shandor

Which in the end is precisely the reason why we want to understand the intentions behind the actions, right?

This is a good take, and I agree that habits can do that to people.

On the other hand, the intention behind the habit/action easily twists it in actuality to something else.

I think the “fake it till you make it” I brought up upthread a great example of this. Yeah, it might end up with the fake becoming something valuable, or you building character, or whatever.

Or, the habit that is getting built isn’t positive hustle and tenacity, but just a habit of outright lying, constantly reinforcing itself.

Sometimes it’s impossible to see from the outside what is which until it breaks down.

I think it is also possible to just acknowledge the emotions in the heat of the moment, "process" them quickly as unproductive for the situation, and let them go their way.

Like the grandparent comment, I agree that this naturally requires training and effort. I also find that to be a more constructive way than to "suppress" your impulses/emotions for an unpacking later. Not saying you were necessarily directly advocating for that, just something that your comment made me think.

> concordance of action and "intention" .... must be united in ethically good action

Yeah, I had to disagree with how TFA brought "fake it till you make it" into this very discussion.

Yes, one can have "faking" that ultimately ends up creating the thing it promised....but I fear that for each such benign or constructive "fake" there are so many cases of Theranos et al that I could ever remove what you called intention and ethically good action from the calculation.

Why on Earth would these be in any way incompatible?

I’ve been using git for 15+ years,and definitely share the sentiment that basically everyone needs to learn it well as it is just that entrenched.

…but I love that people are coming up with potential alternatives that have a meaningful chance of moving the whole VCS space forward.

Not sure if I'm ready to buy into the "be afraid" mentality yet.

But what articles like this often seem to just completely gloss over is that while, yes, AI might not today be the force that makes every single short-story writer redundant, tech like this seldom goes backwards in capability and instead tends to get better... Cumulative small improvements for, say, 10-15 years does wonders, like the advent of the Internet showed.

> Aaron Ross Powell isn't an expert or even a highly informed amateur

Yeah, it was a embarrassing how hard he missed this mark while at the same time lashing out at "tHe TeCH BRos" and their inadequacy in taste two times in every sentence...

This same phenomenon seems to happen often. My go-to explanation is that the "serious middle ground" you mentioned is actually using the new tools doing some actual work, just a little more efficiently, without much fuss.

That usually does not make it into the headlines, and doesn't "drive engagement metrics" or whatever, so it also isn't in the interest of the news to push that middle ground narrative, and so we get the ridiculous polarization.

In my humblest of opinions, you are probably spot on about the autopilot vs. actually experiencing things.

As a concrete example, someone in this thread mentioned their older relative spending a lot of time with puzzles daily. I too watched my grandpa doing sudokus and crosswords, but in the end if there’s nothing much else, those too will quickly become uninspiring routine.

I really believe truly experiencing life does require some introspection so that you have agency.

Damn. Every time someone mentions Jujutsu I learn something awesome about it. I really need to give it a proper try one of these days.

A commit is literally a snapshot :) It is also very easy to make.

Stop worrying about titles and content and commit to your heart’s content.

When ready, restructure those snapshots into a coherent story you want to tell others by squashing commits and giving the remaining ones proper titles and commit messages. I use interactive rebase for that, but there are probably other ways too.

Thank you, kind internet stranger. That was an awesome dive into the matter!

So how about NATS compared to RabbitMQ? If building from scratch, what would drive a design or team towards NATS?

> It also explains why acyclovir and valacyclovir dramatically reduces the risk of developing dementia.

Sounds fascinating, where could one read more about this? I don’t think I’ve come across this before.

Yeah, you're right.

FWIW I was trying to convey the idea of "not rolling your own", in that instead you could just encrypt twice by using established implementations instead of rolling your own.

But as you and less_less rightly point out, it's not at all that simple for the majority of cases we usually mean (or at least wish for) when we say "encryption".

Lesson learned, hopefully.