justsubmit · HackerTrans

justsubmit

no profile record

投稿

Adding hyperlink escape codes to terminal emulators

gist.github.com

1 ポイント投稿者 justsubmit7 年前0 コメント

コメント

7 年前議論

Well, dang, would you please enforce the guidelines fairly, then? You didn't chastise the poster of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21215968 for his disingenuous cherry-picking and condescending, flamebait accusations of using weasel words. But you ban this account for calling him out on his deception and lies.

Oh, but no one "flagged" his comment, so you probably didn't see it, right? That's always your excuse: you can't see everything, so you act on what other users flag.

Well, guess what, the users who flag things are disingenuous. So when you act on what's flagged and not on what the flaggers approve of, you act in an unfair, biased way.

It's two-faced for you to accuse me of causing "informational heat death" when you do nothing about the comment I linked. It should be you calling him out for that, not me; but here I am doing your job, and you ban my account and do nothing to his. Shamefully dishonest of you. An excellent example of HN moderators' bias.

You need not worry about death, because this place is walking dead. It's dead at heart, because lies can only rally people for so long. As more people find out the truth about HN, they will find and make alternatives.

7 年前議論

Because RDF looks like this:

    <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
    <rdf:RDF xmlns:contact="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/contact#" xmlns:eric="http://www.w3.org/People/EM/contact#" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
      <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/People/EM/contact#me">
        <contact:fullName>Eric Miller</contact:fullName>
      </rdf:Description>
      <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/People/EM/contact#me">
        <contact:mailbox rdf:resource="mailto:e.miller123(at)example"/>
      </rdf:Description>
      <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/People/EM/contact#me">
        <contact:personalTitle>Dr.</contact:personalTitle>
      </rdf:Description>
      <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.w3.org/People/EM/contact#me">
        <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/contact#Person"/>
      </rdf:Description>
    </rdf:RDF>

7 年前議論

I don't know what to tell you, either. The IPCC is not a scientific body, it's a political body. It's a source of misinformation.

Your posts are also full of cherry-picking.

Some throwaway.

7 年前議論

A prediction that fails to materialize is not a scientific one.

7 年前議論

Thou foul hypocrite and deceiver. I won't throw Wikipedia links at you for those terms, because you obviously know how to (ab)use it.

7 年前議論

> you don't expect your collection to retain long-gone files unless it's an ever-growing pile of tapes/discs.

Rule number whatever of backups: Don't discard old backups. Bitrot occurs, and people make mistakes, and newer backups can have flaws that older ones don't, which will go undiscovered until it's too late.

We're not talking about piles of tapes, we're talking about virtually unlimited disk space. State-of-the-art backup software chunks and deduplicates data and stores snapshots of directory trees. For most cases, there's no reason not to keep a subset of old snapshots, and many reasons to keep them.

7 年前議論

> What's your criteria for backup?

Something like Attic, Borg, CrashPlan, Restic, etc, that allow snapshot retention periods, like "1 per year for the last X years, 1 per month for the last X months, one per day for the last X days".

> I completely agree that something like RAID is not backup, but 30-60 days seems comparable to other backup services and covers most scenarios.

That doesn't protect against bitrot. e.g.

1. File is backed up (snapshot A).

2. File is slightly corrupted by bitrot, cosmic ray, etc.

3. File is modified by user, corruption is unnoticed.

4. File is backed up again (snapshot B).

5. "Backup" service deletes snapshot A.

6. User discovers corruption.

7. User looks to restore earlier versions until an uncorrupted one is found.

8. User discovers that all available snapshots were made after corruption happened.

Or replace "file" with "directory" and "bitrot" with "accidental file deletion" and the user still suffers from data loss.

Mirrors are not backups, and a few revolving snapshot slots is effectively a mirror.

7 年前議論

Wait, you think Clinton was going to start a war with Russia?

Did you miss how she sold American uranium interests to Russia?

Did you miss how Russia worked with her campaign to prepare the Steele dossier, i.e. how Russia worked with the Clinton campaign to prevent Trump from being elected?

Did you miss how the Obama administration (in which she was Secretary of State) worked with Russia, how Obama was caught on-mic telling Medvedev to tell Putin that Obama would have more flexibility after Obama was reelected?

These are all widely reported facts.

It's bizarre how people still think Russia wanted Trump to win the election.

7 年前議論

Ah, gatekeeping, how convenient.

1. Invent a pseudoscientific field.

2. Make normative, political claims from said field.

3. When people outside the field express dissent, invent a non-profit to "verify the credibility of influential claims," and only allow people in said field to join said non-profit and verify the credibility of said claims: https://sciencefeedback.co/for-scientists/

> To Apply: You need to have a PhD in a relevant discipline, have at least one published article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal within the last four years in the field they are commenting on.

To criticize climate science, you must first become a climate scientist, which requires assenting to the belief in the validity of climate science, because anyone who dissents from that belief would not be awarded a PhD in the field nor have peer-reviewed articles published in it.

So only people who agree with them are allowed to criticize them. Hm, sounds a lot like HN. And so scientific! I'm convinced, thanks for the link.

7 年前議論

> HOWEVER, with this new 7.0 release you can pay a little more and increase that retention time to one year, or forever. This was a highly requested feature for the situation you ran into.

I'm glad to hear that Backblaze has finally made such an option available. However:

> For cost reasons, Backblaze purges the files that you deleted from your local drive after 30 days.

As someone who once almost lost his PGP key and had to recover it from old physical backup media, I'd like to point out that that is not a "backup" service. It's sort of like a lazily expiring mirror, but it's definitely not a backup service.

Do you look at all of your files every 30 days? How long would it take you to notice that a random file had disappeared from the filesystem 7 layers deep? Have you ever needed to restore a years-old file?

(You need not explain why you do it; I understand about users who could use it as a cloud storage service by deleting files after they're backed up. The point remains that it's not a backup.)

7 年前議論

> There's definitely issues in science with things like repeatability in individual studies, but that doesn't apply to something like AGW.

That's nonsense. Not only have you not supported your assertion, but: 1) there's no reason to think that AGW is immune to these problems; and, worse, 2) AGW research is not reproducible, because it's not falsifiable, so it specifically does apply to AGW; and 3) even if you think models are meaningful, falsifiable predictions, the models have proven to be inaccurate. The claim fails in every way, from general to specific.

> It's supported by thousands (millions?) of papers, models, meta-studies, science bodies, and so on, all agreeing.

I have to wonder here if you actually believe what you're saying. "All agreeing"? That's a nonsensical, blanket statement. That's not science.

Five seconds on a search engine would prove to you that there are many scientists who do not agree with AGW hypotheses and alarmism. The parallels between your mindset and those of religious true believers who can't tolerate dissenting views are striking. Nope, don't look at any information that might contradict your scriptures, that might reveal their weaknesses, that might undermine the foundations of your faith.

> See for example NASA's overview: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

See for example this former NASA employee: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20997978

I worked on NASA's "Mission to Planet Earth" program for a few years. Cherry-picking of models that produce results that meet the current agenda is not uncommon. Just as researchers have a (deserved IMHO) reputation for publishing data that concurs with their topics...

> Gosh, you're furious.

Let's recap:

1. You accuse me of "bullshit." 2. I make a truthful claim. 3. You accuse me of lying. 4. I prove my claim and say you should retract your accusation. 5. You say, "Gosh, you're furious!"

Where did you learn to act so shamefully? You accuse someone of bullshitting and lying, then when they prove they're not, your response is, "lol u mad." You can't even handle the truth, and your trolling is predictable.

> He was not suggesting misleading the public.

Of course he was. But he's practiced at couching, characterization, deflection, and projection, just like you are.

Have you looked up John Cook's fraudulence yet? Can you admit that knowledge to your psyche, or does it need to be protected from dissent?

7 年前議論

That sounds really interesting. How do you manage the library, especially in regard to storage limits, expiring old content, etc?

7 年前議論

One may or may not like it, but that is language how literally works.

You may not like my swapping the definitions of those words, but that is language how literally works. Therefore, according to your logic, it is valid.

7 年前議論

Did you read about the 500 scientists who wrote a letter to the U.N. a few days ago indicating just that?

Well, you probably didn't, because the mainstream media didn't cover it. You'll have to search for it. Up to you.

7 年前議論

> I want peer-reviewed science, like the vastly significant body of research that has been produced showing AGW.

Are you also unaware of the peer-review crisis?

> No. You're the one insisting that the global scientific orthodoxy is wrong. You present the evidence.

Since you appeared to be unaware, I informed you that a particular, widely cited paper was discovered, years ago, to have been fraudulent, and that the information about it is freely available on the Internet. Five seconds on Google (or perhaps DuckDuckGo) would present you with the information.

You have refused to avail yourself of said information.

It is not my responsibility to educate you about science. If you care about scientific integrity, you can look up the information without any interference from me. If you prefer to remain ignorant and fixed in your beliefs, that is your decision.

> No, he didn't. Try looking up the original. But even if he did, it wouldn't matter. The science is overwhelming. It makes no difference what one individual said 23 years ago.

You accused me of "bullshit," but here you are simply lying. I have cited the original, and I have the original, and since you are willfully ignorant, I will quote it here:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

--Stephen Schneider in APS News, Aug/Sep 1996, p. 5

Now you can look it up and see for yourself, and then you can retract your ignorant lie and false accusation.

You obviously don't care about the truth. Climate change is your religion, and your faith is unwavering.

7 年前議論

> What blocks you from even considering the option?

Human biology, perhaps? After all, haven't we evolved over thousands of years to be omnivores?

> It's a little strange to see a comment so boastful of a lack of intellectual curiosity on HN.

In other words, according to you, people who aren't interested in being vegetarian lack intellectual curiosity. It's a little strange to see a comment so boastful of intellectual intolerance on HN...

7 年前議論

> Sure, they could try fighting a guerilla warfare, they'd even inflict some casualties against the enemy but it's unlikely that in the end they'd succeed against an army that is professional, highly skilled, better equipped, has better offensive and defensive capabilities, knows a lot more about tactics and logistics and has trained for this type of situation on a daily basis.

Have you heard of the Viet Cong?

7 年前議論

Wow, who could argue with such a great package.

BTW, since you care about reducing wealth inequality, can you send a dono to my paypal?

7 年前議論

That's right: when you can't answer, just downvote. If you didn't have 66,000 karma, maybe you'd be held accountable by the mods for religious and political flamewars. But since you do, you can act however you please.

7 年前議論

Your reaction shows that we have reached the crux of the matter.

Don't take my word for it. You're on the Internet. Look up the evidence about Cook's paper. Their fraud was exposed years ago, yet people continue citing him, his paper, and his Web site. (You probably won't find much about it on Wikipedia, of course.)

And the lies are nothing new. For example, Stephen Schneider advocated scientists and media deceiving the public in APS News Aug/Sep 1996, p. 5. It's been going on for decades.

> Papers rejecting AGW are in an extreme minority.

All the science that's been proven correct was once an extreme minority view. An argument based on the number of people who believe something is not a scientific argument.

And why would you make an unscientific argument about a scientific issue?