Do see the "limitations" section:

github-backup is repository-focused. It does not try to back up other information from GitHub. In particular, social network stuff, like users who are following you, is not backed up.

github-backup does not log into GitHub, so it cannot backup private repositories.

Notes added to commits and lines of code don't get backed up yet. There is only recently API support for this.

The labels that can be added to issues and milestones are not backed up. Neither are the hooks. They could be, but don't seem important enough for the extra work involved. Yell if you need them.

So, it backs up most of everything, just a couple of the deeply commented stuff doesn't work. All issues for example get backed up. It feels more like it back "most" things up and leaves out only a couple of things.

Microwave just the water, then put the teabag in after. Then it will taste the same.

It deletes the remote branch entirely, and then uploads the local branch.

This has nothing to do with git. It has to do with github.

Git already prohibits forced pushes if you use 'git init --shared' to create your repo.

Speed bumps such as being required to specify --force?

> his continued assertion that he should not have been allowed to do this thing that he did.

Well, if the repositories were created with "git init --shared" then it wouldn't have been allowed.

I think it's a valid position to believe that this should be the default on github, although obviously in this case, there might be blame-shifting motivation to that position.

> Rather than focusing on how to prevent a user from doing a silly thing like this, I think a well-designed tool would easily allow the user to undo the silly thing he just did.

Git does make it easy for the user to undo this. It provides the reflog for that. It also provides information in the output of the push command. (However, github does not allow users to access the remote reflog.)

In any case, you can blame github, and you can blame the developer, but at least we should all be clear that you can't blame git.

Put otherwise: to sort them all it's O(n/5*(5 log 5)) = O(n).

There's some choice involved in whether to have children... until you have them.

There's also some choice involved in whether you are making enough money to support your children -- but not that much.

In poor countries, children are an economic win because they can be made to work for their parents. In rich countries, children are an economic loss because they can't be (both by law and because child labor is not in demand).

Sunlight does not approach the cost of zero when there is private ownership of land. The legal right to collect the sunlight is attached to the land. Securing that legal right costs money.

You forgot to mention water rights too.

The thing is, such rights are at the end of the day, absurd. Such rights comes down to being able to exercise power to seize and hold land.

Did I mention in my original post, I talked about capital expenditure, and approaching zero expense? Land would be a part of that capital expenditure. Any ongoing expenses related to land would be the cost to hold land, whether that be through registering it with the government or to defend it against all comers.