ihateloggingin

Do see the "limitations" section:

github-backup is repository-focused. It does not try to back up other information from GitHub. In particular, social network stuff, like users who are following you, is not backed up.

github-backup does not log into GitHub, so it cannot backup private repositories.

Notes added to commits and lines of code don't get backed up yet. There is only recently API support for this.

The labels that can be added to issues and milestones are not backed up. Neither are the hooks. They could be, but don't seem important enough for the extra work involved. Yell if you need them.

Microwave just the water, then put the teabag in after. Then it will taste the same.

It deletes the remote branch entirely, and then uploads the local branch.

This has nothing to do with git. It has to do with github.

Git already prohibits forced pushes if you use 'git init --shared' to create your repo.

Speed bumps such as being required to specify --force?

> his continued assertion that he should not have been allowed to do this thing that he did.

Well, if the repositories were created with "git init --shared" then it wouldn't have been allowed.

I think it's a valid position to believe that this should be the default on github, although obviously in this case, there might be blame-shifting motivation to that position.

> Rather than focusing on how to prevent a user from doing a silly thing like this, I think a well-designed tool would easily allow the user to undo the silly thing he just did.

Git does make it easy for the user to undo this. It provides the reflog for that. It also provides information in the output of the push command. (However, github does not allow users to access the remote reflog.)

In any case, you can blame github, and you can blame the developer, but at least we should all be clear that you can't blame git.

Put otherwise: to sort them all it's O(n/5*(5 log 5)) = O(n).

There's some choice involved in whether to have children... until you have them.

There's also some choice involved in whether you are making enough money to support your children -- but not that much.

In poor countries, children are an economic win because they can be made to work for their parents. In rich countries, children are an economic loss because they can't be (both by law and because child labor is not in demand).

Sunlight does not approach the cost of zero when there is private ownership of land. The legal right to collect the sunlight is attached to the land. Securing that legal right costs money.

It kind of sounds good but then you realize it's completely insane. Do you want to go back to pre-industrial agriculture?? That is a waste of land. There probably is not enough even land for it anymore; even if there were, it would mean a massive reduction in food production capacity.

...Unless you were going to allow people to pool their land and farm it using industrial methods. So they could exchange their land for shared stock in an agricultural corporation. The corporation would sell the produce, and distribute the resulting funds as dividends... oh wait it's a Basic Income!

Just because you're billing $40/hr doesn't mean you're well above marginally employed.

We're talking about a 2 hour gig here. There's likely to be at least 2 unbillable hours involved in a 2 hour gig gig, so your rate is already cut in half to $20/hr.

Once you start taking into account all of the unbillable hours (including time spent finding gigs) and all of the downtime between gigs, a $40/hr rate could very well mean you are below the poverty line.

> I want my house cleaned for less than $80 (note: 2 hour job).

First of all, I doubt there's anywhere in the USA you couldn't get responses to a craigslist ad offering $40/hr for house cleaning.

Second, a 2hr/month gig is not going to pull in anywhere near the responses that a 40hr/week would at the same rate. It's just not the same thing. Try living off freelancing for a while; then you'll know what "2 hour gig" really means.

> It's $80 for 2 hours. You can survive within commuting distance of Manhattan on $15/hour

Not if you only get two hours of work! That $80 for 2 hours has thousands of dollars in opportunity costs.

Actually we could just refuse to enforce contracts in which future BI income is leveraged for debt. That's already done with certain kinds of retirement assets.

Even with BI guaranteed to all, not everyone would receive it because of income tax withholdings.

So... if a restaurant owner gets his rocks off by forcing the waitresses to blow him, that's fine as long as the place is profitable?

You talk about poor people as if they are a different kind of human being from "normal" people.

In fact, 80% of USA citizens are poor at _some_ point in their life. _Most_ people experience poverty. It's not necessarily because they "don't know how" to be anything but poor. (Often it's a result of becoming too old to work.)

Generally it works so that you get paid to do things for rich people, but if you do those things for poor people you don't get paid.

You can have A/C, cable TV, meals, and still have a totally unstable housing situation, unable to maintain personal property over the long-term... Sorry but just because TV is cheap doesn't mean poverty is eliminated. Keep an eye on the rent checks.

Why is it a problem? Someone wants to live modestly, trading consumer power for free time. Why do we need to stop them?

Ah, but it's not libertarian in the sense of total sovereignty for owners. The workers would start to backtalk!

They don't, actually.

"socially beneficial activities that are not compensated" -- doesn't apply equally well.

"most efficiently delivered through a direct cash transfer, rather than through a means-tested or other qualification-based process" -- doesn't apply equally well.

"no minimum wage would be necessary to reduce poverty" -- doesn't apply equally well.

"ensuring a life-long minimum earnings level for individuals" -- doesn't apply equally well.

"the economy itself will not be able to adapt in creating new labor opportunities" -- doesn't apply equally well.

Amazingly, that's each and every point. Not a single one applies equally well.

It would be if you lied to people and told them that you made the pens.

The example you chose is deliberately one in which it would be assumed that you were not asserting authorship. Frankly, choosing that example shows you're dishonest.

Smirnoff is nowhere near the cheapest vodka. That's not a bottom shelf vodka. It is literally not on the bottom shelf of liquor stores. C.f. Popov vodka for literally _half_ the price of Smirnoff (and literally on the bottom shelf). Popov, by the way, is undrinkable.

Any vodka which is twice as expensive as another vodka cannot be called "bottom shelf."

I don't really care about ATF regulations, but there is no moral high ground here. This was just plagiarism. These people pretended to have done something that they did not do. They took credit for someone else's work.

So "we can't have nice things" here means "we can't plagiarize vodka"? Well you can't plagiarize Steven King either. Deal with it.

This is the opposite of central planning. It lets everyone decide what to do with the money themselves.

> I would need a much larger subsistence wage to survive in the SF bay area than I would in most other places in the country.

Plenty of people live in the SF bay area with no BI at all.

The other poster's concern is obviously punishing the undeserving poor.

However, the point of the article here is to assume that millions will be "free loaders" no matter what we do because their labor is unnecessary.

We just need to adjust social attitudes so that it's accepted that passive income is the right of everyone, not just 1%.