F1Ferariformula onelewis hamilton First Published: November 12, 2019, 3:13 PM IST Milton Keynes: Lewis Hamilton’s domination of Formula One is “getting a bit boring” and the time is fast approaching for the younger generation to take over at the top, says Red Bull youngster Max Verstappen.The Dutch driver hopes he and Ferrari’s Charles Leclerc, also 22-years-old, will be fighting for the Mercedes driver’s throne next year. “I think it’s good for the sport to have the young guys now coming up and hopefully taking over very soon,” Verstappen said ahead of Sunday’s Brazilian Grand Prix, the first race since Hamilton clinched his sixth title in Texas.”It’s getting a bit boring seeing Lewis win, so we have to try and change that,” he added at an event to announce a personal sponsorship with pan-European online used car marketplace CarNext.com.Verstappen has 100 starts and seven wins to his name since becoming the sport’s youngest driver and next season he could yet become the youngest champion.Hamilton, who can equal Michael Schumacher’s record seven titles and surpass the great German’s 91 wins, will be 35 in January.”He’s getting older … so for sure it will stop at one point,” said Verstappen.”It’s just going to depend on the team, to be honest. It’s not going to depend on Lewis.”If Mercedes keeps building really dominant cars, for sure he’s going to win. So we just have to make sure as a team that we can beat them.”Verstappen said engine partners Honda had a breakthrough year in 2019 and he was confident former champions Red Bull, third overall, could be in the mix in 2020.”I think we are on the right path. When you see the engine power compared to Mercedes and Renault, we are very close to Mercedes now so that is very promising for next year,” he added.CarNext.com Chief Executive Ewout van Jarwaarde said Verstappen and his company were both disruptive forces in their own arenas, but the driver was eager to douse the flames of recent controversies.In Texas last month he labelled comments by Hamilton after a Mexican Grand Prix clash as “disrespectful” and “silly” while accusing Ferrari of cheating.”It’s a very sensitive subject, so for me I try not to go there anymore,” he said when asked about words that angered Ferrari. “I prefer just to go ahead, leave everything behind … just focus on Brazil.”Of his relationship with Hamilton, Verstappen said the Briton was “very special and definitely one of the best drivers ever” and said he had never really had a problem with him.”We talked on the grid (in Austin). I respect Lewis, of course, but we are also hard racers and sometimes it can be a bit more tough. But we talked and it’s all good.”Verstappen recognised he had made mistakes this year, despite a strong and consistent season, but would not have it any other way.”Everybody makes mistakes, otherwise it’s better to put a robot in,” he said. “It’s good to make mistakes as well, you learn from it.”He said he was happy at Red Bull, despite speculation he might one day replace or join Hamilton at Mercedes.”I really want to win with Red Bull,” he said. “I really feel at home, which I think is also very important for a driver — that you feel appreciated.” Get the best of News18 delivered to your inbox – subscribe to News18 Daybreak. Follow News18.com on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Telegram, TikTok and on YouTube, and stay in the know with what’s happening in the world around you – in real time.
Capping off a weekend of speculation, Dell this morning announced it will acquire EMC for US$67 billion—the largest technology buy in history. VMware, a subsidiary of EMC, will remain an independent, publicly traded company. The deal is expected to close in mid-2016, with EMC becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of Dell.Pivotal, the cloud computing company that is a joint venture of EMC and VMware, also will “continue to operate as is,” EMC CEO Joe Tucci said in a conference call this morning. And EMC will continue its partnership with Cisco, he added.(Related: Hybrid cloud news from VMware)“From my perspective, EMC and Dell had one of the great partnerships in the IT industry from since 2002 to 2008,” he said, which reached about $2 billion in end-user storage revenues. “Now the winds of change have once again brought us together, and in fact we see these winds of change forming a tailwind that will help us move forward in creating a new company for a new era in IT that we are entering.” Funding the deal are Dell, owner Michael Dell’s MSD Partners investment arm, equity firm Silver Lake, and others. According to Zane Rowe, EMC’s CFO, Dell is paying $33.15 per share of EMC, which includes $9.10 per share of “tracking stock” for VMware Inc. The tracking stock, created to help Dell track its ownership interest in VMware, is intended to represent 65% EMC’s economic interest in the 81% of VMware stock it owns. Dell will retain a 28% economic interest in VMware.“Having known and worked with Michael [Dell] for many years, I’m confident this is the best outcome for Dell, EMC and VMware,” said Pat Gelsinger, CEO of VMware. “It is Michael’s intention to be a larger, longer-tern owner of VMware over time; he intends to repurchase more economic interest in the company.”Industry experts, though, believe it is likely that Dell will have to sell off a lot of its interest in VMware to fund the deal. “Michael has a lot of money, but not that much,” said Glenn O’Donnell of Forrester Research. Dell, though, has stated it wants to maintain control over VMware, so its future now is ambiguous, he noted.The deal, O’Donnell said, gives Dell “a beautiful cash flow with EMC’s core [storage] business. We get hung up on what’s new and sexy, but there’s an awful lot still going on in the datacenter. Dell’s getting revenue and cash flow from that.”
Since the introduction of GitHub’s awesome new “squash and merge” functionality, there’s a whole lot more squashing going on. With UI-level access to this Git power-user feature, more teams are squashing commits to make code review easier and provide a cleaner-looking history in tools like gitk or SourceTree.But squashing for the sake of creating a cleaner history comes along with some non-trivial downsides that are often overlooked.Hazards of squashingSo what happens when “squash and merge” becomes policy for all incoming work, or when developers are encouraged to liberally edit their history for ease of code review?While this can definitely make for easier code review and a more visually appealing Git history, it’s also doing two problematic things at the same time:Removing developmental “safety points” that can be used to locate and tactically remove any bugs that might occur.Obfuscating how features come into existence.To better illustrate this, imagine a development workflow where we can see a series of iterative contributions on feature branches, followed by the merging of that work into a main branch. That might look something like this:There’s a nice level of detail here: We can see features branches walking their way toward completion, followed by a merge into the main branch. Now contrast this with the type of detail you’d get on a team that automatically squashes all features as they’re merged in:This cleaned-up view of history does make it a bit easier to focus on larger branch events, and since these commits are squashed, each one of these “final product” features can be viewed in a repo browser as a single body of work, which can be a huge time-saver. The problem here comes when we get a “bad” commit—say, a commit that introduces an undetected bug that then makes it into production. The lack of granularity in the version history makes diagnosis and mop-up problematic, effectively increasing the surface area of the problem:In a complete history, Git bisect can more accurately narrow down the specific problem commit. The merged commit can be reverted and the bulk of the work cherry-picked into a working version in short order.In the squashed version, bisect will tell us that the bug was introduced at some point in feature 4, leaving a fair amount of forensics undone if this is a large feature. Once the bug is located, the time to fix it could increase significantly, especially when the problem is non-trivial (as can be the case with more complex “structural” bugs).Lack of proper version history here will make the bug harder to find and costlier to fix.Keep squashing tacticalPart of what makes squashing a poor default practice is that it’s somewhat at odds with other things Git tends to encourage. Git as a VCS excels at helping engineers move quickly: branching is cheap, committing frequently is encouraged, and there are lots of great Git power-user features that make it very easy to recover.So while there’s nothing inherently bad about squashing commits, and tactical squashing is a valuable thing, it’s important to remember that squashing is an inherently destructive act—one that removes development breakpoints. If overused, squashing can significantly increase the cost of finding and fixing flaws when things go awry.(Related: GitHub ships Electron 1.0)While a clean version history and ease of code review are important, both of these are essentially UI-level concerns, arguably better handled by development tools specific to those purposes. Taking advantage of native Git functionality can offer a non-destructive alternative: performing a “git diff master…branch” (e.g. a net diff between master and branch) will have the exact same output as a squashed commit, displaying the sum total of changes between the two branches without any permanent effect on version history.Squashing definitely has its proper place in a Git workflow, but it’s better used as a way to clean up leftovers after an experiment-heavy implementation. Be wary of erasing version history as a regular practice; it’s a pretty invasive approach to use as a UI convenience, and can end up having hidden costs long after code is checked in.