QuadriLiteral

Thanks for posting, we use scratch in our montly CoderDojo, will be certain to give this a look!

I think motivation is a bit more nuanced than that. Also what is said isn't restricted to programmers. Money is an external motivator, which means it isn't really motivating as in providing fulfillment and energy when doing a job. It can give you a reason to to the job, "it pays the bills" or "it pays the bills extremely well", but that's something different.

That being said, I do look for jobs where I am motivated about the projects and the environment. In fact this is the main thing I evaluate when applying for a position. I also expect to be (and am) well-paid but I'm not aiming for the top bucks, because those jobs don't interest me. I'm spending 8 hours a day doing this work, a big majority of the high-quality hours of the week are sunk into the job. I'm happy I get to spend them doing things I enjoy, with people I enjoy working with, as opposed to having to slog through them just because I need the money.

BOOST_OUTCOME_TRYX may be what you're looking for. It's only available on gcc and clang though.

I rebase almost daily. I (almost) never merge the main branch into a feature branch, always rebase. I don't see the point of polluting the history with this commit (assuming I'm the only dev on this branch). I also almost always do an interactive rebase before actually pushing a branch for the first time, in order to clean up commits. I mostly recreate my commits from scratch before pushing, but even then I sometimes forget to include a change in a commit I've just made so I then do an interactive rebase to fold fixup commits into the commits they should've been in.

I like merging for actually adding commits from a feature branch to main (or release or ...)

And anyway... it's trivial to fix. If you still have the commit ID of the tip of the branch before the pull, go back to that. If not, look it up in the reflog. If that's too much of a hassle, list the commits you only have locally, stash any changes, reset to the origin/the_branch and cherry-pick your commits again and/or apply the stash.

I really embraced git once I understood that whatever I did locally, it's most of the time relatively easy to recover from cock-ups. And it's really difficult to lose work from the moment you've added it to a (local) commit or stashed it.

I do understand that git is daunting however, and there is plenty where I think the defaults are bad. Too often I've seen merge commits where someone merged a the remote of a branch into the local copy of the same branch, or even this on main. And once this stuff gets pushed it's neigh impossible to go back.

It's seems to be a github pages site, and github is up?

Failed experiment? SO is by far the best source for tech questions. It's wildly successful.

This is just a money grab

Generating revenue with products they're developing, the sheer audacity

I wonder if it would be possible to force people to pay for usage with licensing instead of what was tried here?