My use of "judgmental" was to communicate that my intention was not to pass judgment on his worth as a person or his worthiness of respect as a person or professional in me providing honest feedback about his behavior.

> I don't believe there is a universal list of things that is OK to care deeply enough to cry about.

It's not about prescribing when it's OK to cry or trivializing what he's sad about, it's about deviations from average behavior. The vast majority of emotionally well-adjusted men usually only cry at the death of a loved one or during a divorce or serious break-up. Here's data on that: https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/51961-the-who-what-where-w... To find yourself crying in a situation different from those situations should raise a red flag. Yes it may be the case that it's not a sign of anything serious but given the rarity of the situation, it's reasonable to suspect there may be something else at play, e.g. low testosterone.

I don't see a reason to counter anything I said. I offered neutral information that may help the OP. If the OP's testosterone levels are indeed low due to a serious medical condition, then you've just done them a major disservice. Even if you're of the opinion that it's normal, it's reasonable for someone else to assess that feeling sadness to the degree of provoking tears in response to deciding not to use productivity software is a cause for concern.

On what are you basing that?

> it's 100% fine (and healthy) to care about things in life.

Yes it is and I didn't claim it wasn't, so this is a strawman.

There's nothing personally indicting about having low testosterone. It's relatively common and it's potentially a serious medical condition. There is no reason to take offense from this.

Failing to acknowledge the structural flaws of Liberalism just opens up an opportunity for ideological revolution. If the adherents of Liberalism prefer moderation, they better had start acknowledging how it's failing people. "Just Liberal harder" won't work forever.

To save Liberalism, rather, we must first accept Liberalism is wrong. Then we must discuss what was wrong about it. Then fix those things to invent whatever ruling ideology comes next.

Here's a hint and it comes from his own writing. The "critical theory" and "identity politics" coming from within are directly a result of the nihilism and pathological individualism, respectively, that is born out of Liberalism. The US is degenerating because it lacks a prescribed morality (an unequivocal definition of what is right and wrong) and a prescribed universal identity, respectively. Things that Liberalism eschews, and things that people will find or invent elsewhere despite how many times you bemoan the death of enlightenment ideals.

Thank you for charitably responding to the substance of my comment and especially not whatever tone you may have perceived. I appreciate you.

The key word I used is "substantial." The usability improvements over Git are marginal and if they ever become non-marginal, they can relatively easily be added to git. This is what my comment is getting at. The only essential difference between Git and JJ is that they are different fiefdoms. There is no substantial technological difference. It's just two different social factions with marginally different opinions about how to type CLI commands.

That's literally his job?

My criticism is that that's a detail that is being obscured and instead other explanations for leaving are being presented (cynically IMO).

> It's hard to go from being a founder of your own thing to an employee at a 3,000-person organization. Right now I'm craving a fresh start.

This is just wholly irrational for someone whose credentials indicate someone who is capable of applying critical thinking towards accomplishing their goals. People who operate at that level don't often act on impulse or suddenly realize they want to do something different. It seems much more likely he intentionally planned to give himself a year of vacation at OpenAI, which allows him to hedge a bit while taking a breather before jumping back into being a founder.

Is this essentially speculation? Yes. Is it cynical to assume he's acting cynically? Yes. Speculation on his true motives is necessary because otherwise we'll never get confirmation, short of him openly admitting to it (which is still fraught). We have to look at behaviors and actions and assess likelihoods from there.

The C++ leadership serves the C++ community, not the entire software industry. You and everyone who disagrees with them are free to use and write software based on other languages, e.g. Java and Rust.

I don't demand that C++ evolution be halted. I support the current trajectory of not adding viral annotations for the sake of implementing static lifetime checking. I want C++ to evolve into a better version of itself, I don't want it to become something it's not. If you want static lifetime checking, please use Rust. It already exists and it's great for people who need static lifetime checking.