I highly doubt it, most frameworks do indeed automatically prevent it these days. Still funny though.

No doubt. git rebase is like a very sharp knife. In the right hands, it can accomplish great things, but in the wrong hands, it can also spell disaster.

As someone who HAS used it a fair amount, I generally don’t even recommend it to people unless they’re already VERY comfortable with the rest of git and ideally have some sense of how it works internally.

Damn, they must be charging an arm and a leg then, or your firstborn perhaps.

Here’s another one, catch!

“Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.”

GitLens?

GitHub Desktop is literally “Baby’s first git GUI”.

Iron Maiden would like to have a word with you

I’m coming back, I will return
And I’ll possess your daemons and make your CPU burn
I have ring 0, I have your cores
I have the power to make my evil take its course

Well yes, internally that’s what it does, but from a user perspective it just looks like being handed the package, you never see any of the failed attempts (unless delivery fails completely because the company went out of business). It’s sorta more like having a butler who orders it for you and deals with any potential BS that might happen, and then just hands you the package when it finally arrives in one piece.

require 'castle'

begin
  Castle.attack
rescue Princess
  puts "Done"
end

from Castle import Princess

Done

Yes, but mostly because the general population likely isn’t super familiar with Bittorrent and PirateBay.

A better, yet similarly correct explanation would be to say GitHub is to Git what GMail is to email.

This also doesn’t confuse protocol and content, and it doesn’t require knowledge of piracy.