People seem to conflate two things in this discussion: interpersonal issues (which are valid to talk about) and technical disagreements. Conflating these two can only lead to drama and reflects really poorly on the participants. Come on aren't we all adults here?!
Yeah, I think this is a solved issue. People just share physical media with the content they need.
Which is more useful than this proposed solution, because they usually don't misguidedly respect copyright monopolies.
I still don't get what is wrong with the _ convention. Also please stop complicating the mental model of languages for no good reason (also looking at you C++).
Because the working part of an organisation such as the one you describe tries to continually optimize away these restrictions. NPM (et al) is a good way to obfuscate the fact you're pulling unknown code to get shit done and processes haven't caught up yet.
I'm not saying this is good, but the reality with these company-internal restrictions is, that the most productive people find ways around them and are rewarded for it.
Meh, being able to synchronise an append-only tamper proof linked list and control who gets to put what on it in a decentralized way is pretty cool. Not to mention it's far easier to implement with limited means, than 5nm chips, or large tansformer models.
(Also implementing money on it does seem pretty intelligent -- its a scarcity device -- peoble just seem to do stupid stuff with it)
Git (and any merkle tree) already implements a tamper proof linked list, there’s no reason to burn electricity in a proof of work algorithm to accomplish this.
Controlling who gets to put things in it in a decentralized way isn’t as important as many people think, at the end of the day almost all applications (other than currency) can just use a central authority to publish hashes.
> Git (and any merkle tree) already implements a tamper proof linked list, there’s no reason to burn electricity in a proof of work algorithm to accomplish this.
You should probably reread git’s documentation if you think git push -f rewrites any commits. It doesn’t. It makes new commits and re-assigns the named branch to track the new commits you just pushed. It rewrites branch names, not commits.
It is impossible (without finding a SHA collision) to rewrite a commit in git.
And before you say “yeah but how do you know which SHA sums are the right one if you don’t trust branch names”, please reread the final paragraph of the post you replied to.
