IMO the problem for developers is that they have to provide general solutions, so they have to cover each case all the time instead of just a singular case at a time.

Obligatory video when it comes to time zones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5wpm-gesOY

Ah okay, I understood it as the destructiveness itself relieving the anxiety. Thanks!

How is destructive behavior a form of anxiety relief?

I’m not denying it, I’d actually like to know more about the specifics (and couldn’t find any specifics online).

first well known work after 1970

The Martian Chronicles was published in 1950, Fahrenheit 453 in 1953

I had the same experience with Hedgewars, but I can’t really say why it doesn’t click like Worms for me.

Battle for Wesnoth - a turn based tactics game in a fantasy setting. It’s also available on Steam and itch.io. Coincidentally, version 1.18.0 was released yesterday.

Thanks!

“women” feels weird for a lot of English speakers

Why does it feel weird? (not a native speaker here)

“But why? It both has to do with computers!” - literally a project manager at my current software project.

So much winning!

Huh, I didn't know that Auschwitz was in a war zone and people were firing rockets and coordinating terror attacks from inside Auschwitz.

(and no, that does not mean the kids dying in Gaza "deserved it" or something - it just means that OP is posting bullshit comparisons)

If you were born in 1983 or before, your birthday is closer to WWII than to today.

deleted by creator

I would never rely on the opinion of my boss when the question is what my rights are. They're usually not a lawyer and their interests are often contrary to mine.

Yeah, you're right, technically it's not a "diff", it's the changed files.

I don't think this technical detail has any consequences for the general mental model of Git though - as evidenced by the fact that I have been using Git for years without knowing this detail, and without any problems.

I disagree, hard.

I disagree with the general conclusion - I think it's very easy to understand*: each repo has a graph of commits. Each commit includes the diff and metadata (like parent commits). There is a difference between you repo seeing the state of another repo (fetch) and copying commits from another repo into your repo (merge; pull is just a combination of fetch and pull). Tags are pointers to specific commits, branches are pointers to specific commits that get updated when you add a child commit to this commit. That's a rather small set of very clear concepts for such a complex problem.

I also disagree with a lot of the reasoning. Like "If a commit has the same content but a different parent, it’s NOT the same commit" is not an "alien concept". When I apply the same change to different parents, I end up with different versions. Which would be kinda bad for a Version Control System.

"This in turn means that you need to be comfortable and fluent in a branching many-worlds cosmology" - yes, if you need to handle different versions, you need to switch between them. That's the complexity of what you're doing, not the tool. And I like that Git is not trying to hide things that I need to know to understand what's happening.

"distinguish between changes and snapshots that have the same intent and content but which are completely non-interchangeable and imply entirely different flows of historical events" How do you even end up in a situation like that? Anyway, sounds like you should be able to merge them without conflicts, if they are in fact completely interchangeable?

"The natural mental model is that names denote global identity." Why should another repo care, which names I use? How would you even synchronize naming across different repos without adding complexity, e.g. if two devs created a branch "experimental" or "playground". Why on earth should they be treated as the same branch?

"Git uses the cached remote content, but that’s likely out of date" I actually agree that this can lead to some errors and confusion. But automation exists - you can just fetch every x minutes.

"Branches aren't quite branches, they're more like little bookmark go-karts." A dev describing what basically is just a pointer in this way leads to the suspicion that it might not be Git's mental model that is alien.

"My favorite version of this is when the novice has followed someone's dodgy advice to set pull.rebase = true" Maybe don't do stupid stuff you don't understand? We know what fetch is, we know what merge is. Pull is basically fetch & merge.

""Pull" presents the illusion that you can just ask Git to make everything okay for you" Just… what? The rest of the sentence doesn't really fix this error in expectations.

• except the CLI of course, but I can use GUI-tools for most tasks

I agree that there are a lot of revolutions ending up way more totalitarian than planned.

I'm not sure there are hundreds of them that had communism or a stateless society as a goal though. Many military dictatorships had a military dictatorship as a goal after all. But of course there were also many who had that goal, and failed on a huge scale.

There were more revolutions than just the Zapatistas that seemed to be promising though, like the Spanish Revolution and the the Makhnovshchina.

As I said, it depends on a lot of definitions of rather complex concepts.

The point I was trying to make, was that you don't have to end up with a state, especially not a soviet style state, after a revolution. And in my opinion a violent uprising or an having an organized militant group does not mean you have a state. If I understand it correctly, the Zapatistas don't have a principle of using violence to force others into their system - which is something central to states.

It all depends on your definition of communism and state etc., but the Zapatistas seem to be quite successful with a grassroots approach.