contact us

Use the form on the right to contact us.

You can edit the text in this area, and change where the contact form on the right submits to, by entering edit mode using the modes on the bottom right.

San Francisco, CA, 94160
United States



Jesse Atkinson

A Quote

"[Y]ou get a cookie for getting offended about something. People are like, “If I get offended about that, it means I’m righteous.” On Twitter, you get a cookie not only from more people approving of you but from more people following you. You raise your profile by being offended. So the natural consequence of that is that people get more and more offended. Because the thing is, there’s nothing to risk by being offended. Once you’re offended, you’re partly saying, “I’m more pure than this, and as such I reject this.” There’s just nothing at risk." — Mat Johnson

I've been kicking this essay around for nearly two years. This week I polished it up. And then Mat Johnson went and gave us this amazing article and quote which I found via Austin Kleon which I found to be a great abstract for what I've been trying to say.

An Observation

I've noticed something lately. I've noticed that not a day goes by without me reading a tweet, article, or Facebook status claiming an offense was found in a piece of beloved popular culture. The situation normally plays itself out like this—the offended person tweets that New Movie X is racist/sexist/pro-gun/anti-gun/anti-vax/pro-vax/9-11 was an inside job/etc. Every like-minded person that is in the same tribe as the offended is expected to agree (and does). Any objectors are then accused of being in favor of the said offending thing. The objector is instantly changed from being a person claiming they do not agree that New Movie X is what the offended is claiming and are now a person who is in support of that the offense.

"New Movie X was misogynistic."
"I don't agree."
"Why do you hate women?"
"Wait... what?!"

What's more—people who like New Movie X are often shouted down. These people may not even be part of the original conversation. They may innocently tweet out in to the world that they loved New Movie X and in turn they're treated to a ton of @ replies from strangers on Twitter accusing them of being in favor of the offense that the offended is claiming New Movie X causes.

Now throughout this entire conversation whether or not New Movie X is or is not guilty of what the offended is claiming has not been discussed. There has been no conversation or intellectual debate. A vocal minority tweeted that New Movie X should now be labeled with the offending label. If you join in the conversation as an objector or even as a skeptic asking for clarification you are accused of being in favor of said offense. What's worse is if the person making the claim has any amount of status or a large amount of followers they will often retweet those that disagree thus instantly publicly shaming them and exposing them to thousands if not millions of eyes that otherwise would've never read the tweet.

The Problem

This is a problem.

I'm not here to debate whether or not New Movie X is guilty as charged and we should all boycott it. It may or may not be. Maybe we should boycott it. But that is exactly the point. It instantly becomes labeled the moment someone tweets that it is without the willingness to back up that claim or engage with those that disagree. We're becoming a society that is replacing intellectual debate about pop culture. And (more importantly) scaring away would-be converts due to the tactics being used.

Everyone's upbringing and journey in life is different. Not everyone might be as enlightened as you are. You might totally be right. New Movie X might be the worst and we should all boycott it. But if you feel you are so "enlightened" wouldn't you want to help others get to your level of enlightenment as well? Wasn't that the goal of your tweet? Or were you simply looking for pats on the back in the form of "favs" from your followers and friends who already agree with you?

Because It's Cheap

Most likely the sad answer is "Yes, I was simply looking for pats on the back". It's cheap to tweet out about being offended by something because of some percieved wrong New Movie X possesses and immediately you're granted a badge of moral superiority. You look smart and progressive and sensitive and it literally cost you 140 characters or less. Forget about fighting for or against the cause of your choice. Forget about having a well-thoughtout and informed opinion. Forget about helping others see your side of things. You just instantly got branded as a smart, intelligent, and progressive and you did it for cheap. Never mind the fact that those praising you are just like you.

During America's 2012 election cycle the thing I heard most often from people, especially those over the age of 40, was that this nation was more divided and polarized than they could ever remember. Thanks to social media we all feel morally obligated to let everyone else know why we thought our candidate was the best person for the job. And it divided us. What was once a private thing for Americans was now public. It's tempting and frankly fun to point your finger at the opposition and their ilk and blame them for the polarization. Rather than listen to arguments or debates against our views we so often dig our heels in, call the opposition stupid and ignorant, and with a smug and satisfied smirk we pat each other on the backs and congratulate ourselves for being so much more "enlightened" than them.

Fear Of Challenge

Why are we so afraid of carefully and intelligently explaining ourselves to those who would beg to differ—especially if we truly believe we are correct? The answer is: because that would take effort. A lot of it. It'd be hard. And it's much easier and cheaper to snark and smug and publicly shame your way through any debate, particularly on Twitter, than it is to carefully articulate to someone why you believe New Movie X is offensive and should be boycot.

This behavior and mindset is the social media version of band t-shirts and messenger bag pins. I'm seeing a whole lot of folks that are deathly afraid that everyone's going to find out they bought their Minor Threat t-shirt from Forever 21.

git, pray, love

Jesse Atkinson

What this post is

  • It is a tutorial of beginner to intermediate to maybe a light dusting of advanced git topics and practices.
  • It is practical.

What this post is not

  • It is not philosophy or theory. (I will not be discussing the pros and cons of merge and rebase. Y'all can fight that battle elsewhere.)
  • It is not super complex or overly archaic.
  • It is not preachy (See first point).
  • It is not in any way exhaustive. This is a list of git commands, tips, tricks, and tools I personally find super useful and use nearly every day.

This is a series of things I often discover people struggle with, don’t know how to do, or have bizarre work arounds to get this information. You may know some or all of these already. But I figured I’d write this up and hopefully get a conversation going around git. I hope you find something useful in here and I hope it saves you time. NOTE: I personally use Fish Shell. I’ve conveted any Fish Shell specific syntax to Bash as 90% of you reading this probably use Bash.

Shortcut for creating a new branch and switching to it

$ git branch foo && git checkout foo
$ git checkout -b foo # same as above command

Change your editor for commit messages

Assuming you have Sublime or TextMate's command line tool installed.

$ git config --global core.editor 'subl -w' # Sublime
$ git config --global core.editor 'mate -w' # TextMate
$ git config --global core.editor emacs     # Insanity

Diff between remote and local

$ git status
On branch test_branch
Your branch is ahead of 'origin/test_branch' by 1 commit.
(use "git push" to publish your local commits)

nothing to commit, working directory clean

$ git diff # returns nothing because there is nothing different between our locals

$ git diff git-talk # same exact thing as above. git-talk here refers to your local

$ git diff jsatk/git-talk # diffs between remote and current local branch
diff --git a/foo.txt b/foo.txt
index 257cc56..5716ca5 100644
--- a/foo.txt
+++ b/foo.txt
@@ -1 +1 @@

$ git diff jsatk/git-talk git-talk # diffs between remote and specified local branch
diff --git a/foo.txt b/foo.txt
index 257cc56..5716ca5 100644
--- a/foo.txt
+++ b/foo.txt
@@ -1 +1 @@

“But Jesse—this seems unnecessary. I can clearly see in git status that I have a commit that’s not pushed yet.” You’re correct. This isn’t the world’s greatest use-case example. However, I use this most often when I need to see what changes might be incoming or to diff between my branch and master. If I’ve been on a feature branch for a few days and want to see a diff between my feature branch and master doing git diff master feature_branch will only diff between my local copy of master and my feature_branch. What I do in these situations is this git fetch origin && git diff origin/master feature_branch. The fetch here is important. (Note: If you’re unclear on the difference between fetch and pull I highly suggest you take 15 minutes to read up on it.)

How to check out a file from one branch into another

$ git checkout -b baroness
Switched to a new branch 'baroness'

$ echo 'red album' > albums.txt

$ cat albums.txt
red album

$ git add --all && git commit -m 'Added albums.txt'
[baroness 728f16f] Added albums.txt
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
create mode 100644 albums.txt

$ git checkout -b mastodon
Switched to a new branch 'mastodon'

$ echo 'once more round the sun' > albums.txt

$ cat albums.txt
once more round the sun

$ git add --all&& git commit -m 'Added albums.txt'
[mastodon 6fea3ec] Added albums.txt
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

$ git show baroness:albums.txt # Prints the contents of albums.txt from branch baroness
red album

$ git checkout baroness -- albums.txt # Checks out baroness' version of albums.txt to branch mastodon
# This is a perfect example of the insanity of git. You use : to show between branches but -- to checkout.
$ cat albums.txt # now this branch's albums.txt is the same as baroness'
red album

This comes up surprisingly a lot for me. I tend to use the show feature a lot more. A use case might be if I know a co-worker and I are working on the same file. He’s merged his branch into master, I’m on a feature_branch. I will then do a git fetch && git show origin/master:file/coworker/and/i/are/working/on.js. This then lets me easily see if his new work then affects my current work and if lets me know if I need to course correct.

You can combine multiple shorthand flags into one

$ git commit -n -m 'This is a commit message.'
$ git commit --no-verify --mesage='This is a commit message.'
$ git commit -nm 'This is a commit message.' # This is the same as the above two!

You can combine paragraphs from the commandline with your git commit message!

$ git commit -m Hello -m is -m it -m me -m you\'re -m looking -m for\?
$ git log -1 # Using -Number limits the log to that number of commits.
commit facbbb49d88182b50d8383323acae6696e33ff63
Author: Jesse Atkinson <>
Date:   Tue Apr 21 19:12:44 2015 -0700








Also, notice you don't have to use a string for your commit message if you escape? Not really useful, just fun to point out.

Stashing with a message and stashing untracked files

At the beginning of this I said I wasn't going to preach. I lied. Always stash with a message. Just do it. No. No. No. Hush. Do it.

$ git checkout -b pikachu
Switched to a new branch 'pikachu'

$ echo 'lightning bolt' > attacks.txt

$ git status --short
?? attacks.txt

$ git stash save --include-untracked 'Creating attacks file for Pikachu.' # Shorthand for --include-untracked is -u
Saved working directory and index state On pikachu: Creating attacks file for Pikachu.
HEAD is now at 33b6d46 Bug fix for ad scrapers. Have to specify placement when inserting iPad and iPhone into iOS product.

$ git checkout master
Switched to branch 'master'
Your branch is up-to-date with 'origin/master'.

$ git stash list
stash@{0}: On pikachu: Creating attacks file for Pikachu.

$ git stash show # In general this command isn't very useful. Just show's a diff of lines changed. But it's particularlly useless at this point. It doesn't show anything because attacks.txt isn't tracked by git. Git can only tell you information about things it has been told to track.

$ git stash pop && git add --all && git commit -m 'Initial commit of attacks.txt for Pikachu.'

$ echo 'shock' >> attacks.txt
$ git diff
diff --git a/attacks.txt b/attacks.txt
index e8eb403..4642b97 100644
--- a/attacks.txt
+++ b/attacks.txt
@@ -1 +1,2 @@
lightning bolt

$ git stash save 'added shock to the list of attacks'
Saved working directory and index state On pikachu: added shock to the list of attacks
HEAD is now at 97921a2 Initial commit of attacks.txt for Pikachu.

$ git stash show 'stash@{0}' -p # NOTE: the -p argument is short for --patch
diff --git a/attacks.txt b/attacks.txt
index e8eb403..4642b97 100644
--- a/attacks.txt
+++ b/attacks.txt
@@ -1 +1,2 @@
lightning bolt

By default git stash does not stash untracked files. Throw a -u on the end. Also, git stash list shows you your stashes, however the default message it saves with it is the message of the latest commit and the branch you stashed it on. This is… super unhelpful. Make sure to add save to your git stash command and follow it with a message. You’re really smart. You’re also busy and you will totally forget what the hell is in your stashes if more than say 15 minutes pass. I promise you. Then when you come in the next day and run git stash list and see a list of stashes with commit messages that have nothing to do with the work in the stash you’ll want to scream.

Getting your stashed stuff!

git stash apply stash@{3} will apply fourth (it’s zero-indexed) stash’s content to your current branch and the stash will remain in the stash list. However, git stash pop stash@{3} will remove the fourth stash from the list moving all stashes after it up one on the index. pop is probably what you most often want, but it’s also more dangerous for obvious reasons. If you would rather use apply you can saftely run git stash drop stash@{3} after you’re cool with getting rid of that stash.

Don't shoot yourself in the foot with git stash

With git stash list the stashes reindex after you remove a stash. Let’s say you have three stashes. If you try to do something like this git stash drop stash@{1} && git drop stash@{2} this will fail because the stash at index 2 is now at index 1 after having dropped the stash at index 1. When removing multiple stashes remove from the highest numbered index on down or… just be really really careful.

Clean up after yourself with git rebase --interactive

I like to commit a lot and often. At the end of a feature branch I have a ton of shitty commits. It's just the way I work. Those aren't going to be helpful to anyone once this is merged to master. And some day if they find a bug and have to do a git blame and see that Jesse commited this code six months ago with the commit message "WIP. Fixed shit." they are going to (rightfully) curse my name. Lets not be that person. Lets use interactive rebase.

$ git rebase --interactive branch_you_want_to_rebase_against_typically_master # That's it! You can also use the shorthand -i flag.

This is a very, well, interactive mode. Git really holds your hand and gives you lots of nice messages. When you run that git will open your text editor and have a list of all of the commits on your branch that are not on the branch you're rebasing against.

# Rebase c4758c3..c4758c3 onto c4758c3 (1 command(s))
# Commands:
# p, pick = use commit
# r, reword = use commit, but edit the commit message
# e, edit = use commit, but stop for amending
# s, squash = use commit, but meld into previous commit
# f, fixup = like "squash", but discard this commit's log message
# x, exec = run command (the rest of the line) using shell
# These lines can be re-ordered; they are executed from top to bottom.
# If you remove a line here THAT COMMIT WILL BE LOST.
# However, if you remove everything, the rebase will be aborted.
# Note that empty commits are commented out

See all that lovely help from git? There's not much more I can add here. You literally just follow along and git tells you what to do. I bring this up entirely because people seem to rarely use it.

Interactively add your changes to the commit stage

$ git add --patch

Note -- this only works with files that are already being tracked by git. It does not work with untracked files. Split is super powerful and conveinent. If it gets really hairy you can use e to manually edit the hunk.

From the help:

> Stage this hunk [y,n,q,a,d,/,e,?]? y - stage this hunk n - do not stage this hunk q - quit; do not stage this hunk or any of the remaining ones a - stage this hunk and all later hunks in the file d - do not stage this hunk or any of the later hunks in the file g - select a hunk to go to / - search for a hunk matching the given regex j - leave this hunk undecided, see next undecided hunk J - leave this hunk undecided, see next hunk k - leave this hunk undecided, see previous undecided hunk K - leave this hunk undecided, see previous hunk s - split the current hunk into smaller hunks e - manually edit the current hunk ? - print help >

When doing a comparison make sure you're comparing against the latest remote version with fetch

$ git diff master # diffs current branch against your local copy of master
$ git diff SocialCodeInc/master # will probably do the same thing as above in *most* scenarios.
$ git fetch SocialCodeInc && git diff SocialCodeInc/master

Squash your commit if the branch is truly a mess

If your branch's commit history is a complete mess but you know you want what is there currently another branch (most likely master) --squash is your friend.

$ git commit -m 'ugh'
[new_branch bacb008] ugh
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

$ git checkout master
Switched to branch 'master'

$ git merge new_branch --squash
Updating 051c56b..bacb008
Squash commit -- not updating HEAD           | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
awesometextfile.txt |  3 +++
2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

$ git branch --merged # To list local branches that have not been merged run --no-merged
* master

$ git branch -d new_branch
error: The branch 'new_branch' is not fully merged.
If you are sure you want to delete it, run 'git branch -D new_branch'.

$ git branch -D new_branch
Deleted branch new_branch (was bacb008).

What if I want just a single commit from one branch into another branch?

$ git checkout branch_you_want_to_move_commit_to && git cherry-pick 240982d # You don't need the full sha, just enough that git understands it.

Can be a tad dangerous. Specifically—git will assign a new sha to the cherry-picked commit. Which means git will now have record of two sha's with the same exact changes. Proceed with caution.

Jesse, what if I want to figure what commit broke my favorite feature?!

Bisect is your friend! (Seriously the docs are super worth reading.)

$ git bisect start
$ git bisect bad # without passing a SHA it uses HEAD
$ git bisect good SHAofLastGoodKnownCommit
# At this point git takes over and tells you how many rivisions to test. Through a series of good and bad confirmations it will then tell you the bad commit.
# Shoot off an email or slack message to the author with the commit sha or fix yourself if you're confident of the intended change in the commit or if you're the author

More diffing!

$ git diff ref1:path/to/file1 ref2:path/to/file2 #
$ git diff origin/master -- [path/to/file] # Much simpler if you're diffing the same file at the same path.

Reset can be gentle too, ya know

If there is a commit you just flat out don't want to have and want to fix it and it has not been pushed to the remote branch yet use reset --soft

$ git reset --soft HEAD~1


Git is a tool. It is a means to an end. Not the end. Mastering your tools is essential in becoming a better and more efficient programmer. However, use whatever you feel more comfortable with. If you are happy with your GUI git app of choice then use it. Occassionally though these apps cause problems and you gotta jump into the commandline and get your hands dirty.


Why I Hate `var self`

Jesse Atkinson

I hate var self. I hate it. I hate it and its sister var that. Let's not even speak of the black sheep of the family, var _this — lest we wish to conjur up other barbaric practices conducted by lesser JavaScript developers.

No no no. var self is for the weak. The unsure. The impotent. The wallflower shoegazers of the JavaScript world who are too scared to ask their code for a bloody dance.

"Why do you hate this thing that seems to permiate many JavaScript libraries penned by competent and skilled devs. Devs more skilled than you even!"

I'm glad you asked.

I hate var self because var self represents failure. A failure to use what the language has given you and intended for you to do. JavaScript gives you this. And this, as you well know, represents... well... this. The thing you're currently acting upon. When you assign this to a variable and then reference that variable in some scope below you are admitting all devs who will interact with this code in the future and yourself that you failed. You failed to give this thought. You've failed to leverage the tools JavaScript has so graciously provided you. Of course I'm talking about .bind and its cousins .apply and .call.

Let's go over an example. Here's a bit of code that leverages that. I'll assume we have access to jQuery, but this applies to even without. (Lets pretend, for example's sake, that we are doing somethign more complex with data here than simply passing it to doSomethingWithTheData. Otherwise we could pass doSomethingWithTheData as the callback function for done.)

var that = this;

  type: 'GET',
  url: '/api/v1/auth/user/current/',
  contentType: 'application/json'
}).done(function (data) {

Now lets rewrite this so that we do not have to store this in a variable using bind.

  type: 'GET',
  url: '/api/v1/auth/user/current/',
  contentType: 'application/json'
}).done(function (data) {

Lets make this even better. We'll assign the callback method to a named variable and bind the callback method to this. Finally we'll change that verbose $.ajax into the shorthand jQuery method for specifically fetching JSON.

var onDone = function (data) {


"But Jesse, I'm not familiar with bind. What browsers support bind?"

I'm glad you asked. IE9+ as well as any remotely modern version of Chrome, Firefox, and Safari. (See this link).

"Okay. Fine. But this is a seriously trivial discussion. Why do you care?"

That's a fair question. I will admit that it is trivial in the grand scheme of things. If you tell your manager you'd like to take next sprint to change all variable assignments of this they would rightly look at you like you were insane. However, when building a product part of building it is building it well. You can choose to ignore this advice. You can also write your entire app with mixed line endings, no whitespace, no comments, and bind every object to the global window. But chances are if you're still reading this it's because you care. You care about not only your product working but the code that you write to create your product being readable and maintainable, especially for other coders. My argument against var self stems from my hatred of confusion and discord and my love of legibility and clarity.

P.S. Ever have trouble remembering the difference between .call and .apply? Here's an easy way to remember. .call begins with the letter "c". You pass in all of the parameters to the method you invoke with .call using commas to seperate the params. I.E., bar, baz, bing);. .apply begins with the "a". You pass in all of the parameters to the method you invoke with .apply using an array. I.E. foo.apply(this, [bar, baz, bing]);.

On Text Editors — Part 6

Jesse Atkinson

This is the last entry in a six-part series on my history of text editors.

What about Atom and BB Edit?

One you'll notice that I've completely skipped over Atom and BB Edit. Atom, if you don't know, is essentially Github taking Sublime Text, making it work entirely in a browser, and putting a little bit of their own stamp on it. It's a great text editor and a novel approach, but it is embarassingly slow and even more embarassingly a shameless ripoff of Sublime Text. Github, like many, are frustrated by the state of text editors and how each owner of them seems to abandon them. At least the owner of TextMate had the good sense to open source it and release it into the wild. If you like the look and feel of Sublime Text I'd say give Atom a shot. However, last I tried it out (roughly two months ago) it was a slow and sluggish beast.

BB Edit is absolutely fantastic. It's an incredible app with a long history of development and support. It's really well done. I recommend it whole heartily. However it veers sharply into the IDE territory which is not what I'm looking for. It's just not for me.


TextMate is, in my opinion, the most mature text editor out there. The fact that it is open source and free just speaks to how absolutely insane this industry, as well as the state of the tools we use to build it. is. I can wholeheartedly recommend Coda, VIM, Sublime Text, or TextMate to anyone. I think they're all excellent choices, but for me (at least for now) the choice is clearly TextMate.

On Text Editors — Part 5

Jesse Atkinson

This is the fifth entry in a six-part series on my history of text editors.

The TextMate Phase

Once the Yosemite beta came out in summer 2014, and I'd heard from trusted friends and co-workers it was actually pretty stable, I did something stupid and installed it on my work machine. I figured I'd be able to identify what parts of our app wouldn't work on Yosemite and potentially contribute to some RubyGems to get them ready for Yosemite.

Sublime Text ran awful for me on Yosemite. Mostly because one of the billion packages I had installed on it kept crashing it. In frustration one day I just switched to TextMate. Fully assuming I'd move back to Sublime Text once the packages for it got updated to run on Yosemite.

And then a funny thing happened. I never switched back. In the two or so years since the 2 alpha was released for free and open-sourced, TextMate got really fast, really good, and, dammit, it was pretty. This is an OS X-only app that was clearly made by someone with taste. Someone who is an OS X user, who knows what those of us who live and work on OS X want in an app, both from utility as well as design standpoints.

I enjoyed having an actual preferences pane. I enjoyed installing bundles with a GUI. Wait ... why didn't I start using this earlier? Oh yeah, because there were little things about it that drove me nuts. But turns out after a quick Google search, I found out how to enable and disable various bundles. The main thing Sublime Text still had that TextMate didn't have (at least not out of the box) was autosuggest when typing in a method name. However, I quickly learned that ⎋(esc) would autocomplete, and it did a pretty damn good job of guessing what I wanted it to autocomplete to.

Another huge benefit of TextMate was how damn good the multi-cursor support is. Sublime Text has it, but not like this. TextMate (as of this writing) feels like one of those apps that was made specifically with nerds like me in mind. It has all the things I care about in spades and the things it doesn't have I don't mind so much. I've been using TextMate 2, which has now gone into "beta" (it's stable, don't fear) for the past six months and haven't once felt the desire to switch back to Sublime Text.