One of the best tutorials on really "grokking" git concepts, and it's online and interactive: https://learngitbranching.js.org

For programming, start with buildings things for yourself. Be practical, start small, and iterate, regardless if you consider the previous iteration was a success or failure. I've heard good things about https://automatetheboringstuff.com/ (in Python) in this regard.

Can address it by writing code that doesn't depend much on indentation, which also makes code more linear and easier to follow.

In recreational climbing, skin calluses and surface abrasion aren't usually much of a concern compared to tendon health. Skin heals light damage quite easily.

However, it's not uncommon for a new (or experienced) climber to develop their muscles beyond what their own tendons can take. Since it takes tendons so long to strengthen, it's common to need managing the risk of finger pulley tendon injuries in climbing.

Also, I do not know how these nuances apply in your context of your medical condition.

There's the practical distinction between "everyone can do it with some dedicated intent" (so few actually bother) vs everyone can do it on a whim"

wanted to add something to the end of a for-loop, but had too little indentation

To address this, I prefer reducing length & depth of nested code, so the for/while is rarely ever not visible along with everything inside it. Others have success with editors that draw indentation lines.

opening up new/anonymous scopes

I occasionally use Python nested functions for this purpose

I find it's possible to operate Python as a statically typed language if you wanted, though it takes some setup with external tooling. It wasn't hard, but had to set up pyright, editor integration, configuration to type check strictly and along with tests, and CI.

I even find the type system to be far more powerful than how I remembered Java's to be (though I'm not familiar with the newest Java versions).

All methods? Of course not. Just methods like these.

I really dislike code like that. Code like that tends to lie about what it says it does and have non-explicit interactions/dependencies.

The only thing I can really be certain from that is:

  doAnything();
  if(doAnything2()) {
    doAnything3();
  }

I.e. almost nothing at all because the abstractions aren't useful.

I agree with the author overall, and I think it can be more straightforwardly stated. IMO it's the idea that wrong abstractions are even worse than other ills like duplication or god classes/modules. It's also reminiscent of "modules should be deep".

I prefer that, though (it's in my calendar, but I don't have to accept). I really can't stand Outlook's email-based calendar workflow.

That's only because the former already implies much of the latter, so they don't need to repeat it

In a sense, money represents all the future goods and services it can buy, and those goods and services ultimately resolve down to someone's time and effort. Money was conceived as a formalization of IOU's, after all.

So it's similar to asking whether there's a limit to how much time and effort from (i.e. influence over) others one would want.