:
$ git bisect start
Next you need to tell Git the range to start off with. If your current HEAD revision is the bad one, you can just mark it as bad as follows:
$ git bisect bad
Next check out a revision that you know to be good and tell Git that it is a good one:
$ git checkout KNOWN_GOOD_REVISION
$ git bisect good
Git will now move to a revision halfway in between the two, choosing the next revision for us to test. You will see something like this:
Bisecting: 31 revisions left to test after this (roughly 5 steps)
[89f7bc018b5fc34c01bea545e3641ee2c77241ac] Bump version
Recompile and re-test your code at this revision. Look for the specific bug that you are trying to track down (ignore any other bugs for the time being) and mark as either bad or good as required:
$ git bisect bad
$ git bisect good
After each of these steps, Git will choose another revision halfway in between, until you end up with the revision that introduced the bug:
$ git bisect bad
164f5061d3f54ab5cba9d5d14ac04c71d4690a71 is the first bad commit
Author: James McKay <email@example.com>
Date: Sun Nov 11 14:18:44 2018 +0000
Move some test fixtures about for consistency.
:040000 040000 d8dc665d03d1e9b37c5ee2dcde8acc032e306de8 0077c62618b69a20e5dbf6a61b42701a3ba2c156 Msrc
Once you’ve found the offending commit, reset to go back to where you started:
$ git bisect reset
Some useful tips
Use git bisect log to see a list of all the revisions you’ve checked so far:
$ git bisect log
git bisect start
# bad: [e38970b3100deecfdbc0ec183c527b49a6e68157] Don't auto-register types by default. Resolves #27.
git bisect bad e38970b3100deecfdbc0ec183c527b49a6e68157
# good: [dcb6a346e9130e736f45f65761ee57fd337483d7] Bit of tidying up.
git bisect good dcb6a346e9130e736f45f65761ee57fd337483d7
# good: [89f7bc018b5fc34c01bea545e3641ee2c77241ac] Bump version
git bisect good 89f7bc018b5fc34c01bea545e3641ee2c77241ac
# bad: [c08ed22ef9ac9cc66c56562b01143333fd61beae] Builders for conventions by name and by scan.
git bisect bad c08ed22ef9ac9cc66c56562b01143333fd61beae
# bad: [3fbc17dc37c35f963c5cea22814408ceac61787f] Bump version: release 0.2.0.
git bisect bad 3fbc17dc37c35f963c5cea22814408ceac61787f
# good: [e60f5d82b16e7b6ae739fa21cb1fc6c224d11c1a] Add link to documentation
git bisect good e60f5d82b16e7b6ae739fa21cb1fc6c224d11c1a
# good: [052e765169b71e691c70b7f458593f5552c75d41] Add resolution for arrays.
git bisect good 052e765169b71e691c70b7f458593f5552c75d41
# bad: [164f5061d3f54ab5cba9d5d14ac04c71d4690a71] Move some test fixtures about for consistency.
git bisect bad 164f5061d3f54ab5cba9d5d14ac04c71d4690a71
# first bad commit: [164f5061d3f54ab5cba9d5d14ac04c71d4690a71] Move some test fixtures about for consistency.
Use git bisect visualize to show your bisect progress in a GUI tool:
$ git bisect visualize
If you can’t tell whether a revision is bad or good (for example, because it won’t compile), use git bisect skip:
$ git bisect skip
On a final note, you don’t need to worry if you haven’t been meticulous about using git rebase to keep your source history linear. git bisect is smart enough to handle branches.
All in all, git bisect is a really useful tool. It allows you to zoom in on bugs in your source code very quickly even in large repositories with extensive histories. Using it is a skill that I would heartily recommend for every developer and tester’s toolbox.
First of all, I’d like to make it clear that the reproducibility crisis doesn’t call the entire scientific method into question right across the board. There may be a lot of papers published in the scientific literature that can’t be replicated, but there are also vast swathes of others that can and are — often by multiple independent methods. The fact that some studies can’t be reproduced says nothing whatsoever about the validity of the ones that can, and it’s the ones that can that go on to establish the scientific consensus and make their way into school and university textbooks.
In fact, it’s only to be expected that the scientific literature would contain a sizeable proportion — perhaps even a majority — of non-reproducible studies. Scientists are only human, and if they rarely if ever made any mistakes, then that would suggest there was some form of underhanded collusion going on. It’s all too easy for them to inadvertently end up making mistakes, taking shortcuts, or writing down lab notes that don’t accurately describe exactly what they did. But that is why science demands reproducibility in the first place — to filter out problems such as these.
It’s important to realise that the reproducibility crisis only really affects the very frontiers of science — cutting edge research where the practices and protocols are often still being developed. There will always be a certain amount of churn in areas such as these. It rarely if ever affects more well established results, and it’s not even remotely realistic to expect it to cast any doubt on the core fundamentals. We can be absolutely confident that subjects such as relativity, quantum mechanics, Maxwell’s Equations, thermodynamics, the Periodic Table, evolution, radiometric dating, Big Bang cosmology and so on are here to stay.
Furthermore, scientists are actively working on ways to improve things. There is a whole scientific discipline called “meta-science,” which is devoted to increasing quality while reducing waste in scientific research. That is why scientists have adopted techniques such as peer review, blind studies, statistical methods to detect fraud (using techniques such as Benford’s Law) and the like. One recent innovation has been pre-registration of clinical trials as a means to combat publication bias and selective reporting: in many cases, the studies are peer reviewed before the results are taken rather than after the fact.
Interestingly, the disciplines that are most profoundly affected by the “reproducibility crisis” are the social sciences — sociology, psychology, medicine, and so on. These are subjects which first and foremost concern the vagaries of humans and other living beings, which deal with very imprecise data sets with wide spreads of results, and which predominantly rely on statistics and correlations that are much more open to interpretation and studies that are qualitative rather than quantitative in nature. It is less of a problem for the more exact sciences, such as physics, chemistry, mathematics, geology, astronomy, or computer science.
The thing about science is that its foundations of testability and rigorous fact-checking tend to bring it into direct conflict with dishonest people, hidden agendas, and vested commercial or political interests. Consequently there is no shortage of people who will do whatever they can to try and undermine public trust in the scientific community and even the scientific method itself. One of the ways that they do so is to take real or perceived imperfections and shortcomings in science, blow them out of all proportion, and make them appear far more significant and far more damaging to the legitimacy of scientific scrutiny than they really are. But that’s just dishonest. Science may not be perfect, and non-reproducible papers may be plentiful, but nobody gets a free pass to reject anything and everything about science that they don’t like.
For better or for worse, the Conservatives under Boris Johnson have won the General Election with a majority of either 78 or 80, depending on which way the result in St Ives turns out. This means that, for better or for worse, Brexit is definitely going ahead, and there will not be a second referendum.
I personally voted Remain in 2016. Leaving the EU didn’t make much sense to me from either an economic or a logistical perspective, and I was particularly unimpressed with the arguments I was seeing from the “Leave” side, many of which seemed anti-intellectual, tin-foil hat conspiratorial, or simply not true. And I’ve never been impressed with the incessant references to the referendum result as “The Will Of The People.” The 48.1% of us who voted Remain are people too.
But Brexiteers have one legitimate concern that I have to agree with. The EU has a problem with taking “no” for an answer.
I’ve seen this playing out time and time again for over a quarter of a century. We saw it, for example, with the Maastricht Treaty and with the Lisbon Treaty (which was just a rebranding of the EU Constitution). Whenever an EU member state has a referendum that gives a result that Brussels doesn’t like, they simply make them vote again until they come up with the “right” result.
This isn’t democracy: it’s democracy theatre. It’s a complete sham, and if truth be told it makes the idea of a so-called “People’s Vote” seem really, really creepy, because it would just be more of the same. It’s a toxic, anti-democratic practice that needs to be broken.
Nevertheless, the 2016 referendum could potentially have been undone if only Remainers had gone about it the right way. If the UK were to leave the EU wth some kind of interim arrangement in place, and then have a “rejoin” referendum some months later, that would respect the mandate from 2016, avoid the mathematical problems with having three options on the ballot paper (deal/no deal/remain) rather than two, and generally have a much more credible claim towards being truly democratic. It would be clean, fair and above board.
Unfortunately, no political party proposed this option. Instead, far too many politicians did everything that they could to try to undermine and frustrate the referendum result before it could be carried out. In fighting tooth and nail for approaches that were not democratically credible, Remainers failed to come up with one that was. And in so doing, they made the whole process far, far, far more chaotic, stressful and acrimonious than it could otherwise have been.
From time to time, when I’m discussing or debating something online, people send me links to videos — usually on YouTube — that they expect me to watch in support of whatever point they’re arguing.
Nowadays, I usually decline. I’m always open to a well-reasoned argument, even if I disagree with it. But it needs to be presented in a format where I can engage with it properly, fact-check it easily, and make sure I have understood it correctly. The video format doesn’t do that, and in fact more often than not it gets in the way.
Videos are inefficient. I can read far more quickly than I can watch a video. When I am reading, I can also skip over content that is already familiar to me, or that isn’t relevant to the topic at hand.
Videos are not searchable. With written material, especially online, I can quickly copy and paste words or phrases into Google to fact-check it, or into a forum post to reply to you or ask about it elsewhere. I can’t easily do this with videos.
Videos spoon-feed you. When reading, I can step back and ask questions. If there’s something I haven’t understood, I can re-read it several times to make sure that I get it. By contrast, with videos, the videographer sets the pace, and you have to fight against that if you want to do any critical thinking. Sure, you can pause and rewind, but doing so is much more inefficient and imprecise than with written text.
Videos are soporific. I’ve lost count of the number of times that I’ve momentarily fallen asleep watching a video and had to rewind it because I’ve missed an important point. Or gotten distracted onto something else and lost track of what was being said. By contrast, when I’m reading, my mind is totally focused on the text.
Videos are often far too long. Sorry, but if your video is an hour long, then I can tell from that fact alone that either it is a Gish Gallop, or it takes far too long to get to the point, or it is trying to tackle a subject that is too complicated to address properly in video format anyway.
Videos have their place, and the points that they make may well be valid and correct. But they are best suited for entertainment or inspiration. They are less effective for education or information, and are simply not appropriate for online debate and discussion. If someone asks you to watch a video, ask them to provide you with a text-based alternative — a web page, a PDF or a PowerPoint presentation — instead. If they really don’t have any alternative other than a video, ask them to summarise it and provide timestamps. Your time is valuable. Don’t let other people dictate how you spend it.