Forrester: No thinking - that comes later. You must write your first draft with your heart. You rewrite with your head. The first key to writing is... to write, not to think!

For instance, if the user selects a phrase, a button to "Rewrite this phrase" is revealed along with a text input in which the user can describe how they would like the phrase to be rewritten. The user might type "to be funnier" or "to be more melancholy", and the Wordcraft application uses LaMDA and in-context learning to perform the task.

Thus his notes will be legible, interesting and complete,and more than this, the process of rewriting wll fix the various points muchbetter in his mind at a time when it is most susceptible to them, than anystudy from cold notes can do .

Justice Louis D.Brandeis instructedlawyers that “there is nosuch thing as good writ-ing. There is only goodrewriting.”23

the idea of playing Shakespeare’splays as he wrote them, and not in the “modernised” versions of Cibber andGarrick, which once seemed to be the latest thing in theatrical progress.

Yes, precisely because I've been involved in maintaining codebases built without real full stack frameworks is why I say what I said.The problem we have in this industry, is that somebody reads these blog posts, and the next day at work they ditch the "legacy rails" and starts rewriting the monolith in sveltekit/nextjs/whatever because that's what he/she has been told is the modern way to do full stack.No need to say those engineers will quit 1 year later after they realize the mess they've created with their lightweight and simple modern framework.I've seen this too many times already.It is not about gatekeeping. It is about engineers being humble and assume it is very likely that their code is very unlikely to be better tested, documented, cohesive and maintained than what you're given in the real full stack frameworks.Of course you can build anything even in assembler if you want. The question is if that's the most useful thing to do with your company's money.

I know a number of my subs and viewers are in India and I've noticed on Twitter and on Abhijit Chavda's channel that there's quite a bit of controversy about the way Indian History is taught to Indian students. That interests me a lot, but what I'm PARTICULARLY interested in is, how World History surveys throughout the world cover world history. If part of this involves continuing the narratives introduced by colonizers, like the Aryan Invasion myth, that's relevant to my question.

Preserving history; we often find ourselves using the git blame tool to discover why a certain change was made.

Preserving commit hashes; we use commit hashes in binary names and our issue tracker; ideally, these references remain intact.

In case you want to put project-a into a subdirectory, you can use git-filter-repo (filter-branch is discouraged)

Note: This rewrites history;

If you want the project's history to look as though all files have always been in the directory foo/bar, then you need to do a little surgery. Use git filter-branch with the "tree filter" to rewrite the commits so that anywhere foo/bar doesn't exist, it is created and all files are moved to it:

A backronym, or bacronym, is an acronym that is assigned to a word that existed prior to the invention of the backronym.

"that text has been removed from the official version on the Apache site." This itself is also not good. If you post "official" records but then quietly edit them over time, I have no choice but to assume bad faith in all the records I'm shown by you. Why should I believe anything Apache board members claim was "minuted" but which in fact it turns out they might have just edited into their records days, weeks or years later? One of the things I particularly watch for in modern news media (where no physical artefact captures whatever "mistakes" are published as once happened with newspapers) is whether when they inevitably correct a mistake they _acknowledge_ that or they instead just silently change things.

If the reality is you pushed out a release that doesn't even compile, and then you spotted the typo six minutes later, that's fine, that's what the git repo should show. Don't come to me asking if there's a way to change history so that it seems as if it didn't happen that way. How does that help anybody?

# Two commits are considered the same if they have the same tree and # the same commit and author metadata. This is how we re-identify # commits after their hash IDs have been rewritten.

What I think we're lacking is proper tooling, or at least the knowledge of it. I don't know what most people use to write Git commits, but concepts like interactive staging, rebasing, squashing, and fixup commits are very daunting with Git on the CLI, unless you know really well what you're doing. We should do a better job at learning people how to use tools like Git Tower (to give just one example) to rewrite Git history, and to produce nice Git commits.

pywb Documentation, Release 2.0The default JS rewriter does not rewrite any links. Instead, JS rewriter performs limited regular expression on thefollowing: *postMessagecalls * certainthisproperty accessors * specificlocation =assignmentThen, the entire script block is wrapped in a special code block to be executed client side. The result is that client-sideexecution oflocation,window,topand other top-level objects follows goes through a client-side proxy object.The client-side rewriting is handled bywombat.jsThe server-side rewriting is to aid the client-side execution of wrapped code.For more information, seepywb.rewriter.regex_rewriters.JSWombatProxyRewriterMixi