iTerm2 3.0's tmux integrations take a little bit of work to set up locally, but you only have to do that once, and as long as your remote servers have a reasonably recent version of tmux (1.8, I believe), just replace filippo's `mosh HOST -- tmux a` with `ssh HOST -t 'tmux -CC new -A -s main'` (no mosh required).
yes, mosh isn't required, except with mosh you get magic roaming, disconnection support, etc. mosh is the best way to do remote shells from a mobile device (laptop, phone, etc).
Isn't the 'disconnection support' (and by extension, roaming) one of the big points of tmux? This is one of the reasons why I never bothered with mosh -- I have screen/tmux, what's the point?
After frustratedly fixing an unsolvable Rubik's cube over Christmas break (my dad thought it'd be funny to "solve" it by peeling off the labels and putting them back on, but got tired halfway through and left it in an unsolvable configuration), I'd love to see what their robot does if you give it an unsolvable cube.
Every time there's a minor version update I have to remind myself the sequence of upgrade incantations. It's pretty simple, but here's a gist that might help anyone upgrading from 9.4 to 9.5 with Homebrew:
Another paywall workaround is to use/spoof Google search as your referrer.
In Chrome, for example, install the "Referer Control" extension and add an entry for "ft.com", select the "Custom" referer setting, and paste "https://www.google.com/" (without quotes) into the textbox for that entry.
Interesting proposition though; can Google's search algorithm's ranking be construed as libel or something legal like that? Has anyone ever sued Google for lost business, and won?
I'm sure they did a lot of user testing and decided that their Javascript-powered scrolling mechanism was a better user experience than the default browser behavior of just moving up and down proportionally to your mouse wheel.
You can also request that the Web Archive fetch a URL from their homepage: https://archive.org/web/ ("Save Page Now" in the bottom right). I triggered the 7:09 copy this way; whether or not the other four fetches yesterday were also manual, I don't know.
> file.io is a project of humb.ly. It was created simply out of the joy of trying to build cool things on the internet, and we thought it may be useful for others. We take privacy very seriously and do not save any data once it has been deleted.
But going to humb.ly still doesn't really get me to trust you, there's not even any identifying info on that page. Two projects, one discontinued and one -- it seems -- novelty "religion".
It said that before, too — I was paraphrasing. "humb.ly" is a more trustable name than, say, "Megaupload", but they can say whatever they want.
What I want is some assurance like "The EFF has complete read-access to our platform and maintains a continuous independent audit of these services to verify that we comply with our own privacy assurances." The EFF is probably not the organization to do such a thing, but that's kind of what I'm looking for.
If you are that concerned about security you should be willing to deal with the effort of encrypting it client side and understanding how to also decrypt on the receiving side.
If paranoia is this high, why would a security policy text on a web page make any difference? They could claim anything they want, but you wouldn't have any idea if any actual encryption was happening, so best to do it yourself.
I was curious as well so took a look at the durations. This is over 2.5 hours of content. About a layout system. I have to agree with another commenter, either this is far too much content or what should be a pretty simple layout system is insanely complicated.
If you're unwilling to spend two and a half hours learning flexbox, you're asking for a bad time with CSS in general. The flexbox spec alone is about 18,000 words long, which is about an hour and a half reading time for most people, to say nothing of comprehension or grasping the nuanced details.
One could spend a lifetime learning the geometries of grid systems, so 2.5 hours seems pretty reasonable to me.
Except you haven't learned much after watching those two and a half hours. I would argue reading this [1] or this [2], while simultaneously mocking up a flexbox grid will give you at least the same amount of knowledge in much less time.
I generally agree that reading is a lot more efficient but some people have different learning styles and videos work a lot better for them.
There's also (bad) university lectures that are essentially just the textbook in lecture form without much extra benefit. I've always wondered why people bothered attending these since I'm a "book learner". I've had a couple of long talks on the topic and now understand that some people simply learn better with audio. Unfortunately for them it's less convenient than reading (time wise, quick reference etc.) but it's still good to have the option.
Lynda.com would be screwed if people knew they could just crack open some reference material instead of wasting away in front of friendly introductory videos where another human eases them into a new subject!
Creating a layout is not a simple problem, but implementing it is. The reason 'most applications suck' is more likely because of the designer (or lack thereof).
It's a lot, but it's mostly ordered by importance so if you only need to know the basics, you could easily watch the first few videos and be happy with that until you need the rest someday.
