(Don't tell my Mom)
How about somebody with some god damn knowledge and care takes that meaningful domain and actually provides a concise point-by-point difference between Git and Mercurial? Maybe even a feature-comparison table? That might actually be fucking useful.
This isn't clever. By voting it up instead of flagging it you're only proving you are also not clever.
"...not what someone on the internet tells you to."
Really? Is it really so bad or so unreliable to read what someone on the "internet" said? In fact, I think you'd find little in print that is up to date focusing specifically on a comparison of gitvsmecurial, and what's out there doesn't have comments replying to the most obvious weak points or updating with new information. A good, up to date, reasoned argument online from a reputable blogger-hacker? Reading someone else's argumentation isn't just about blindly listening to someone else; they may bring up new information or new points that you hadn't thought about.
And why does this sound like something a curmudgeonly old book editor might be saying about blogs and the Internet rather than a hacker working with the latest distributed version control tools?
And, yes, given the new and evolving nature of Git and Mercurial, if I'm not going to listen to someone on the Internet, I'm pretty much stuck listening to my Mom. And she still uses AOL email.