> raise sterile males and release them into wild insect populations. When a wild female mates with a sterile male, her eggs won’t hatch. The population gets smaller with each generation.
They won't harm then it sounds like, but they'll not fertilize the eggs.
OK, you bring up a very good point. If the eggs fail to hatch because they are never fertilized, then the mosquitoes are not acting as a vector because they do not transmit the disease. I didn't even consider that possibility.
That wikipedia article says that there are embryos, but the embryos die.
However, the real question to ask, I guess, is whether the embryo is infected. As I read that article, it sounds like it isn't. Instead, the male parent is infected and this creates sperm which can fertilize the egg but in a way that creates an embryo that can't survive. In other words, the male parent has an infectious disease which causes the embryo to have a fatal genetic disease.
So this also brings up another question: what exactly is a vector? In this scenario, the embryo has a disease it would not otherwise have gotten, if it weren't for this germ. However, the embryo doesn't have the germ itself. Is being a vector defined by whether some disease is caused, or is it defined by whether the germ is spread? I don't know.
I've heard of the changes to the NASDAQ rules and I somewhat get how they make it so these stocks are included in index funds earlier than before. As far as I know, NYSE and others haven't done the same change so index funds there are "safe", i.e. will include the stocks only after a longer period, implying that it will have settled in value by then. Is that true at all? I'm sure the situation is much more complicated, but I do wonder how to figure out how much I'm affected.
There is a huge amount of misinformation on this topic, including in this thread, at the minute.
Some index funds have a very long horizon before they include them (e.g. a year). Others are "fast-tracked" (e.g. notably VTI). Most of those, however, are float-adjusted, so only the stock available for trade is considered part of the marketcap. So e.g. VTI / VTSAX will buy spacex relatively quickly after the IPO but at the float-adjusted weight of ~$75B because that's the % of stock available.
If you care alot about this, now is the time to understand how your index fund treats IPOs wrt to delays + float adjustment.
Specifically, I do a typical 3FP and own VTSAX, but I don't read bogleheads or anything. True set-it-and-forget-it, but I do want to read more if things are shifting.
You should not trust me, but here's my understanding. I wish there was a really good writeup somewhere to explain this authoritatively but I'm not sure there is one. Would also love to see one. Frankly vanguard should do it.
VTSAX (and VTI) follow the CRSP index. This is float-adjusted but they likely will be fast tracked (these are two separate rules in how this index chooses to weight things and participate in new stocks). At ~5% float, these companies will be in the 50-100B range. So under all those assumptions, they'll be bought quickly but represent less than 1% of VTSAX (until they float more shares on the public market).
If the US population were capable of learning, Republicans wouldn't be elected. Alas, that's not the world we live in. Republican administrations are worse by basically every recordable metric. From job creation to deficit reduction to foreign policy. Every 4-8 years the Democratic party has to be the only adults in the room and clean up the shit Republicans create. Only for it to be turned around and handed back to the shit spreaders.
In the real world, the American resident is suffering deeply.
The fact that things are so bad for the average American when the economy is growing (thanks largely to healthcare and AI investment), makes me shudder at what may happen if those tailwinds slow down, or the existing headwinds (like the impact of the war) strengthen.
"Based on the simulations of our global macroeconomic model, oil prices would only need to average close to $125 per barrel in the second quarter of this year for a recession to ensue soon thereafter, all else equal. And it is not difficult to envisage oil prices increasing to $125 per barrel. It only requires that the conflict and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz last a few weeks longer, say through July 4, or even much sooner, if the combatants increasingly target the region's energy-producing infrastructure."
If Wood Mackenzie is not your cup of tea, lots of other resources with a search of “recession strait of Hormuz” keywords. The only reason we’re not in a global recession yet was because China paused oil imports, due to their >1B barrel strategic reserves.
That forecasts a global recession if "the Strait remains largely closed through the end of 2026."
Even under that scenario, which would emerge after the Strait had been closed for over ten months, the forecaster only sees "US GDP growth" falling "below 1%," i.e. not a recession. (I'm ignoring the fact that the Strait has already been closed for more than 2 months.)
> Oil and gas traffic via the Strait of Hormuz may never go back to pre-war levels if Iran cements its hold over the chokepoint. The warnings come from several unrelated sources as the war continues to drag on, with some recovery in traffic but nowhere near pre-February 28 levels. Meanwhile, Big Oil is warning that the looming supply shortage is about to hit global markets in weeks.
> “No matter what happens, the Iranians will control the Strait of Hormuz for the foreseeable future,” Amos Hochstein, senior national security and energy advisor to President Biden, told CNBC last week. “It doesn’t even matter what the deal says. Everybody in the region believes that.”
> While the negotiations drag on, expectations that Iran will remain in de facto charge of the Strait of Hormuz appear to be strengthening. “Any end to the conflict that leaves Iran exercising operational control and influence over the Strait will result in appreciably lower flows through the waterway in our view,” RBC Capital Markets’ Helima Croft said in a recent note, as quoted by CNBC.
I agree the US goes full recession as soon as the confidence falls out from under the AI bubble and all of this investment leading to GDP growth ends, but I also don’t believe the US economy (even assuming reduced GDP to energy correlation over the last two decades) can sustain growth and will lead to contraction with oil prices at or above the $150-$200/barrel price band if persistent. The below prediction predicts a near term (July) recession call at less than $100/barrel.
One side is responsible for the "pax Americana" (but everyone here was born into the time period and so doesn't realize how exceptionally peaceful it is)
One side is responsible for at least 20.000 but more likely 60.000 Iranian deaths, just this year (and everybody seems to be worried about the other side's "warcrimes")
Not having big issues to figure out between these 2 who is the good guy ...
The U.S. will almost certainly be responsible for an order of magnitude more deaths with the incredible costs that they’ve placed on the whole world just through the higher cost of oil.
And we haven’t even gotten to the impacts of fertilizer shortages during growing season.
And either way, how is replacing the leader of a terrible regime, with his even more hardline son, help with the killing in any ways?
The pro Democracy forces in Iran have been completely discredited and the one best opportunity they would have had to reclaim their country, during what was likely to be a contested transfer of power if the 80+ year old Ayatollah had passed naturally, has been lost. Instead the U.S. allowed the Iranian regime to transfer power without any challenges, transfer power to a guy who is the son of the old Ayatollah and even more close aligned with the IRGC, and has destroyed the pro-Democracy bases in Iran while strengthening the orthodoxy because the U.S. has been blowing up cities, where the anti-regime forces live, while the rural areas, where the regime’s supporters live, have been largely untouched.
You seem to be implying that the Israeli strike targeted or harmed dissident prisoners, rather than regime targets. The article doesn't say that. It says there was some "panic" about a damaged ceiling, "although they did not report any injuries". It also mentions some hearsay about "injuries to several men", with no further details like who said that or who the men were.
It seems pretty clear that Israel struck regime targets, and at worst there was relatively minor collateral damage (still unclear), which is a risk with just about any strike.
"When you are in prison, it becomes your home. When I heard this morning that Evin prison was bombed, I felt a sharp pain in my heart. When I was released, I left a piece of my heart there."
Oh, I’ve read it. Including this gem:
"When you are in prison, it becomes your home. When I heard this morning that Evin prison was bombed, I felt a sharp pain in my heart. When I was released, I left a piece of my heart there."
Racism really makes people dumb.
For those playing along at home, this is a quote from someone who was thankfully released prior to the bombing (in 2022), who is worried for the people still in there. I'm sure you missed this sentence which was hidden literally right above it?
> Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, a British-Iranian woman who was imprisoned for years at Evin, told the BBC she felt "sick" with concern following the strike.
> One side is responsible for the "pax Americana" (but everyone here was born into the time period and so doesn't realize how exceptionally peaceful it is)
The Pax Americana is great, but given America was one of the countries to start this war, I don't know how much credit they can get for something they just ended.
I'm not making this up to make excuses for the US' behavior. Pax Britannica and Pax Romana weren't entirely peaceful either. Pax Romana had an unusual absence of civil war, but near-constant conflict at the edges of the empire. Pax Britannica refers to the absence of wars between great powers, but did have some brutal colonial conflict - the Opium wars, scramble for Africa, etc. Pax Americana has been very peaceful compared to WW1 and 2.
> Iran wasn't exactly peaceful before February and attacked shipping regularly before then too. Oh and they attacked their own people, foreign nationals, Iranians abroad, and committed terror attacks abroad.
None of the nations involved in this fight have been peaceful. That's why I'm talking about just this specific war.
> I find declaring the Pax Americana dead somewhat premature.
If America wins, then yeah, probably it'll limp on. If America loses, and Iran gets to dictate terms in the Strait of Hormuz, then I'm not sure how long it will last before other nations follow suit.
> None of the nations involved in this fight have been peaceful. That's why I'm talking about just this specific war.
Only if you take the 5 year old's definition of peaceful (ie. "not attacking")
Any reasonable moral position will of course mean that doing nothing, even if that means not attacking, is not necessarily a peaceful position. Nor is an attack necessarily not peaceful. For example, how Europe treated Ukraine before and during the war with Russia can easily be argued is not peaceful, it's helping the war criminal and it obviously did not lead to peace. The most generous interpretation you can make is that Europe was funding war. Only an idiot would call that a peaceful attitude. And for another example, what you wrote.
> ... then I'm not sure how long it will last before other nations follow suit.
Strange how you say the US is not peaceful, immediately followed by an argument why US's attack not only leads to peace, but the "non-attacking" nation must be defeated for peace. Which I'm sure we'll agree requires more violence. In fact your argument that Iran "defending itself" leads directly to a bigger war is accurate, I think.
Iran is basically fighting for a resumption of most parts, especially the bad parts, of colonialism (one definition of colonialism would be "taxing foreign nations" after all. I like that definition because a US audience will immediately realize why that leads to war)
That's the moral difficulty here: If the US wins, the west will be at peace with Iran. If Iran wins, war may very well be inevitable. In fact, war with a great many countries may be inevitable (Indonesia has already announced they want to tax the Malacca strait, and China has responded exactly the way you'd expect)
But yes at this point you have the ridiculous soundbite: "war is peace". The irony of that slogan, of course, is that it comes from 1984, as an example of "doublethink" which was George Orwell criticizing communism and totalitarianism. But the slogan is always used to defend totalitarian states, usually ones on the warpath.
> Only if you take the 5 year old's definition of peaceful (ie. "not attacking")
I'm not sure what definition of "peaceful" you're going with here, if it includes any of the US, Iran, or Israel, prior to the start of this war. I guess I'm not as sophisticated as you.
> Strange how you say the US is not peaceful, immediately followed by an argument why US's attack not only leads to peace, but the "non-attacking" nation must be defeated for peace. Which I'm sure we'll agree requires more violence. In fact your argument that Iran "defending itself" leads directly to a bigger war is accurate, I think.
I'm not sure why you think that's strange. There was a status quo: Iran lets ships through the Strait of Hormuz. It works well enough. Then the US attacked, and that status quo is gone. If the US ends this war without re-establishing the status quo, then the world will be worse for everyone, and other nations bordering critical shipping lanes will be encouraged to follow suit.
So it's better for everybody if the US wins. But the US doesn't have much leverage to do so, and so the situation is: the US started a war that it didn't need to start, but can't easily win. The foreign policies that built the Pax Americana have been abandoned.
> I'm not sure why you think that's strange. There was a status quo: Iran lets ships through the Strait of Hormuz. It works well enough. Then the US attacked, and that status quo is gone. If the US ends this war without re-establishing the status quo, then the world will be worse for everyone, and other nations bordering critical shipping lanes will be encouraged to follow suit.
There was no status quo, there's just people looking (now, after the fact) for an obvious party to blame for the bucket flowing over. Status quo is just a war that's on pause rather than resolved.
The Iran war is a case of "the drop that overflowed the bucket". There was "peace" because Iran believed it could not win, while Iran's army was strengthening and becoming more extreme constantly. The water level in the bucket was rising, in other words, because of what Iran did. Now I can agree that Trump added a big fucking drop into that bucket (unless he wins, in which case he dropped the water level by A LOT. So to some small extent the jury's still out)
If you look at Iran's economy (which is all that matters), even before the war, the only option for Iran is a big external cash injection, and they are in total desperation since at least April 2025. That's what the IRGC is fighting for. That's the only way to end this war (because without that cash injection the Iranian population will keep attacking the IRGC. They have no choice but to continue attacking).
Oh, and oil is on it's way out, so this will not be the last war in the middle east. China refused the very obvious and cheap fix to their oil problems Putin was offering. They don't think they will still need oil soon.
And yes, people are desperate to look moral, and specifically to make doing nothing look moral. So we all blame the US and Trump. Great, and I don't like Trump either, but that's the sum total of the depth of that argument.
> There was no status quo, there's just people looking (now, after the fact) for an obvious party to blame for the bucket flowing over. Status quo is just a war that's on pause rather than resolved.
Status quo is a shipping lane that's been open since the 1980s.
> So we all blame the US and Trump. Great, and I don't like Trump either, but that's the sum total of the depth of that argument.
You think the only argument against starting a war you're not ready to prosecute, doing it badly, disrupting the oil market for months, and potentially encouraging nations all over the world to start tolling international trade... is "Trump Bad"? I guess you were right, I really am the idiot in this conversation.
> Status quo is a shipping lane that's been open since the 1980s.
Yes, people are incredibly bad at recognizing that something that must change, will change, and instead simply refuse to accept reality. Also see Climate Change. Also see your comment.
It is at this point a certainty that the AMOC (includes the Gulfstream) will shut down, effectively in about 20 years. Canada, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, and others WILL be uninhabitable by the turn of the century, plus equatorial countries, for the reverse reason. This has happened, as in this is in the past, even though most of the actual cooling is only starting. Maybe it's just me, but are you seeing anyone reacting?
There are other massive events that are at this point in the past. The Ganges valley (including the entirety of Bangladesh) has dried up, in addition to water level rise that will drown the major cities. So Bangladesh and quite a bit of India is fucked in both ways: it'll both dry up and flood. At almost the same time. Are they, or anyone, adapting?
> You think the only argument against starting a war you're not ready to prosecute, doing it badly,
Given that those consequences were unavoidable at some point, I see the logic of picking the best time to strike and striking, yes. As I said, the only solution for Iran's economy at the moment is a very large cash injection (ie. large amounts of goods from outside the country that aren't paid for). Either that happens, or it'll collapse to the point it cannot feed Iranians anymore. The timing of this war was determined by sanctions (and thus mostly by Europeans), not by the US attack.
> One side is responsible for at least 20.000 but more likely 60.000 Iranian deaths, just this year (and everybody seems to be worried about the other side's "warcrimes")
We could be glib: when actually reading through that page, it's pretty obvious that the Iranian revolution was a leftist revolution (and Moscow was supporting a side, the side that "won"). But was anyone really expecting leftists to take responsibility for the consequences of what they did?
Oh and it was Britain that was supporting the Shah. The US was involved, mostly to counter the KGB, but not much at all. I totally don't understand why Britain gets a free pass.
And you'd think communists would stop supporting the mullahs, especially after the killings. You'd be wrong:
Sometimes one gets the impression the left now is reduced to ... well. Iran's government massacres protestors, tortures women, represses it's own people, has committed genocides and tries actively to commit more genocides, attacks and murders innocent people outside of Iran and makes weapons for Moscow.
Leftists, at least the ones on online fora, care about exactly 1 of those things.
The world wasn't exactly a kind place before Pax Americana. If you check the stats, the American era does pretty well for peace and prosperity, and it's not realistic to expect the Americans would oversee a conflict-free utopia.
So in other words, while America is starting the most wars, it somehow gets credit for the hypothetical wars that weren't started? The assumption being that the natural state of the world is to have a world war every few years?
The norm of human history is constant wars, extreme repression, and genocide, yes.
Oh, and levels of taxation even Karl Marx would immediately agree are theft. In fact, ending the pre-pax-Americana period is what the manifesto is about. (the period stupidly referred to as "modern times", where the rich aren't fighting over who gets to mars first, but massacring poor people to gain a few square kilometers of land, which ironically Soviets know all about)
I get that that's hard to see for anyone born far enough away from the beginning of the pax Americana, ie. let's say 5-10 years after world war 2 but that's really how things work.
And that means that you just won't believe the consequences of any real victory against the US either: a return to the norm. If Iran wins, immediately, 50 genocides will start. Not just in Iran. Global trade will freeze 90%, not just oil. Inequality will explode worldwide. And that's just the start. In a way, that's what Iran is fighting for.
It's interesting to see the kind of nonsensical, evidence-free ideological statements that some people use to hand wave away decades of horrifying US perpetrated atrocities.
Ignore the genocide the US is engaged in right now, if it loses the war it started with Iran there will be 50 hypothetical genocides that I made up! Why stop at 50? Maybe there will be 500 or 5,000 genocides! If not for the benevolence of the US, we'd be having another world war every 2-3 years. It just stands to reason I suppose.
Since you've successfully moved into the blatantly absurd, how about I just let Captain Darling and General Melchett explain how the period before the Pax Americana worked. First, WHAT the rich were fighting over:
My grandfather explained this in much harsher terms to me (he's dead now, even though he got past 100 years), with explicit mention of which of 2 options is the better one: killing 100 people in your own city or returning to this situation again. He was a baby at the end of WW1 and lived through (with kids of his own) WW2.
(but even that beats how Iran's islamic government treats it's own citizens. Did you know primary school children make excellent demining equipment, and on top of that make very cheap poison gas detectors? The islamic mullahs sure do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_key_to_paradise )
Ah yeah the US would never demand young volunteers to be fed to the meat grinder
They would compel them, by law, to be fed to the meat grinder. And not to defend their homeland, but to murder civilians in another hemisphere, and apparently i must remind you, TO THE TUNE OF 4,500,000 DEAD CIVILIANS IN KOREA AND VIETNAM ALONE.
I've a friend up the coast, nearly 100 now, a ham operator who used to relay space shuttle calls, former operator in PNG, British soldier during the Mau-Mau uprising.
Back in the day, during WWII, he was defusing bombs and mines while a young boy scout.
I'm fine with Pax Americana, even if you call it American imperialism, but this whole involvement with Israel and its problems is not in our interest. It's abundantly clear that we have traitors in our government working for another country. Sure Iran has a terrible regime, not supposed to be our problem though.
Not the first time I've seen this absurd "I'm fine with American imperialism" take on here. You must realize that if Iran is such as it is now, it's purely a reaction to the authoritarian regime of the Shah previously used to further American interests, and then to the sanctions imposed on the nation. Those 30K protesters that were murdered are a direct consequence of American imperialism. It's like suffocating someone for decades and then criticizing how they breath. And same goes for Cuba, Venezuela, etc.
The situation can't improve while the USA are doing everything they can to antagonize these places, isolate them, alienate them from their neighbors. Seeing ruthless authoritarians prevail there is completely expected.
Was Reza Shah any better? He was overthrown by WW2 Allies, mainly UK and USSR. Anyway I wouldn't put it past the US to have messed up Iran during the coup against the PM, but in that case it's the Israeli control I was complaining about. Anything we do in that region is probably not in our own interest.
But Cuba and Venezuela govts deserved what they got, and it was plenty of our business being in our backyard.
This sounds so incredible ... do you seriously believe that?
"it's purely a reaction to the authoritarian regime of the Shah previously used to further American interests"
Seriously? THAT is what you think Khomeini wanted and his grandson or whoever wants now?
"And same goes for Cuba, Venezuela, etc."
Oh, you're a "communism really only ever wanted good things for it's people, and it's America's fault they started shooting their own citizens" ... got it.
people are missing the 3rd actor in this trifecta/shit sandwich - Israel. Its the intentional bad faith actor who'll do whatever it takes to sink any peace talks - including genocide/invading Lebanon etc etc etc.
I'm probably wrong but it seems glaringly obvious to me that the two supposed allies are not at all acting in a coordinated way. One hand doesn't know what the other one is doing or one hand is just ignoring it.
Quite contrary, I'm pretty sure that USA is well aware of what Israel is doing and both are acting in coordinated way. Both do not want any settlement in a region, they need more chaos and global supply interruptions. If it wasn't the case, USA could've stop weapons supply to Israel long ago.
I don't think we got a full picture of Israel's leverage over US politicians and business people. How many people like Epstein are out there acting as "access agents" to Mossad? How many US gov employees and politicians like Shapiro of Pennsylvannia have served in the IDF? How can Shapiro with IDF experience ever be considered for VP of the US?
Why are American politicians so comfortable supporting an ethno-state even though the US is not supposed to support apartheid regimes? Why is the US administration now so willing to throw US allies (Japan, South Korea, NATO members) under the bus with a 1970s style energy crisis to save 1 country of 9 million from a war they single unilaterally started?
Finally, to answer the OP's question:
* Israel is facing an existential threat; the US ending the war means de facto end to their state;
* US - not allies as that requires mutual consent to wage war; see above text for actual real power relationship between Israel and the US
> the US ending the war means de facto end to their state
Every state ends, regardless. I'm not convinced Israel will cease to exist in the next 5 years without US support. There are plenty of countries Israel can, will, and still do partner with to various degrees. Notably much of Europe.
> I'm not convinced Israel will cease to exist in the next 5 years without US support
I genuinely couldn't believe people actually believed this until a friend of a friend voiced the opinion in person. Like, no. Israel doesn't poof if America stops supporting it. Destroying Israel would require American military action.
> Destroying Israel would require American military action.
Or an Iranian nuke. Iran has a big clock ticking down to year 2040 where they say Israel will be destroyed by, if the current Iranian regime isn't destroyed by then they will do everything they can to destroy Israel. That is why they can't agree to not enrich uranium for 25 years, because that would prevent them from destroying Israel.
Anyway, if USA peace out and leaves Israel hanging Israel will just continue to bomb Iran now and never let Iran recover, since USA has weakened Iran enough for Israel to handle the rest now, so it wont happen. However if that happens you will see much more death in Iran and much more disruptions to global economy.
I'm having a hard time finding data on employee tenure that would support this. There seems to be a recent dip but it's only significant relatively, not in absolute numbers based on what I expected. Which was something like 25 years tenure not that long ago but that wasn't the case, more like 5.
> I get all my conflicts on branches because I rebase before merging
Pretty sure it's the other way around. You're on the branch and rebase it atop current master. If you merge after that, you won't have merge conflicts.
As someone who tried rerere and didn't see the point:
How? Usually I rebase the same branch multiple times onto different, but successive commits of the master branch. But after I solved a bunch of conflicts of the first rebase, I shouldn't have the same conflicts again in a second one, since the rebased branch contains the merged conflict. Rebasing again could only turn up new conflicts (with newer, other commits on the master branch).
How can I have the same conflict again for repeated rebases?
The point is that some organizations have a chaotic development process consisting of numerous similar branches. Often there is a main trunk, and then branches that were made for particular product variants (like piece of hardware or whatever) and cut at a particular point in time, in order to isolate from the trunk.
What then happens is that when a bug is found that affects all branches, it must be cherry picked into all of them. If that cherry pick runs into conflicts, it is often the same conflicts, over and over again on each branch.
Of course, the fix is not to do that, but it's easier to say that than to get away from that kind of workflow once you are steeped in it up to the chin.
> Often there is a main trunk, and then branches that were made for particular product variants (like piece of hardware or whatever)
I worked at a place that did this.
The code was written in C, and I always thought the better solution would have been to use #define/#ifdef to flag certain blocks of code out of the compilation.
A branch for each product was a nightmare when there were 10+ products, some with multiple variations, each on its own branch. Backporting a bug fix meant cherry-picking into 20+ branches. What made it especially stupid was office politics from each product having its own PM, and then the PM for one of the products would decide the bug wasn't significant enough to spend the time doing the cherry-pick and testing. This happened too often when it came to security fixes when a PM didn't understand the issue.
Yes; #ifdef and #endif is basically branching, but it's in one branch of the CM system.
The benefit that everything is integrated, so there are no games with having to cherry pick things this way and that and losing fixes.
The apparent downside is that there is no isolation. Inside some of those #ifdefs is code that you are not building. But changes you are making can break that code for someone else.
While this may seem risky, it's actually better. Breaking something now is better than someone cherry picking your fix 8 months later into their branch and then dealing with the breakage.
Fixes to common code never get left behind; everyone working off the trunk instantly gets them.
The #ifdefs are immediately and constantly visible, telling you where the code is that is or is not part of what you are doing, and reminding you of its existence. They greatly discourage refactoring parts that you cannot test.
There is pressure to keep those #ifdefs clean, whereas people go hog wild when they have their own branch, thinking they can rewrite whatever they want to suit what they are doing.
Happens all the time with long term dev branches, which tend to arise when the PR review process is such a bottleneck that work piles up. Anything cherry-picked out of those branches tends to run into similar conflicts. ReRe is pretty handy in those circumstances.
I know what you mean but doesn't that require squashing as well? If I have a branch with 5 commits, I think rerere helps me by only having to fix the conflict once, not potentially multiple times. I might be wrong here though.
reply