The author has a severe case of being oblivious to the fact that not everyone knows what they know, or views the world the way they do. As shown for example by their assertion that "we all stopped coding manually around December 2025", as if AI critics don't exist.

As a result you have to look at what they share about themselves to infer where they're going with things, because they never explicitly state it. All traits amplified for the worse when people use chat bots too much, in my experience.

Scrolling to the end, they write:

> In 2005 a dozen version control systems fought to replace Bitkeeper, and the winner ended up ruling software development for two decades. Nobody in that race predicted that the decisive factor would be a hosting site with a social network on top.

They had a VCM start-up around their own technology, then Git displaced all other technologies, and then Github ate everyone's lunch. So the first revolution not-so-coincidentally overlaps with the time they ran a SCM startup, and they ignore anything that happened before they entered the space. Funny that.

So the implicit context is the business case and programmer culture around VCM systems.

Meaning the second revolution is anything that challenges Git and Github.

They also keep bringing up gigantic mono-repos and how Git can't handle the scale at which AI increases the amount of code bloat or commits.

So what I read between the lines is that they believe that there are enough people who don't want to actually address the automated hyperscaled Wirth's Law in the room, and are willing to pay services and technology to adapt around it instead.

That's their new business case that will power the second "revolution".

Which sounds horrifying to me, and the worst part is that I can actually see it happening if this AI bubble doesn't pop fast enough.