I don’t know personally, but a commenter above wrote:

I appreciate that they help stomp out fascist, racist, and anti-trans rhetoric on Lemmy.

So if there’s any truth in that, the backlash could be a bunch of whiney butthurt Nazis.

We squash when merging. Final git history is super clean and linear.

Rebase all of your work branches onto HEAD so that conflicts require refactoring the first commit where things don’t match up. This can make conflicts easier to deal with (in my humble opinion) since you deal with conflicts earlier in your commit history as opposed to at the end after ALL of your changes are made.

Plus a linear history is super nice to work with later on.

Yes I know. I was mirroring Hawkeye’s delusion to avoid the horrific truth.

Don’t you mean chicken?

Ya I don’t get it either

Point taken and why I think any conflicts just need to be noted and weighed with the rest of the facts, as opposed to completely discarding someone’s expertise.

ADHD = a droopy hanging dick?

I don’t understand how people are so surprised to discover that experts in a particular field or industry…

GASP!

Have worked or continue to work in said field or industry!

Is it really a surprise that an expert in the subject of aspartame works or has worked for one of the biggest users of aspartame? You think aspartame experts are going to work for car companies?

Like if you wanted to find an expert on say… petroleum, it shouldn’t be a surprise that they have worked for an oil company. That said, any obvious conflicts of interest should be noted in any reports so that others are aware, but someone’s expertise shouldn’t be immediately discounted.