You can commit individual files.

I use Fossil extensively for all my personal projects and find it superior for the general case. As others said it’s more suited for small projects.

I also use Fossil for lots of weird things. I created a forum game using Fossil’s ticket and forum features because it’s so easy to spin up and for my friends to sign in to.

At work we ended up using Fossil in production to manage configuration and deployment in a highly locked down customer environment where its ability to run as a single static binary, talk over HTTP without external dependencies, etc. was essential. It was a poor man’s deployment tool, but it performed admirably.

Fossil even works well as a blogging platform.

Are Python apps really so easy to understand? I seriously disagree with this idea given how much magic goes behind nearly every line of Python. Especially if you veer off the happy path.

I certainly am no fan of C but from a certain point of view it’s much easier to understand what’s going on in C.

Well-written Python apps are very easy to understand, especially if they use well-designed libraries.

The 'magic' in Python means that skilled developers can write libraries that work at the appropriate level of abstraction, so they are a joy to use.

Conversely, it also means that a junior dev, or an LLM pretending to be a junior dev, can write insane things that are nearly impossible to use correctly.

> Well-written Python apps are very easy to understand, especially if they use well-designed libraries.

Oh. Why haven't I seen those?

One of the (many) reasons that I moved away from Python was the whole "we can do it in 3 lines"

Oh cool someone has imported a library that does a shedload of really complicated magic that nobody in the shop understands - that's going to go well.

We're (The Software Engineering community as a whole) are also seeing something similar to this with AI generated code, there's screeds of code going into a codebase that nobody understands is full across (give a reviewer a 5 line PR and they will find 14 things to change, give them a 500 line PR and LGTM is all you will see).

Some seem to intuit that divine freedom is in competition with creaturely freedom. The assumption is that when God is acting, that necessarily drives out the action and initiative of creatures, and vice versa. The ancient Christian conception is that human freedom cooperates (synergizes) with God. Jesus illustrates this concept most clearly, being both divine and human and fully free in both respects. This union is an essential part of the whole plan in this view, that God would be present in His own creation and not infinitely apart from it. In this model the free action and cooperation of created things is essential to accomplishing the divine purpose.

On the other hand, if God really does just determine everything, you basically get pantheism where everything is an immediate and direct expression of “God.” That sounds like atheism with steps.

"On the other hand, if God really does just determine everything, you basically get pantheism where everything is an immediate and direct expression of “God.” "

Yes, or mysticism. We all exist within the mind of god. I do like those concepts more to be honest, but is indeed a quite different concept from the creator up in the clouds ruling the universe.

As the other reply said neither the classical Jewish or Christian view is that God is some guy literally up in the heavens sitting around all day.

Hm, as far as I know, it is sort of debated what the "classical christian view" is. But I certainly have seen lots of pictures from god in churches portrayed as the bearded guy up in the sky. It is definitely the common concept. Father, son and holy spirit. Plays a strong role with catholics

St. Augustine on “seeing” God:

“Do not imagine God according to the lust of your eyes. If you do, you will create for yourself a huge form or an incalculable magnitude which (like the light which you see with your bodily eyes) extends in every direction. Your imagination lets it fill realm after realm of space, all the vastness you can conceive of. Or maybe you picture for yourself a venerable-looking old man. Do not imagine any of these things. If you would see God, here is what you should imagine: God is love“

Maybe you can educate as what other "classical christian view" you know of. The pictures show a symbol for a property of God, they are not supposed to be taken literally, or do you also think, that Mary used to stand on a sickle on top of a miniature earth holding baby Jesus, which in turn holds a golden apple with a cross and in the other hand a lance that he pokes at snakes? Or that the Holy Spirit is a literal pigeon? That's not what is depicted in those images, but that would be the literal description.

This is actually the crux of the argument for iconoclasm. This is why faiths like Judaism and some sects of Islam strictly forbid any representation of creation or humanity, especially to "represent" the divine or spiritual realities.

If you begin personifying everything, if you represent spiritual/invisible concepts in concrete, human terms, if you reduce transcendent concepts to the pragmatic and the visible product of a sculptor's hands, people can get really confused. I promise.

People can lose sight of that transcendence and eternal meaning behind the symbols. They can get really wrapped up in the physical manifestations. This is also the central problem with the autism spectrum and such.

Aniconism attempts to free the mind from these limiting images. If you're Muslim and you contemplate a building with nothing but artistic words and text scrawled all over it, you obtain a far different result than contemplating a richly symbolic statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Many people have the intellect and the insight to go beyond that concrete imagery, but not all.

True. The reason why Christianity broke that is that Jesus was a human physically existing on earth. I think seeing Jesus as a white european, a black african, and a chinese person or in Renaissance clothes should bring the point across that it is not about what is literally depicted, but yeah some people might not get it. The question is would they get it without the imagery or do the simply lack the will or ability to perceive God as transcendent?

Well, I don't believe any of it.

But other people certainly do. And it is not just pictures, the lords prayer literally starts with "Our Father in heaven.."

> the lords prayer literally starts with "Our Father in heaven.."

Yep. It however does not say "Our Father in sky". In English you literally have that distinction.

I do not think I share your view of what mysticism is, but this:

> the creator up in the clouds ruling the universe

is what e.g. the olympic gods were, i.e. something that Christianity decries as idols, doesn't accept to be the truth and intends to overcome.

But the olympian gods surely were not portrayed as perfect or almighty, but full of flaws.

Not as perfect, although their origins were, but almighty as in unaccountable, unquestionable, and above any natural limits, yes.

He mentions that tailwind is more popular than ever before but their revenue is down 80% so unless he’s lying about that it makes sense rather than tailwind going out of style.

However, why is that even surprising? Tailwind is essentially a frontend css stylesheet. What business could there possibly be around that?

I understand, they have UI kits, books, etc. but just fundamentally, it was never going to be easy to monetize around that long term, with or without AI.

Tailwind also has a compiler of sorts (so you only include in the bundle the exact styles you need) and a bunch of tooling built around it. In an alternate universe it could have been a fully paid enterprise tool, but then it might not have caught on.

The comment you are responding to said their revenue is down 80%. So they did monetize training and services, and I don't see how that would have been a problem long term if AI didn't come along and make all of that unnecessary.

Yes. The point I was trying to make was that after the initial hype disappears, sales in those categories would probably taper off regardless. But it is purely my opinion.

I suppose Tailwind might be more popular because it fits AI development better?

It’s bad for society for the desktop OS market to be a proprietary monopoly. It basically allows Microsoft to extract rent from the public defender.

I do understand the evangelism being obnoxious. I don’t advocate for people to switch if they have key use cases that ONLY windows or OS X can meet. Certainly not good to be pushy. But otherwise, people are really getting a better experience by switching to Linux.

I find that running HDR games in standalone steam gamescope works great for my OLED tv. Not perfect, but great.

>In heaven the body has no more purpose

This is not the biblical teaching about the body. The hope emphasized in the Bible is for the resurrection of the body. This is why Jesus is resurrected bodily, and not as some kind of ghost. If the body was some kind of superfluous thing like clothes, this would make no sense. This is also why the Nicene Creed says “I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the World to Come.” The World to Come likewise is a renewed version of this world, where Heaven and Earth are united, in the same way that the body and soul are. This idea of the soul shedding the body is Platonic, not Christian.

As for the rapture itself, it is considered to be nonsense by virtually all biblical scholars, both secular and religious, but how it became such a widespread belief among Americans is probably for another website.

The Rapture is more of a pop culture thing than a widespread belief among Americans, but there is one notable exception: Evangelicals. For some reason Evangelicals latch on to some of the weirder parts of Christianity.

Can it vanish behind proprietary licensing? Pretty sure most of Valve’s stuff is under GPL so they can’t exactly evaporate that away.

You need unbounded recursion. Conditionals alone can’t do that. If you have some kind of conditional go to/jump if expression that’s a different matter.