"If you have any comments about our WEB page, you can write us at the address shown above. However, due to the limited number of personnel in our corporate office, we are unable to provide a direct response."
upvoting not because I think the article is great, but because I want someone to tell me (a magit user) why jj is better than using magit to interact wit git!
I find JJ to make things much easier for me than Git:
- No staging needed, edit your commit directly in your working directory
- Rebasing is automatic, I regularly edit historic commits and the messages
- jj absorb will automatically split and merge hunks into related ancestry commits
- Defer conflict resolution; many conflicts are resolved later by splitting/squashing/moving commits/hunks further (possible only for first-class conflicts)
- No interactive rebase needed, since jj commands automatically rebase while editing historic commits, it feels like constantly living within an interactive rebase
- Easily refer to the same revision (change) across rebase commands by using a jj change_id, without scribbling down Git commit hashes that change across a rebase
- Easily undo (+redo) your last commands through the jj operation log without having to backup the entire git repo at each step
And jj-fzf (https://github.com/tim-janik/jj-fzf/) gives me every useful jj command with a single hotkey (e.g. Ctrl-P for push, Ctrl-N for a new commit with 1+ parents, Alt-B to edit bookmarks/tags, Alt-R to rebase, Alt-Z for undo, …) while browsing the log with commit+diff preview.
I am not an experienced magit user, (because I don't use emacs) so I can't really speak to this directly, but I can tell you what I understand to be the case.
Here's the motivation for jj, described by its creator (this will be on the FAQ in the next release:
The project started as an experiment with the idea of representing the working copy by a regular commit. I (@martinvonz) considered how this feature would impact the Git CLI if it were added to Git. My conclusion was that it would effectively result in deprecating most existing Git commands and flags in favor of new commands and flags, especially considering I wanted to also support revsets. This seemed unlikely to be accepted by the Git project.
Fundamentally, jj is a different VCS, not just a UI layer on top of git. And so there's a lot of differences, but they sort of sound more generic than specifically "vs what magit gives you."
I don't have time to be more lengthy at this exact moment, but I'll be curious to hear what others say, and I can come back and say more later if you're curious.
Of course you are correct that lowered social stigma associated with divorce is also important. This topic must be difficult to study over very long periods of time, because so many things are going on (changing age of first marriage, reduced social stigma associated with divorce, women's liberation, changing religiousity, etc. etc.).
I'm not sure what you mean by "premise", but I really hope that the justification for "treating everyone equally under the law (or otherwise)" is not because doing so "helps prove beyond a reason of doubt who the elite truly are". For that would imply that if a better way is found of "proving" who the elite truly are, we could abandon the idea of equal treatment. Or that we could abandon equal treatment if we agreed that "proving who the elite are" is actually unimportant. In fact, I'm personally skeptical of the value of "proving beyond reason of doubt who the elite truly are", but also highly committed to the principal of equal treatment, so I think the two are unrelated.
As I understood it: since we don't know who the exceptional few are, we want to give a fair bit of support at the start to everyone, this will allow the hidden talents to show up.
"For that would imply that if a better way is found of "proving" who the elite truly are, we could abandon the idea of equal treatment."
In a way this already happens, equal treatment is out the window as soon as a doctor makes an assesment based on race or gender or country of origin. the basis of new drug trials is to make a representative 'equal' group of people. however in its wake if certain drugs are found to interfere with pregnancy then a doctor will not treat patients equally. In law beside the requirement to have a law degree, certain companies want lawyers from prestiegious schools or with exeptional grades. there is no equal chance to get hired here. Though what is a danger for these companies is that the grades and graduation process must not favour any particular candidate on anything other what the company wants to select for (Merit). if their grades are not aquired trough a fair process then companies will lose more and more of their guaranteed value.
Equality seems to serve as a way to find the exeptional few and prove by the many thousands in the same bracket that their skill is based on merit.
"the notion of counter-elites: those who are groomed for power and then excluded from it ... The tech industry is a better example ... Peter Thiel (classic counter elite Stanford-trained lawyer cum entrepreneur)"
Is what sense was Peter Thiel ever "excluded from power"? That's not my understanding of his career (but maybe my understanding is faulty).
More generally, is "wreak[ing] their vengeance by turning against the existing hierarchy" really a sensible way of thinking about the tech industry? Yes, the tech industry has certainly disrupted existing hierarchies in very significant ways, but it seems to me that the motivation there is not vengeance but rather profit.
Maybe I'm focusing too much on the word "vengeance". Is your claim more that there was significant "elite overproduction" in the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's, and that absent this elite overproduction we wouldn't have the tech industry at all, or that the tech industry would be much smaller?
Thiel appears powerful now, but there were years when he wasn't. But he gave up attempting to climb to the summit of the traditional hierarchy when he abandoned his career as an attorney to become an entrepreneur. This notion of counter-elites is about their position in traditional hierarchies. Do traditional institutions of power have room for them? Thiel decided too many people were competing for too few positions, and left to found PayPal. One thing to note about counter-elites is that they are partial elites. They have some of the degrees and trappings. Thiel has a Stanford degree. But But founding a no-name startup is not a high-status job.
You're right, vengeance is too limiting a word, although I do sense some of that in the crypto community vis a vis the Fed, and also in the current discourse within tech about traditional media.
"In particular, there are ongoing efforts to try to make it the normal thing for scientists to make the programs they ran on their data available so that their results can be reproduced; aggressively dropping older programming language implementations rather gets in the way of that."
But if this is important to you then depending on the OS to provide your python seems like a bad idea, independent of the python2/python3 issues. Wouldn't it be much better to use something like conda / the anaconda distribution, so that you can specify precise versions of each library for your environment?
Having said that, I don't know how anaconda is going to handle the EOL of python2. So I guess the question is: if someone wants to be able to reliably reproduce a python2 environment with specific set of libraries, what is best way to do that?
> Having said that, I don't know how anaconda is going to handle the EOL of python2. So I guess the question is: if someone wants to be able to reliably reproduce a python2 environment with specific set of libraries, what is best way to do that?
What's to handle? Old versions of python2 packages are still in the online repos. The EOL means that there won't be any new releases to python. All of the old releases will still work though.
Unless I am very badly misunderstanding TED, it provides none of the things that churches provide for their members. Some of these things are described succinctly but clearly in the post you are responding too. Could you expand on this?
I've read Griffiths, most of Shankar, some of Sakurai, and some of Feynman.
Of those, I would say Griffiths is the best option for someone with your background. It's short enough that you have some hope of going through the entire book, and it has you doing real calculations. The writing is good.
Shankar has lots of good stuff, but its 600+ pages long, so a bit overwhelming. I also found the explanations not as clear as in Griffiths.
The perspective in Feynman and Sakurai is quite different than in Griffiths, and it is possibly a better approach. But Sakurai is much more challenging than Griffiths and not nearly as well written. Feynman lacks the worked examples and exercises that Griffiths has, so is not (IMO) appropriate as your sole textbook, but definitely worth looking at for the different perspective. A text taking the Feynman (or Sakurai) approach, but at the length and level of Griffiths, would be valuable.
(I taught myself basic QM prior to going to grad school in physics, with a background similar to your, so I have some direct experience here. This was about 12 years ago. Perhaps there are better options now.)
I like the thought process here (looking at aggregates), but this analysis is simplified to the point of uselessness. For example, since you are talking about houses I think the relevant quantity is average wealth per household. The average household size in the UK was 2.3 in 2011 [1], so that's £395,600 / household, reversing your conclusions.
I'm sure other considerations could push the results in both directions. To draw any conclusions from this type of analysis, one needs to think much more carefully about this question than either of us have done. Surely there must be economists who spend their careers addressing these types of questions?
