>> I'm not talking about security in general.

> You can say that now, but that's not what you said previously. "There's no such thing as a "trade-off" when it comes to cyber security"

I literally followed that up by "either commit to it fully or don't use 2FA at all". You omitted crucial context there. Now I could have expressed that more clearly, sure, but the context is right there nonetheless.

>> the CEO running the show is in an entirely different category

> Not sure what you mean by this.

What I mean is that the guy is not just "a CEO" - it's the CEO of the very company in question here. So what I'm saying is that someone within an organisation - let alone the head of said organisation - has very different tools at their disposal than can or should be provided to their users.

> It is full of amateurs. Just because you don't find someone's work valuable, doesn't mean that they don't. Saying "Well it's not professional, so if you lost it then it doesn't matter" is not correct.

Amateurs don't lose 10s of thousands of dollars from losing their GH account. Again - omitting context. If your data isn't valuable to you (be that in terms of money of for sentimental reasons) then it doesn't matter indeed. Just like you'd protect physical assets, non-physical assets require protection as well and if you don't do that, said assets cannot be of much value to you, no?

> But people are human beings. Even if 99% of people have perfect back ups, that's still 560k (according to Github home page numbers) that will have failed backups or some other issue.

So what you're suggesting is putting 100% of users at risk because there's the odd chance that someone might lose data? That's just not reasonable at all.

> you keep widely including the term "decentralized", as if just because git is decentralized, that nothing on Github should matter.

Because it does matter in that all you need to do is to keep a local copy of your repo. With a centralised system you'd lose the most important part of the repo: the complete commit history and all branches.

This is not the case with git and "all" you'd lose would be external configuration, issues and Wiki pages, but even those can easily be exported and saved externally.

You can even re-import all of that to a new account if need be. Heck, you can setup triggers that synchronise the entire repo - including issues, projects and wiki to other providers or a local copy if you really want/need to.

The fact that millions rely on services like GH, GL, and BB doesn't change the nature of git.

Again - if your data is important to you - be that for monetary or private reasons - don't keep it in one place. Especially if that place can be locked away from you at any time for any odd reason. I don't understand why people these days have such a hard time understanding this, but using GH implies that you put your data on someone else's machine with little to no guarantees whatsoever.

None of these multi-million and billion dollar corporation deserve any of our trust and using their services comes with strings attached. Whining doesn't help - being aware of this and becoming a responsible and critical user who knows their options is what helps avoiding disasters like this.

PS: you should really start by looking into how git itself works (especially compared to centralised repos like SVN) to actually understand the importance of decentraised version control.