I've once again switched terminals, hopefully this time for good
I've tried them all I think, but these are the one's that mostly come to mind:
My plan now is to switch back to Alacritty (it just feels snappier), and use tmux for tabbing and session management. That is, tmux will be my default terminal a la:
## in ~/.bashrc if command -v tmux &> /dev/null && [ -n "$PS1" ] && [[ ! "$TERM" =~ screen ]] && [[ ! "$TERM" =~ tmux ]] && [ -z "$TMUX" ]; then exec tmux fi
The best part is that Tmux comes with a whole ton of handy plugins[4], where you can integrate cpu+mem+network+weather metrics into the status bar, meaning I can significantly clean up the status bar in my desktop and move everything into the terminal.
Plus you can save and restore tmux sessions across reboots[5], making it extremely handy for overcoming that initial early morning focus-inertia.
I just need to get used to typing C-b C-s more.
Hope this post convinces people that tmux is really more of a desktop manager itself (sans the windows), than just a cool multiplexing tool for detaching processes.
Happy Friday!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Refs:
1: https://github.com/alacritty/alacrittyI've loved tmux for since before I can remember (which can mean more than one thing at my age...).
I changed the prefix to Ctrl-a not too long into my tmux journey, though.
I think I did that primarily for speed, but wouldn't be surprised if there were a shortcut conflict involved. If so, I can't remember what it was - possibly for having avoided it all these years?
I think Ctrl-a is for "screen", which was my first multiplexer. I'm also tempted to change it, but there are so many different systems that I ssh into in which tmux is installed and my bindings not, so I've made peace with using Ctrl-b :-)
Oh, wow... haven't thought of 'screen' in ages - my first <coughs> as well!
Alas, I don't ssh anywhere anymore. I was an SDF user for a couple decades, but eventually found I could do everything I really needed (especially as needs dwindled) in whatever Linux that Chromebooks provide. And now needs in that realm are evaporating one app molecule at a time.
These days I can be fine anywhere I can have Vim and Lua in a reasonable scripting environment (even "cygwin"...).
I'm sort of in that mindset too -- I still have a highly customized emacs, but I keep most of the defaults just so that I can still mostly use my muscle-memory bindings elsewhere if needed
I'm occasionally frighted by how quickly muscle-memory evaporates at my age. Similar for coding language keywords/syntax. I've been out of the game maybe a year, and almost always have to grep previous scripts for how to do this Lua thing or that. And by the time I'm done grinding out another script, I'm typically increasingly convinced I'd have had a more peaceful/joyful life sans software.
Take last night (yes, a touch of the topic-drift, here..) My wife and I performed out on a rooftop overlooking one of the "Great Lakes" (ungodly gorgeous as sunset ensued), and during a break I conversed with another musician about the joy of spoken phrases evoking song memories, and it hit me that long before gazillion streaming music options, people in music-defined "clades" (per a recent post of yours) (except in this case the clades were defined by a rough musical genre, e.g. "top 40", "rock", "country", etc.) all heard the same songs AT THE SAME TIME. In other words, we're talkin' a very real clade/community binding waaaaaaaay above and beyond the happy horseshit claims of internet potential to stoke community. And such took place on a many-times-a-daily basis.
Tying that second paragraph back to the first, we developed the same musical-muscle-memory, and now use the phrases thereof in speech, "bringing it all back" on moments' notices, all winky grins of joy.
And that's amplified all the more for those of us that could retain the non-verbal aspects, i.e. notes and chords. We've become musical muscle memory teases - as in "teasing out" such memories, which further tease out memories of events and surroundings accompanying those songs back in the childhood-through-adolescence day.
That's normal, I think of it more as "language inertia". I use Python and R daily in my life and it still somehow takes me some time to adjust between these two languages (e.g. oh right I'm in R, how do I for loop again, oh that's right I'm not meant to...)
Your music community sounds genuinely magical, and I can just imagine you all buzzing to the same shared musical contexts, like pieces of the same brain.
Sometimes I lament living in a foreign land where I can't contribute much to the greater zeitgeist there due to the missing cultural references, but it awakens when I'm sitting with a group of english-speakers and we suddenly sync topic-wise on some shared thought. There, I'm a neuron flashing in rhythm with my neighbours.
Rant:
As for life sans software: No! It didn't have to be like this. Software was meant to empower us, automate the boring aspects of our lives, enrich us instead of hindering us. A smartphone in 2022 should allow users to communicate between their owned devices without using middleman software. Under the guise of better security from big corps, we've been hindered in that respect.
I think it did have to be like this in software.
As with socio-economic systems, the outcome was more some mathematical integral of the behaviors of all participants than some driving force.
To me in this moment, "big corps" are more a consequence of what we are - first personally, then amplified collectively - than some evil descending from above. They represent/reflect a fundamental lying/cheating/deceit of the vast majority of individuals ("when no one's looking").
I suppose one could argue they foster even more of such in subsequent generations, but where did they come from in the first place but this species as an interactive whole?
So of *course* the software situation had to go more the direction of big corps lording it over idiots, because as a species we're mostly idiots, imagining personal gain more in hidden subterfuge than in loving our neighbors as ourselves. It's this weird upside-down-ness where greater idiocy sinks to the bottom, and the bottom is from whence idiots are ruled.
Something like that. :-)
I'm gonna go to an unpopular (again, due to majority idiocy) analogy, and put it in your words:
"No! It didn't have to be like this. The Ten Commandments were meant to empower us, eliminate the destructive aspects of our lives, enrich us instead of hindering us."
And yet here we are....
Yeah, I know... I'm being quite the downer, here. *But* I do believe there's a way out of the madness - but within where the errant (let's call it..) "pseudo I" lives and reigns.
And you can bet your proverbial "sweet bippy" it ain't goin' down without a tooth and snail-mail fight! :-)
Hah - good analogy!
So I'm not in agreement that corps are the collective actions of the bad aspects of the many, but I think they're more the exaggerated bad actions of the few.
There's a Dawkins example here I can't quite think of right now, but it's something along the lines of there are two camps of people: Hawks and Doves. Hawks are abrasive, Doves hate confrontation.
Though I don't believe in such binary classifications of people, I do think everyone has Hawk or Dove like tendencies in certain situations, and ultimately that it just takes one single Hawk to dominate all the other Doves in a group. I genuinely believe this is how corps grow.
> So I'm not in agreement that corps > are the collective actions of the > bad aspects of the many, but I think > they're more the exaggerated bad > actions of the few.
Might the many be at least as culpable as the few for somehow letting a truly miniscule few have their way?
I like somewhat tidiness of the hawks/doves thing, but am hard pressed to think of there being many - if any - human doves not too far beyond the crib. To me it seems more like greater and lesser hawks - the latter rising to the beastly occasion when in the company of what they consider even lesser hawks, copping dove-hood when imagining doing so gives them an advantage ("a hawk in doves clothing"), whatever they imagine securing a bigger seed share.
Might the many be at least as culpable as the few for somehow letting a truly miniscule few have their way?
In my eyes: no. Everyone should be allowed to be born innocent and implicit trust in others is not a flaw but something to be praised.
That being said: cynicism and mistrust seem to be better factors in subjugating one's will over others, so if that there is a measure of "success", then cynicism wins out in that regard
> Everyone should be allowed to be > born innocent and implicit trust in > others is not a flaw but something > to be praised.
I agree in an idealist context.
But, take the "should" part.
Why? What within you drives conviction things "should" be other than they are? Have you ever encountered such environment? I mean, even in idealist contexts also known as movies, environments initially represented that way are soon enough revealed to be "the same old shit". Right?
And now onto the "be allowed" part.
By whom? Who has both the inner - to the point of consistently practicing - righteousness, and sufficient power to battle/overcome the forces of social evil?
Given the context of "the love of money is the root of all evil", and how it seems that those who love it the most wind up with the most... and that money is, amongst other things, a representation of power... taken all together, those in power are *necessarily* the scum of the earth with respect to social good, i.e. with respect to what "should" be.
What reverses/topples that?
(Apart from blogging, of course.... :-) )
Have you ever encountered such environment?
I've seen it in microcosms, but I believe the reason I haven't seen it in macrocosmic scales is because it hasn't been allowed to exist by malicious actors.
And yes I see your point, that are these malicious actors simply a natural reaction to a model that is implicitly unsustainable, to which I write: Nyyyyyyyooh!
I think any system can flourish if given the right environment, and it's up to us to provide that environment. Nothing spooky or cosmological about what models or motives can inherently work or not, all ideas can function in a given realm, you just have to provide the realm.
As to "by whom?" Governments are still richer than a lot of billionaires, and billionaires only spend the bare minimum to get what they want, meaning that they bribe only a few key players in the game instead of the entire boardset. All we need to do is create a system of governance where ranking officials are further ranked by their level of corruption, and held accountable to their actions.
A good first step towards this is moving past a two-party system and allowing proportional representation to stop people for voting for the lesser devil. I have faith that our democracies can still change this
> All we need to do is create a system > of governance where ranking officials > are further ranked by their level of > corruption, and held accountable to > their actions.
I like that... although the cynic in me quickly wonders how long before corruption infiltrates the corruption ranking, um.. ranks.
Which brings me back to thinking there's no hope for a solution until the preponderance of participants are decent at a bare minimum.
Probably quickly, but I'm sure there are some graph/network algorithms that are robust against corruption. You can never really cure it I guess, but mitigation or prolonging it might be enough.
In my effort to find examples I came across this cute site:
Interactive Trust Game