On the other hand, the intention behind the habit/action easily twists it in actuality to something else.

I think the “fake it till you make it” I brought up upthread a great example of this. Yeah, it might end up with the fake becoming something valuable, or you building character, or whatever.

Or, the habit that is getting built isn’t positive hustle and tenacity, but just a habit of outright lying, constantly reinforcing itself.

Sometimes it’s impossible to see from the outside what is which until it breaks down.

Like the grandparent comment, I agree that this naturally requires training and effort. I also find that to be a more constructive way than to "suppress" your impulses/emotions for an unpacking later. Not saying you were necessarily directly advocating for that, just something that your comment made me think.

Yeah, I had to disagree with how TFA brought "fake it till you make it" into this very discussion.

Yes, one can have "faking" that ultimately ends up creating the thing it promised....but I fear that for each such benign or constructive "fake" there are so many cases of Theranos et al that I could ever remove what you called intention and ethically good action from the calculation.

I’ve been using git for 15+ years,and definitely share the sentiment that basically everyone needs to learn it well as it is just that entrenched.

…but I love that people are coming up with potential alternatives that have a meaningful chance of moving the whole VCS space forward.

But what articles like this often seem to just completely gloss over is that while, yes, AI might not today be the force that makes every single short-story writer redundant, tech like this seldom goes backwards in capability and instead tends to get better... Cumulative small improvements for, say, 10-15 years does wonders, like the advent of the Internet showed.

Yeah, it was a embarrassing how hard he missed this mark while at the same time lashing out at "tHe TeCH BRos" and their inadequacy in taste two times in every sentence...

That usually does not make it into the headlines, and doesn't "drive engagement metrics" or whatever, so it also isn't in the interest of the news to push that middle ground narrative, and so we get the ridiculous polarization.

As a concrete example, someone in this thread mentioned their older relative spending a lot of time with puzzles daily. I too watched my grandpa doing sudokus and crosswords, but in the end if there’s nothing much else, those too will quickly become uninspiring routine.

I really believe truly experiencing life does require some introspection so that you have agency.

Stop worrying about titles and content and commit to your heart’s content.

When ready, restructure those snapshots into a coherent story you want to tell others by squashing commits and giving the remaining ones proper titles and commit messages. I use interactive rebase for that, but there are probably other ways too.

Sounds fascinating, where could one read more about this? I don’t think I’ve come across this before.

FWIW I was trying to convey the idea of "not rolling your own", in that instead you could just encrypt twice by using established implementations instead of rolling your own.

But as you and less_less rightly point out, it's not at all that simple for the majority of cases we usually mean (or at least wish for) when we say "encryption".

Lesson learned, hopefully.

I wouldn’t trust any solution that combines the algos in some more ”clever” way, as the whole point like you say is to guard against the risk of unproven new algorithms.

A thing has shape and form and so many other aspects just by the virtue of being.

Giving a name to it doesn’t change the thing in the slightest, and mostly tells about the namer, not the namee.

One of the most infuriating things today is large swathes of people getting this wrong like you, and then acting on their limited view.

[0] https://www.amazon.com/Make-Stick-Science-Successful-Learnin...

I think it was Jim Collins in Good to Great starting with the idea that it's super important to "get the right people on the bus...and the wrong people off the bus". Which he expanded to the idea that motivated, skillful people don't actually need that much management, and that it is the mediocre and worse performers that do.