What I used to recommend to my sofware engineering classes is that instead of putting large files (media etc) into Git, put them into the artifact repository (Artifactory or something like it). That lets you for instance publish it as a snapshot dependency that the build system will automatically fetch for you, but control how much history of it you keep and only require your colleagues to fetch the latest version. Even better, a simple clean of their build system cache will free up the space used by old versions on their machines.
People like storing everything in git because it significantly simplifies configuration management. A build can be cleanly linked to a git hash instead of being a hash and a bunch of artifacts versions especially if you vendor your dependencies in your source control and completely stop using an artifact repository.
With a good build system using a shared cache, it makes for a very pleasant development environment.
This has its own issues. Now you need to provision additional credentials into your CI/CD and to your developers.
Commits become multi-step, as you need to first commit the artifacts to get their artifact IDs to put in the repo. You can automate that via git hooks, but then you're back at where you started: git-lfs.
It sounds like a submodule... But certainly if the problem could be solved with a submodule, people would have found out long ago. Git's submodules also support shallow-cloning already [1]. I can only guess what the issues are with large files since I didn't face it myself - I deal with pure source code most of the times. I'm interested to know why it would be a bad idea to do that, just in case. The caveats pointed out in the second SO answer don't seem to be a big deal.
I set this as part of a Scala programming assignment for my second year undergraduate class at UNE (Australia) last term. However, during the working a square is not Queen | Eliminated but Set[Queen | NotQueen]
Largely so from a programming perspective it becomes a simplified version of Einstein's Riddle that I showed the class, doing in a similar way.
thanks for saying this, that is how I play this game usually, and I was confused by TFA going with backtracking/guessing a next attempt, when constraint propagation seems easier, I thought I was missing something.
I wonder whether future generations will be ingrained with a Truman Show fear that maybe only the few thousand people they meet are real and everything else is generated background noise.
I've never really understood the problems he had getting the Hitchhiker movie made - all the articles around before it came out talked about having to revise the script to make sense to an American audience (and the eventual movie ended up with a strangely different plot with a villain), but the original radio series is pretty much a road movie, which is almost an American trope.
Adams himself changed the plot in every version of HHGG, from radio play to book to computer game to movie. I think it shows how little he was attached to the details of his fictional universe. Personally, I like the plot of the movie a lot, especially the invention of the point-of-view gun
I suspect there may be trade off undergoing evolutionary selection here, where for some organisms a behaviour is more important from the offset, it's worth encoding more of the behaviour into genes, at what cost I wonder?
It's also possible there is some other mechanism going on at an embryonic stage, a kind of pre-training.
I suspect some of the division is also defined by how complex the task is, or how sensitive the model is to it's own neurons (kind of like PNN). I don't have a well rounded argument, but my instinct is that encoding or pre-training walking is far easier than seeing. Not to mention basic quadrupedal walking/standing is far easier than bipedal, they can learn the more complex coordinated movements after.
