Honest question. I love some of the additional capabilities and specifically the dependency commits, virtual branches, and JSON output...

BUT why not just work with the git community to add this functionality? It doesn't seem like the kind of thing that needs to "replace" git, as opposed to "improve" git?

Unless one wishes to control the entire ecosystem rather than simply participate in it.

There’s no business in working with an existing community to add functionality. And hence, where do you think the full time developers working on the project would get their livelihood?

Yes you could add all these things to git, but no, nobody will give you $17M to do it, nor will you find competent engineers who are willing to work for whatever funding they can find for “improving git”, which in all reality will probably round down to 0 in comparison to several software engineer’s salaries.

ad hominem? Please explain what makes the regulatory burdens onerous instead of impossible.

It might be just my perception, but it seems like every single time anthropologist make statements to the effect that complex human development didn't start until XX they are proven wrong. It wouldn't bother me so much if it wasn't for the fact that those "estimates" are generally used as proof to dismiss alternative timelines for human progression. I'm certainly not trying to say the planet had Atlantis with flying cars 300,000 years ago; but it certainly seems plausible that there were large/complex societies beginning long before the advent of our current written history... an idea that is regularly dismissed as foolish.

Remote attestation requires a great deal of trust... I know this comment is likely to be down-voted, but I can't think of a Lennart Poettering project that didn't try to extend, centralize, and conglomerate Linux with disastrous results in the short term; and less innovation, flexibility, and functionality in the long term. Trading the strength of Unix systems for goal of making them more "Microsoft" like.

Remote attestation requires a great deal of trust, and I simply don't have it when it comes to this leadership team.

It seems to be, for most users who switch, that the driver is if they are primarily a consumer or creator. Unix systems have always been a preferred platform for some creators, but this effect seems to be multiplying as the focus for Windows become less and less creator friendly. Yeah, if you are a gamer and watch YouTube videos, then your path to least resistance is Windows; but if you are a software developer, web developer, music editor, video editor, et al... the ability to control, easily automate, and flexibility of your environment (not to mention the reduced system resources) become a huge advantage. There are reasons why MOST creators are moving away from Windows... and most consumers are becoming more and more comfortable with tablets and Chromebooks.

There is some strange irony in this. Apple initially used the khtml code-base to build Safari but it quickly became impossible to back-port the changes from the Safari branch of khtml back into Konqueror. Now, 20 years later, someone has made an open source version of Safari.

Who?

Maybe not Kagi, but GNOME Web (Epiphany) technically qualifies: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/epiphany

There is a cost associated with collective bargaining as well as benefits. While most of these costs (though not all) are carried by the employer to the benefit of the employee; I don't think dismissing these concerns by calling them "common anti-union talking points" improves the honest discussion that should be had by people considering collective bargaining.

>And most importantly one that I do not believe shares our commitment to you.

This is a very stereotypical anti-union talking point.

If Apple truly had a commitment to retail employees, the retail employees wouldn't be considering unionization.

The vote will definitely demonstrate how seriously the employees are considering unionization but, in my experience, there are a certain sub-set of people that constantly push for unionization, regardless of the companies commitment to employees.

There are literally two in my office right now under my bookshelf. If you have them, you don't find one of these, you find dozens.

Can someone tell me what possible value this has?

They're called tagged templates: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Refe...

Apart from the other examples, I've also seen them be used for internationalization. http://i18n-tag.kolmer.net/

It can be used for escaping values for example

var query = sql`select * from user where id=${id}`

Similar for html, preventing injection. You just need to implement the corresponding functions.

For example https://github.com/felixfbecker/node-sql-template-strings

I don't see how this is better than

var query = sql(`select * from user where id=${id}`);

In this case the sql function can not escape the id. If you were to use a tagged template, it could.

In your example, you get the concatenated string. If you use the tags, you can access the parts.

Yes that's something the author does not explain well. sql is not a normal function but a special template "handler" with fixed parameters.

It's just a tiny language feature, removing the parenthesis is not the point of the template literal. FWIW, I like the way it looks for styled-components:

  const NameTag = styled.div`
    font-size: 12pt;
    margin: 3px;
  `;

Someone wandered in from perl5? (I say that as a person who enjoys perl)

Look at what this does with the feature - https://polymer.github.io/lit-html

I saw that a while back, now I know how they did that!

Job security

Fine particle pollution is entirely different from CO2 emission and would not be included as part of any carbon tax I've seen.

But it would be incidentally reduced by a carbon tax since that would cause some coal plants to be shut down.