When was this? I think the chromebooks are fairly new in interviews, and it sounds like the interviewer didn't read the memo about how it works.

> The reports also omitted the names of more than 90 percent of the people who were interviewed for the project. While a few officials agreed to speak on the record to SIGAR, the agency said it promised anonymity to everyone else it interviewed to avoid controversy over politically sensitive matters.

> ...

> The Post has asked a federal judge to force SIGAR to disclose the names of everyone else interviewed, arguing that the public has a right to know which officials criticized the war and asserted that the government had misled the American people. The Post also argued the officials were not whistleblowers or informants, because they were not interviewed as part of an investigation.

One of the key problems identified by this report is that military and government officials didn't want to hear bad news. People on the ground felt like they had to paint an overly rosy picture. The SIGAR report seems like an attempt to address that by enabling them to speak anonymously, but the Post doesn't seem concerned that publicizing identities may hamstring such internal government investigations in the future.

graft is actually built-in, but that's beside the point. Coming from a rebase heavy workflow in git, things like updating a ref or abandoning a commit feel like fundamental operations, and when moving to Mercurial it wasn't obvious which of the built-ins or bundled extensions I needed to be reading about to do these things.

I did eventually find Evolve, as you suggest, but it's not one of the bundled extensions, and it's not something you'll find in the official tutorial, or "The Definitive Guide", or even in most of the SO answers explaining how to do git-like things.

> By design, Mercurial makes it much harder to shoot yourself in the foot.

This is true, but git makes it so easy to recover from those mistakes.

For example, with Mercurial, there's at least four different ways to do a rebase-ish thing: transplant, graft, rebase, and rebase (w/ evolve enabled). It's not obvious which a newbie should pick (rebase+evolve... I think?). Likewise, Mercurial has purge and strip which both delete commits in different ways. Git has multiple ways to do the same thing, but at least it's simple and consistent when you lift the hood.

Undoing any sort of rebase-ish operation in Mercurial also seems difficult and janky. It seems to take multiple steps, and involves unbundling some sort of patch file stored underneath your home directory. Whereas in git, you just update a pointer: `git reset --hard $BRANCH@{1}`. Git's reflog is such a fantastic safety net. Doing any sort of history rewriting in Mercurial feels very dangerous, in comparison.

Newer cables tend to be solid, though.

They've linked to 2009 version of this report, although the numbers they use are from the 2012 version. If that confused anyone else, the 2012 version can be found here:

https://www.eei.org/issuesandpolicy/electricreliability/unde...

https://www.ebay.com/itm/MTG-Repack-BLACK-LOTUS-Vintage-Old-...

https://psc.wi.gov/Documents/Brochures/Under%20Ground%20Tran...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100719zor_m6...