Just tried it. I liked how easy it was to set up colours/fonts etc, using the config file.
But I hit a snag. On macOS, it's standard that in any text window, to select everything for copying, you hit Command-a.
But Command-a in wezterm just printed an "a" character. What?
I spent a while looking in the docs and issues, but couldn't figure out how to Select All.
I don't think I should have to justify it, but in case someone's wondering - it's useful if you want to search or parse an entire Terminal session using some other process (eg, grep), or edit it, or just persist it for example.
Regardless of why, "Select All" is such a standard function it felt quite strange it wasn't suported out of the box.
Select all seems a bit risky in a terminal because it could contain way more information than you'd expect.
e.g. I want to `cat` a file to make sure i've got the right one, but I accidentally cat a full 1gb sql backup rather than the tiny 50 line script I was expecting. Sometime later, I try to select all, copy, switch application, paste for some reason but now I'm stuck waiting for 1gb to copy over
Personally I'm a bit more cautious about copying from a terminal.
Either way if that's what you really want to do, you can check the repo to see how other people scripted it into wezterm:
That a mostly-finished, working project of this complexity ends in fiasco can't be the fault of the contractors. What failed is communications - and apparently only on one side. Both Entropic and Dmitry were shocked by this outcome; not communicated with.
IMO the thing that may matter most here is the PR effect on Defcon. It's the badge - every attendee takes this thing home and engages with it. It's a talking point, memento and representation of the spirit of the conference.
That's an unmitigated PR disaster for Defcon. It doesn't matter to this who was right or wrong or what laws were broken, even if somehow all legally ended up in Defcon's favour, the damage to the brand is huge, enduring and set aside from those issues.
To address this, whoever at Defcon ultimately actioned this series of events should be held to account, for this PR aspect, and the matter immediately and publicly handed to someone with an appropriate understanding of Defcon's culture & reputation.
I mean, it does matter, and also HackerNews is the only bubble I interact with regularly that still holds on to the Twitter name like gollum and the one ring.
My understanding is that HN has rules against editorialization of headlines. This absolutely qualifies. The company is called X, the article calls it X. You don't have to like it, you don't have to use that name when you speak about the company, but editorializing the headline to name the company whatever the submitter wants is inappropriate.
"X" feels (to me) much more ambiguous than "Twitter".
If you say "Twitter", people know what you're talking about. If you say "X", are you talking about "X" marks the spot? Rated "X"? "X" the former project name for Paypal? "X" as in an unknown quantity? "X" is used in a lot of different contexts. I think if you want to use the name "X", then you should probably say "The company, X,".
Twitter is a verb, but when you use it as a noun, the listener instantly knows that you are talking about the company "Twitter". Plus, it's the name we are all familiar with.
I think there's a lot of variance between the different groups people here are part of and the different conventions they follow. That's broadly the case with HN actually.
Both names are linkbait. I think 'Twitter' is less misleading than 'X', so it wins the guideline on points.
Not saying it's a strong case, just that it tilts that way. Others would call it differently and that's always the case with a close call.
Just because you buy something doesn't mean you get to change popular usage by decree. There's a whiff of corporatism about that which sticks in my craw.
(I am not, god help us, making any implicit point about the muskwars.)
Well now that you mention it, the Twitter -> X, Facebook -> Meta, and Google -> Alphabet transitions are all kind of similar aren't they. I never noticed that before!
Those are distinctions without a difference in popular usage. Alphabet may own Waymo but in most people's minds (or at least in my mind) it's all one thing and the name of that one thing is Google. Similarly for FB and Twitter. You can change a name on paper but that doesn't determine how people talk.
There's another interesting aspect: the original names Google/Facebook/Twitter are so much more expressive than Alphabet/Meta/X. The latter feel like constructs of some imperious baron on his march up the abstraction ladder, leaving the rest of us cold.
It's a type of mainstream-media induced psychosis commonly referred to as "rocket-man bad" (related to the similar "orange-man bad").
Essentially, almost entirely one-sided coverage of two highly-influential people of contemporary times have warped some people's opinions of them into an irrational and often incoherent rage, leading to boycotts/"cancelling", etc.
In both cases, these were people who were widely-admired - in Musk's case among the same demographic now hates him - when the MSM supported them prior, which then 180°'d when the MSM machine turned against them, for whatever reason.
It's an interesting phenomenon to observe, but is also rather sad as it divides people quite nastily. My response here will likely be downvoted, flagged and receive endless repeats of the media misrepresentstions against both characters.
Criticism will likely be almost entirely devoid of balance, and especially absent of rational acknowledgement that eg, in the orange mans case, hundreds of millions of people love him enough to believe he will lead their country to prosperity.
Unfortunately, such division leads only to a bleak future for all involved, which is why I try here - humbly - to bring some light, and rationality to it, no doubt failing due to the nature of the problem and its effect on people.
X seems like a pretty much the same platform before and since Musk, only since Musk there is noticably-less "curation", and so discussion is more organic, so, some may find it more raw.
I like it better, but it's not particularly different really.
Well I'll be proudly labelled a "_____ denier" denier.
This pejorative term does nothing for anyone making any argument. It weakens your position because you're attempting to rely on emotions and psychology to make your case instead of... well, making your case!
It predictably has the reverse effect of your intention. Those who disbelieve you strengthen in their resolve because now not only do they disagree with you on a factual basis, but they also believe themselves to have been unfairly characterised in a pejorative way for their position. Dumb move, you had one obstacle, now you're made yourself have two.
If Christians went around calling Muslim's "Christ-deniers" instead of Muslims, how well do you think that would help tensions and resolution?
To me it's primitive and ineffective behaviour, and I lose respect for those who resort to it.
The unanswered question in some peoples' minds is the cause, not the effect. Like if you called people "forest fire deniers" for questioning whether it was arson or not.
The cause of increasing mean tempretures is well known, it's due to the increase in the insulating properties of the atmosphere, primarily (at the moment) from increased CO2 (along with water vapor, methane, other smaller changes).
We know the makeup of the atmosphere has changed from having "libraries" of atmospheric samples.
The source of increased CO2 is also known, we humans through industrial activity have mined many many billions of tonnes of fossil fuels (coal, oil) and released an excess of that gas into the atmosphere.
This is a change that is distinctly over and above natural variations in atmospheric makeup.
> If Christians went around calling Muslim's "Christ-deniers" instead of Muslims, how well do you think that would help tensions and resolution?
We could ask both of them to scientifically prove their faith and we’ll go with the successful one?
That’s facetious, of course, but it illustrates why this isn’t a valid comparison: religious faith is by definition dealing with things which cannot be measured scientifically while human-caused climate change has been the scientific consensus for half a century and has been rigorously tested using a wide variety of independent lines of evidence. Saying someone is denying that is valid because it’s a testable claim which can be rationally examined and independently confirmed, whereas a personal religious statement cannot because the successful religions in the modern era have evolved not to make claims which can be evaluated scientifically.
They’re called science denier, which isn’t much different, and “flat earther” has a significantly negative connotation as well. I think the term matters less than pushing things into the appropriate context: leave religion a person choice but reinforce the secular world as following rational principles.
I don't call them a science denier - which is about the most self-contradictory term anyone could come up with.
Science is the process of questioning and doubting prior science. You're not "denying science" to question science.
I call them "flat-earthers", as that's something that is usefully descriptive of their views and that they themselves seem happy to be called.
That is, it's a name that doesn't also necessarily insult them, which as I see it serves no useful purpose for anyone and simply causes antagonism and less of an ability to successfully communicate.
Which, by the way, is the only working solution to disagreement.
This type of response is called tone policing, which is often used against feminism or anti-racism advocates, who insist people use nice language while they are being denied basic existence:
We've tried raw science and data for more than 100 years when the oil industry correctly predicted our current levels of CO2, and then kept doing business as usual. We knew something was up around 1821, and had a firm grasp of the situation by 1861 (one eight six one):
Gladly. The response pretends to address the argument, but instead relies on another pejorative label rather than substantive commentary. It also tries to smear the original poster with an association to anti-feminist and anti-antiracist critics (while, I might add, conveniently recharacterizing those movements as merely calling for the use of “nice language”, and therefore apparently beyond criticism).
1. Tone policing is not a pejorative, it's just what they're doing. Saying "please sound nicer" IS tone-policing. If people don't like being told they're tone policing (lol), they should stop tone policing. Problem solved.
2. Association to racism and anti-feminism. Whether you choose to admit it or not, there IS a strong association between all of these. They didn't claim the original commentator was one, but they pointed out their argument is used by them, which is true.
And, the association is real and well understood. That doesn't mean it's a perfect association, like everyone who denies climate change hates women or something, but certainly the odds are higher. Because, generally, those beliefs stem from the same place. Conservative beliefs. Again, not all, but there ARE strings tying those together and they're not made up.
3. Lack of substantive commentary. Sorry, there isn't any to be provided. "Climate denier sounds bad" isn't really an argument, you can't disprove that. They're just noting that bending over backwards is ONLY really awarded to the most privileged. Meaning, nobody asks a climate denier to "sound nicer" when talking about the government. Just like nobody asks a racist to sound nicer in their racism, but if you call out a racist you could very well be told to sound nicer as to not scare them off. As if they're on the cusp of realization (lol).
More disingenuousness (or, perhaps, just lack of careful reading?).
1. The term “tone policing” was used here as a pejorative, discussion-terminating label. The response tagged the OP with that label and then did nothing to explain why this arbitrary tag mattered. The clear purpose was to discredit via name-calling.
2. Any association you perceive to exist to feminism and antiracism is irrelevant to this discussion. And you’re doing it again, by the way - lumping everyone under a label of “conservative beliefs” which nobody asked for. (I don’t fit that label at all, yet I agree with the criticism in the original post.)
3. “There isn’t any [substantive commentary] to be provided” almost perfectly encapsulates what is so grating and deficient about the rhetorical style and worldview on display in the response. “My position is so obviously right and self-evident that anyone who could dare to disagree with me shall be named and shamed, and not engaged with.” Had you paid some attention to the overall context of this discussion, you might have noticed, e.g., that one criticism of the label is that it’s being used against people who don’t deny climate change. Let that sink in.
> The term “tone policing” was used here as a pejorative, discussion-terminating label
Again, not a label, but an action. And it's not up for debate whether this was tone policing or not - it was, by the definition of tone policing. You could argue that it "ended the conversation" but I disagree. If you, or others, crumble and fold at even the slightest hint of critic I don't know what to tell you. I don't have that problem so maybe it's something you're doing, I don't know.
> Any association... is irrelevant
I was explaining the context, because yes that does matter.
> I don't fit that label
As I've said, it's not all inclusive or perfect. I don't even know why I bother writing careful if people are just gonna ignore it and lie about my intentions anyway.
> My position is so obviously right and self-evident
Again, if you actually read what I wrote I never said, implied, or even kind of implied this. What I said is that there's no argument to be had because these are just emotions.
I can't tell someone they aren't sad, or tell someone they aren't happy. That's not an argument, that's nothing. If you say you're some emotion about something then that's that, that's not a position that can be argued for or against.
I would receive this comment much easier if you were more honest. It's frustrating when I go through the effort to plainly explain my position and then someone like you can roll in and just... make things up. If you want to argue with made-up arguments then talk to a chatbot. I'm a person, you can't force an argument I didn't make on me because I don't accept it.
Your arguments are shifting like sand, and I think it’s because you don’t really want to discuss the crux of the issues I’ve raised. To simplify, I’m harping on two themes:
1. I think that labeling and stigmatizing are deficient forms of discourse. I am using these words to refer to the practice of attaching a loaded, in-group buzzword (such as “tone policing” or “privileged”) to a person or their ideas in a disqualifying or self-executing manner. I am also referring to the practice of smearing a person or their ideas by linking them to some other stigmatized group or idea.
The reason I think these techniques are deficient is that they have no chance of persuading people who are not already “in the fold”, and thus are not efforts at dialogue at all. They also tend to inflame, which is unproductive.
2. You (the generic “you”) don’t get to place your own ideas or beliefs beyond question. You don’t get to presume the correctness of your beliefs, and then use the fact that your opponent disagrees with you as proof that they are disqualified or worthy of stigma. You may think this works in your own mind, but others who do not share your beliefs will not accept it. So when you (the individual “you”) say “it's not up for debate whether this was tone policing or not,” you are wrong because you don’t get to decide what is up for debate. (It’s actually kind of ironic that you said this, because I actually don’t think the original post was an example of so-called “tone policing”.)
I think these two rhetorical tactics, and what I perceive as a certain kind of smug arrogance underlying them, have been very damaging to public discourse in recent years. I would go so far as to say that they are largely responsible for the world having to suffer a first Trump administration, and now possibly a second.
> If Christians went around calling Muslim's "Christ-deniers" instead of Muslims, how well do you think that would help tensions and resolution?
They'd probably laugh a bit; Muslims consider Jesus to be a legitimate prophet, just not the last.
That aside, religious stuff like "was Jesus the Messiah?" isn't quite the same as "is climate change happening". Some of the fervor around it may be religious-like, but the core facts are... facts.
Stop trying to lump a heterogenous collection of people with various views, opinions and concerns into a single term whereby you can conveniently dismiss them.
They have the common feature of, being glad to trade our lives for money. It's a helpful and useful label for people standing in the way of efforts to save our ecology and civilization.
That's what words are for. Nobody is going to stop because you're upset at being correctly labelled.
I mean when people are ignoring facts, to the point that its probably going to hurt people, I feel like I'm justified in trying to know who they are, like "transphobe", "racist", "ableist", "climate change denier". I'm aware that JK Rowling and Graham Linehan probably have various views, opinions and concerns, but neither of them want me and my friends to exist
I'm not dismissing the views of people who don't agree with climate change because two people are transphobic. I'm dismissing their views on climate change because of the wealth of scientific evidence we have that climate change is a thing that humans have caused
The problem is "people who disagree with climate change" is too poorly defined to be useful.
This is the pattern: group A comes up with a label for their enemy. They make some progress on getting everyone else to hate that group. Then group B comes along and decides to piggyback on that label for their own slightly different enemy. Rinse and repeat until you get this frankenbullshit:
> The report defined climate deniers as those who say that the climate crisis is not real or not primarily caused by humans, or claim that climate science is not settled, that extreme weather is not caused by global warming or that planet-warming pollution is beneficial.
Eventually, the label becomes useless for actually understanding what a person thinks because there are so many OR clauses in it. Despite this, people still use it for making actual judgements. The net result is the social climate today, where everyone righteously hates everyone.
A-fucking-men. That's our single largest development of the last 20 years or so: not smartphones, not AI, not social media. We developed the confident, decisive, emotional, and wrong use of fuzzy bullshit labels that mean something slightly different to everyone using them.
People are too busy being pious and righteous to be precise enough to actually communicate a point.
Frankly, the belief that massive increases in fossil fuel emissions have no appreciable impact on the Earth's climate is risible. People have a right to believe what they want, but we also have a right to ridicule and deride people for holding delusional beliefs.
Mainstream beliefs should be able to stand up to scrutiny and you're allowed to challenge them. But your challenge should have some basis in reality. If you constantly deny decades of accumulated evidence because it's mainstream orthodoxy, you're going to find yourself aligning with the flat-earthers and holocaust deniers.
> Seems an interesting engineering project, but like a terrible product.
Couldn't you say that about half the stuff posted here?
To me that's the "product" - an interesting engineering project targeted at people like us; a starting point for learning that can be taken further and those advancements potentially fed back into it, like all good open source projects.
As that kind of product, similar to a large chunk everything else built around RPi's and arduino's posted here (and... celebrated), it looks great to me and I don't get the hate. I was really excited to see it.
> Why would such a person want to have a robot which does away with that?
The same reason they want the many, often entirely pointless automations posted here daily, only this is not just fun, but also useful?
If this actually produces enough consumable food reliably (idk if it does, and be nice to see criticism along that angle), maybe also the cost could be justified?
IIRC it's ~$3K for the base model, seems it could pay for itself in a year or so if it could supply a years worth of fresh veges to a couple of people, depending on the local cost (which can vary a lot).
The main criticism against this seems to be it doesn't kill weeds. But it's an open system, with standardised, autonomously selectable attachments. Can someone come up with an attachment or two for it that could control weeds?
But I hit a snag. On macOS, it's standard that in any text window, to select everything for copying, you hit Command-a.
But Command-a in wezterm just printed an "a" character. What?
I spent a while looking in the docs and issues, but couldn't figure out how to Select All.
I don't think I should have to justify it, but in case someone's wondering - it's useful if you want to search or parse an entire Terminal session using some other process (eg, grep), or edit it, or just persist it for example.
Regardless of why, "Select All" is such a standard function it felt quite strange it wasn't suported out of the box.