figured it out. in the connection box just append :port-number to the hostname/ip address, e.g. user@server:7 to have it try port 7. you should see it reflected in the connection detail text below the box
Not saying there aren't things the dev could do to improve that situation, but I experienced the same thing and was confused before I scrolled back up to see that the app store "helpfully" displayed: "showing results for echo show, search for echo ssh instead?"
Mind if I ask how much these cost? I've been wanting to get my whole lower replaced due to significant wear and this would be a great excuse for a trip to Vienna.
"You have an entire generation of what looks like cheap plastic toys with screens on them when we were promised a future with risk, innovation, the fantasies of Trek and Inspector Gadget laid out in front of us"
Er? Current Apple devices have a distinctly TNG Federation feel to them to me. Now borg on the other hand...
I got excited starting this article when he mentioned cyberpunk I thought he was going to make a much more interesting point than "I wish tech looked like what I think is cooler". Instead, I really would have enjoyed a discussion about what kind of things may be possible if we dropped the constraints of minimalism. Ideas about what amazing functionality and experiences technology could deliver for those whom don't mind their technology not being as invisible as possible and instead being more, well, large clunky cyberpunky. I would have enjoyed this specifically because with my limited imagination I can't think of a whole lot of additional /exciting/ functionality such an unbounding would enable.
I really think companies like Apple and Google can execute like nobodies business in the car market, but then I see how uniformly terrible software made by car companies is, and wonder if they didn't think the same...
I really think companies like Apple and Google can execute like nobodies business in the car market, but then I see how uniformly terrible software made by car companies is, and wonder if they didn't think the same...
Good points. I'm in the camp that sees the claimed benefits of SIT as a logical extension of cardio exercise to the set/rest/set approach of weightlifting, but this study doesn't really answer that question. I'd really like to see an "equal time" comparison group to account for newb gains (e.g. MICT for 10 min vs SIT for 10 min) as well as directly compare the effect of the different approaches.