I really had a difficult time parsing that, and I'm still not quite sure I fully understand it. I found myself losing concentration when I knew it was going to require my full attention to understand it. I still don't think I understand it. Perhaps I'm not trained to read this style of writing, or perhaps my brain just isn't capable.
At any rate, I'm glad other people seem to enjoy it!
That's fine, of course. No work of art is meaningful to everyone. I think it's admirable that you earnestly tried to engage with it; you didn't dismiss it as pretentious or vapid because you didn't get much out of it.
I read the poem as elevating the player -- and humanity in general -- as 'dreamers', those who create worlds. It hints that building worlds in simulacra and in reality may not be so different, and there may be a higher consciousness yet to be discovered.
There are a few reasons why the poem is meaningful to me: it promotes a feeling of connectedness between all humans; it implies my time playing games is not time wasted; it uses imagery that conjures strong emotions of sadness and happiness; the prose and rhythm are beautiful. Also, Minecraft is one of the precious few games that's both wildly successful and also 'bares the soul' of its creators a little by including something like this. Strong creative expression is a joy to see.
What is the best Pandora-adjacent service these days? In other words, where can I plug in "Artist X" and get a great platter of recommendations?
Spotify doesn't cut it for me -- the recommendations are either hyper-generic or songs that I've listened to many times in the past. Last.fm doesn't seem to have many lights on these days.
Pandora, in its early days, was a great place to discover new music because it would find songs that were roughly similar to what you requested but by often unheard-of artists.
I use a site called https://www.queup.net which is a successor to turntable.fm. You find a "room" with a genre of music you like and just sit back and listen to people DJ using soundcloud and youtube videos. I have it on all day in a room that is majority electronic/chill/lounge and mostly non-vocal. I've learned about so many artists this way but you need to find an active room you like, and sites like these tend to skew towards the many different electronic subgenres
I haven't personally used it, but I do know that ListenBrainz offers a Last.FM-esque experience, and I see it does have a "similar artists" section. I'm in a similar boat as you though. Most of the Spotify-generated stuff is just repeats of songs I've already liked or just generic songs.
I've been diving into the past about artists I've been meaning to check out and also using Rate Your Music to stay semi-conscious of what's popular today.
Bandcamp has a "if you like this, you may also like" feature which seems to be unbiased by listening history and allows unheard-of artists to crop up. I've found a few good recs that way although it can be hit-or-miss.
I used to use Last FM for this, but no longer. I think this needs to be brought back on modern services. An artist might be in a totally different genre but if they have the same ‘feel’ you might like both
The article seems to (loosely?) imply that there's a connection between the outage and some sort of an internal employee protest, although I think it's incredibly shoddy journalism at best.
There's actually quite a collection of heated clothing, which is much easier to make. Milwaukee, Dewalt (and probably all the big power tool makers) make heated jackets and vests.
yeah. the worst thing about moving from Boston to California wasn't the first winter, but the second one, where my body had forgotten how to deal with mild cold.
Is there a good primer on the history of unionization in the United States?
I've been living here for almost half a century and I know next to nothing about how it works. I've read and enjoy Grapes of Wrath, have heard about the Pinkertons, and have seen one or two picket lines in the streets of Downtown Austin. But I still have no clue how any of that stuff works. It seems like a vastly different world to me.
As I understand it, this book is generally polemical and caters more to activism than disinterested truth-seeking. A book taking an opinionated position on a big topic is totally forgivable and above board for a non-fiction books, however when I see that it is the primary reference for so many different ideas, I get concerned that too much is taken for granted. I see enough objections, especially on its treatment of history, to this book whenever it is mentioned for me to approach it with a good deal of skepticism.
I haven't even read it, so I have to reserve judgement. It does appear to be very influential, so it is high on my political reading list whether I like it or not.
All of this is said to build context for what I'd really like to ask: what were your expectations when your read People's History of the United States? Did you have similar reservations?
As a self-described disillusioned centrist, I have to raise my eyebrow when I see that so much political prescription appears to be based on this singular book that generally appears to be an other-side-of-history opinion piece.
I'm in the same position as you re: popular political books, although I would not describe myself at all as a centrist.
A while back, I read "Rise and Kill First", which is a history of Israel's assassination programs dating back to the Irgun, and I attempted to read "Killing Hope", which is similar, but about the CIA. "Rise and Kill First" is clearly written by someone who loves Israel, but is deeply disturbed by the long history of these assassination programs. "Killing Hope" is written by someone who is, if not actually a tankie, certainly tankie-adjacent. Even as leftist as I am, I found it intolerable and had to put it down. I fully expect that I'll have the same response to Zinn.
I am not the person you responded to, but I have read Zinn and yes, it is very obviously written with a bias. That is to say, not only does he have inevitable subjective bias that all historians have, he is very pointedly writing his book as a corrective. The book has many good qualities, but neutrality is not among them. This isn't a problem unless the people who read it aren't aware of that.
Not that I'm arguing for or against preventing access from AI crawlers, but wouldn't it make more sense to block them at a higher level, e.g. the webserver, and not even give them the choice to obey/disobey robots.txt?
I'm using https://github.com/vrtmrz/obsidian-livesync with IBM cloudant as described by the documentation. It handle my android phone, a windows laptop, a windows desktop and a linux desktop
> Ultimately we would like to formalize this schema and a protocol to extract or expose it from apps. This which would allow Trogon to build TUIs for any CLI app, regardless of how it was built. If you are familiar with Swagger, think Swagger for CLIs.
It's mostly just a README right now, and I'm still iterating on it, talking to friends, but I think I'm getting close. It's definitely not yet written for the average developer to consume yet either. My hope is within the next month or two I might have a usable alpha release of it. I have a use-case for it now so I think it’s finally ready to happen.
Ive sort of managed to implement something to this effect in python, and from another comment made me consider yanking it out to its own library.
I made a process where args are now in a toml file, with some various data for different operations, like whether its available in the CLI or API library, its arg flags, help text required value type, etc. From that, i can generate argparse args, documentation, code for other things, etc. Right now im generating args, docs, and a js code block from the same structure.
You probably already know, but just in case you don't, you might read about http://docopt.org/ It seems to me a lot of your usage ideas could be refinements of / tooling around docopt-style interfaces.
Yeah I investigated. I don’t think it works well that direction. It is appealing and you can see some elements of it in my current design, though that’s a particular part I’m still unsure of.
It gets way too complicated real quick and a lot of things you _dont_ want to expose in documentation. It’s better to generate docs from a spec than the other way around, I’m pretty sure of this now.
There is also generating the whole thing from a function signature (e.g. https://github.com/c-blake/cligen ) since then CLauthors need not learn a new spec language, but then CLauthors must add back in helpful usage metadata/semantics and still need to learn a library API (but I like how those latter two things can be "gradual"). It's a hard space in which to find perfection, but I wish you luck in your attempt!
My goal is that one day framework authors will adopt this (they might do it quickly since it’s a hell of a lot easier to dump a usage spec and generate completions than it is figuring out how to write completions for each shell).
At that point it would make sense for them to also make scaffolding generators, meaning the cli author only has to write one spec and don’t have to repeat the effort for their code so much.
I think there are 2 ways usage will be used, either as an under the hood format used by frameworks to make frameworks better, or directly by users to scaffold framework code
Ah sweet, I have been wanting to do pretty much the same thing, have found one or two bits of prior art but nothing that has caught on. Very interested.
There are a lot of super useful "!" commands documented in the bash manual in the section entitled 'History Expansion'
!! which you know runs the previous command in your history. It's just short for !-1
!123 runs the 123th command in your history
!gi runs the most recent command in your history that begins with letters g and i
!* is the args to the most recent command
!$ is the last argument to the most recent command
!:0 is argv[0] of the most recent command (i.e. the program name)
These can be combined:
!g:$ is the last argument to the most recent command that began with g
They are also really handy in backquotes since you can do things like grep foo `!find | egrep .cc` because your find command was almost right
Sometimes you can get away with a ^ substitution:
git add foo.cc bar.cc
oops
^add^reset
There are a lot of such commands that let you use the basename of the argument etc. After a short while they are so automatic they are easier to type than the actual command name ("I just want to do that thing again but with this filename"). These have actually become so deeply wired that I had to think to write them down because I use them “without thinking”.
So this is handy with normal commands:
git-add foo.cc
<do some stuff>
!g:0 bar.h
git-add foo.cc bar.cc
<do some stuff... oh wait, I didn't mean to do this>
git-reset !g:*
But with subcommands, you end up matching against all the git operations; !* matches all the arguments to the `git` command including the subcommand so you can't conveniently say "yes, that last git command but I want to change the subcommand"
I don’t care if you have `git add` as long as you also have git-add, which is more easily scriptable and simply easier to use.
The `git add’ approach always reminds me of using a mouse and a menu (ugh): select the git option, drag down until you get to the “add” subotion and then…. Supposedly that’s more “discoverable” and maybe it is, but you don’t need discoverability for the things you use every day!
I really had a difficult time parsing that, and I'm still not quite sure I fully understand it. I found myself losing concentration when I knew it was going to require my full attention to understand it. I still don't think I understand it. Perhaps I'm not trained to read this style of writing, or perhaps my brain just isn't capable.
At any rate, I'm glad other people seem to enjoy it!