Your argument would be better received sans-ridicule.
I think the OP's point was that Garret hides a lot of features that are built into git and then attempts to paper over that fact by re-implemting those features within its own system.
In your first paragraph, you defend Garrit's rebasing procedure and then you implicitly accuse the OP of not being willing to "suck it up and learn something new".
Why should we learn a new tool that makes (arguably poor) attempts at re-implementing the features of a tool that we already know and love?
Now we have git, MVC 4 (now open source) and better unit testing support. Makes me think these are the results of some kind of long fought battle by a small group of progressives inside Microsoft.
I used to be a vim guy until the visual debugging in RubyMine won me over. That and (jump to function) is much better than keeping ctags up to date via a git hook.
How does a github outtage cause you to go 'dead in the water'. You're still using git.
If you need to share code among devs, you could always use git-daemon[1].
You're right in saying that the libertarian would say that a person is responsible for their own actions, but your argument lacks completeness. A company which pollutes water at large would suffer the consequences of its own actions. People aren't stupid; they'd notice the contamination and act.
Your argument implies a lack of faith in a single person or a small group of people to effect change. Do you believe that only government has the ability to keep our water clean?
> People aren't stupid; they'd notice the contamination and act.
Is this behavior guaranteed, and would the public necessarily choose to stay informed? Free markets are dependent on rational, informed actors; humans are neither rational nor informed 100% of the time. Some other thing would have to step in (an organization, a government, whatever) at some point.
> Your argument implies a lack of faith in a single person or a small group of people to effect change
If I owned the polluting company, I would likely have much more power than the poor sap I'm poisoning. Money seems to speak louder than actual words. Compared to some tycoon, a normal person is basically insignificant and is much less likely to cause any change.
> Do you believe that only government has the ability to keep our water clean?
I don't know what the right answer is, but to put it bluntly, your approach seems like a deeply flawed one to me.
This comment is well intentioned but fails to compel any non-libertarian to consider Paul's opinion. It is true that Paul is unfairly (perhaps unjustly) portrayed by the media as, to put it plainly, crazy but whining about how unfair it is won't help matters.
Ron Paul's message places personal, financial and social liberty at esteem and condemns government encroachment on these liberties. His career as a congressman is consistent with his message which is saying more than can be said of any other politician. For these reasons, the man deserves to be heard and he deserves your respect.
The least anyone could do is read the actual transcript of the address--techcrunch doesn't do it justice.
He also says something of a little more substance that, maybe, lines up with the deeper HN sentiment:
"Our individual goal in life ought to be for us to seek virtue and excellence and recognize that self-esteem and happiness only comes from using one’s natural ability, in the most productive manner possible, according to one’s own talents."
I would argue that no other politician could state such a clear and meaningful fact. The guy is as sincere and level headed as they come, which is what makes the media's portrayal of him so tragic.
I think the parent was talking about the screen shot with the big green rectangle in the center when he said "the end result". I, for one, thought the writing felt a bit rushed and perhaps overblown with the whole "you're lazy if you don't customize bootstrap" tone. But the tools you linked to seem like they're pretty useful, so I think you achieved your goal of raising awareness of how easy it is to customize bootstrap.
Totally agree. Sometimes I think bootstrap is moving us toward a more consistent UI across the web which means users benefit by not having to learn yet another set of interface metaphors. A fresh set of colors can keep things interesting, but people shouldn't be discouraged from using stock bootstrap.
Absolutely love the design and the idea! Just one small issue: I'm using a MBP but, for reasons that that I won't take the time to explain, I spend 90% of my time in bootcamp (windows 7). I can't seem to get past any single quote(') characters.
I think the OP's point was that Garret hides a lot of features that are built into git and then attempts to paper over that fact by re-implemting those features within its own system.
In your first paragraph, you defend Garrit's rebasing procedure and then you implicitly accuse the OP of not being willing to "suck it up and learn something new".
Why should we learn a new tool that makes (arguably poor) attempts at re-implementing the features of a tool that we already know and love?