I love the idea of building a new Git UI on top of Git primitives[1], but the REST inspiration leaves me feeling underwhelmed; there has to be a more human-friendly model.
The most human-friendly thing is probably natural language. If so, it is LLMs who should have an intuition about the REST interface and its URI syntax. I personally would prefer to glance at it, but not to type it repeatedly. Especially, hashes.
So, the actual question is how to make this machinery un-screw-up-able. (Author)
It doesn't use Git primitives directly, but it has Git interoperability using semantically more powerful primitives. (e.g., there is not only one index -- you can perform rebases, amends, squashes etc. remotely (without checking out first) -- conflicts are non-blocking and support n-way merges -- and so much more)
I've embraced it to the point of porting complex agentic frameworks to support jj (https://github.com/LoganDark/get-shit-done) and I do not regret it at all. Jujutsu is my absolute favorite VCS now.
I hope this leads to people being interested in more and larger public gatherings. Seeing things with our own eyes and having fun with other real people.
Lazy can be a good thing. Since time and attention are finite and not fungible, it allows you to do something else. There's a reason we're all too lazy to do long arithmetic with pen and paper, instead relieving the burden of using our minds by outsourcing to spreadsheets and calculators. Not only does it allow us to think at a higher level of abstraction, but it also means we can take our kids to the park more often.
> The problem is that LLMs inherently lack the virtue of laziness. Work costs nothing to an LLM. LLMs do not feel a need to optimize for their own (or anyone’s) future time, and will happily dump more and more onto a layercake of garbage.
which I think is interesting, albeit somewhat tangential to the current discussion.
I am not in the loop either. From what i've gleaned, it's more a rejection of the specific internet-based community that embraced such ideas in the early 2000's. But I can't speak on behalf of their beliefs or those of their detractors. Was just trying to help out on the term itself.
And that assumes a relatively stable environment; but politics can change drastically for the worse. We have examples from relatively recent history of governments turning evil, rounding up unfavored groups, and shipping them off in rail cars to an early demise. God forbid it happens again with all the information available to sort, categorize, and identify people.
This is a lazy idea that keeps getting trotted out. The 90% tax bracket only existed on paper, with an effective rate closer to 40%. Economists have shown that tax revenue remained remarkably unchanged, while having negative consequences for investment and productive use of capital. Instead, the relative prosperity of workers during that time came from a lack of global industrial competition and a massive post-war manufacturing monopoly. Without a completely sealed, loophole-free tax system and total global compliance, implementing a 90% tax rate today would simply result in widespread tax avoidance, capital flight, and a reduction in domestic investment. The rich do not make the bulk of their wealth through a salary (many taking $0 / year) like they did back then, but rather through stock options, etc.
We have more shit, that's true. And advancements in medicine have reduced child mortality and lifespans.
Worker wealth is absolutely not relative to the overall wealth in this country; that disproportionately goes to the top 1% (we're now at 1920s levels) and it's getting worse every year.
The average first home purchase age is 40 compared to the 20s then. Getting a college degree was free or cheap for many of our parents/grandparents, now it's mostly a luxury. Healthcare costs put people into permanent debt. Most people are struggling paycheck to paycheck.
Is your argument that life is all around better for the average person now because we don't tax the wealthy/let them accumulate most the wealth in this country?
The top 0.01% payed an effective rate of 50-75% in the 40s. That is drastically higher than today. Just because the wealthy found ways out of the full 90% doesn't mean the taxation rates were a huge factor in the standard of living then.
Were there other factors? Absolutely but it's disingenuous to claim there was no difference in tax policy now vs then.
> widespread tax avoidance, capital flight, and a reduction in domestic investment
Do you not think the US has the capability to enforce their tax laws despite these efforts? It absolutely gets its tax dollars from foreign earned income, it can penalize such tax avoidance strategies (these companies operate in the unite states after all).
> The rich do not make the bulk of their wealth through a salary
Yeah, because it's a method to avoid taxation obviously. That's why we need to tax loans against assets ("buy, borrow, die") and increase capital gains to be at least above that of labor.
It's so incredibly obvious the wealthy do whatever they can to avoid taxation. Why are you so dead-set on furthering their agenda?
I'm curious, what's your solution to wealth inequality or do you think we should just let the super wealthy return to the robber barons/kings of yesteryear?
You would get some version of the Soviet Union. Where all the rich people would be connected to government rather than industry. And industry would become enfeebled and unable to produce efficiently, and the average person would be much poorer than people currently are in the USA.
Thank you for making my point, even though you thought you were doing the opposite. The government is bad already, we shouldn't be making it worse with stupid irrational policies.
[1] https://replicated.wiki/wiki/Home.html
reply