> If novelty in music is actually important to you, this won't happen to you.
Assuming what's "actually important to you" remains fixed as you age. The article suggests otherwise, with caveats:
> At the same time, stagnation is not a certainty. Research suggests that open-eardness and the discovery of new songs can be cultivated. Finding new music is a challenge, but it is achievable with dedicated time and effort.
Under the "Recreational Fun" heading at the bottom:
> Out shopping or sightseeing and need to leave Motocompacto outside? The steel welded lock loop on the kickstand is designed to be compatible with most bike locks.
> what benefits that brings above and beyond iTerm for local shell sessions
> For anyone else using tmux locally, I'd be interested as well.
I run tmux in iTerm2 on macOS; tmux is my window-manager of choice for terminal applications; shells, nvim, etc. I usually have 2–10 tmux “windows” (more like tabs) with 2–4 split panes in each (more like tiled windows). I generally never detach from my local tmux session.
Most things I use and love tmux for could probably be done with iTerm2 tabs and splits, or a modern text editor and its terminal integrations.
But, I can use tmux in iTerm2 or Terminal.app or Kitty or Gnome Terminal or urxvt, on macOS or Linux or FreeBSD and it works the same everywhere. Perhaps that's a key feature; decoupling your “terminal window manager” or “terminal desktop environment” from your terminal emulator (I guess that's like the X server in this analogy).
Also, tmux feels more keyboard-native… I can do everything from the keyboard, including navigating scrollbacks, finding/selecting/copying/pasting text, etc. Again, you can probably achieve at least 90% of this using a richly-featured terminal emulator like iTerm2, but tmux does it well, and it's portable.
Also, tmux feels more Unix… it has config files that can be git-managed, it has man pages, it is scriptable from bash/anything, etc.
That easy scriptability leads to some nice integrations, like I can configure key bindings in nvim that run commands (e.g. the test I have open) in a tmux split alongside nvim. Again, that's nothing that things like VS Code can't do too with their built-in terminal emulators etc. But it's nice.
(Despite loving tmux and iTerm2, the one thing I don't like is iTerm2's native tmux integration, where it uses tmux as the “engine” but replaces the UI with OS-native windows/splits etc. It's technically impressive, but mostly negates all the reasons I run tmux inside iTerm2 in the first place)
> (Despite loving tmux and iTerm2, the one thing I don't like is iTerm2's native tmux integration, where it uses tmux as the “engine” but replaces the UI with OS-native windows/splits etc. It's technically impressive, but mostly negates all the reasons I run tmux inside iTerm2 in the first place)
I completely agree. I'm sure there are people who love it but it seems a strange implementation since it takes the best bits of tmux and replaces that with the worst bits of iTerm.
The great thing about this stuff though, is that everyone can personalise and run the set up they prefer. Whatever that might be
I’m mostly the same, but I can’t leave the native smooth infinite scrolling of the Terminal.app
iTerm2’s tmux integration seems all I have ever wanted, but somehow I keep returning to the two extremes. It maybe just habit, or there maybe something subtle missing.
Apple's Studio Display has a “nano‑texture glass” option, which is designed to reduce reflection/glare, but also subtly-but-noticeably blurs the image.
Looking at them side by side, I somewhat preferred the blur/bloom of the nano‑texture glass, perhaps due to retro CRT nostalgia. At 5K it's still incredibly crisp compared to 1x pixels (e.g. 27" 1440p).
(But… for looking at code/text all day in a room without ambient lighting problems, I chose the crisp image of the plain (antireflective-coated) glass instead)
> … may have come from an inexact contraction of SHArp bang or haSH bang, referring to the two typical Unix names for them. Another theory on the sh in shebang is that it is from the default shell sh …
Sounds like it shipped with some last-minute firmware bug that degraded the image quality way below what it's capable of. Should be fixed by a firmware (iOS?) update.
I was wondering the same thing. The closest I could find to answer is this:
> The Long Now Foundation uses five-digit dates to guard against the deca-millennium bug (the “Y10K” problem) which will come into effect in about 8,000 years. As you may have noticed any reference we make to a year begins with a zero: 01977, 03012, 02000, 00521, 01215, etc.
What a useless thing. Omitted leading zero has been the norm for hundreds of years, there is no hidden assumption. This would only be a problem if after 10k you omit the leading 1.
Why limit ourselves to the year 10k “bug”? I think we need to be future proof and prepare to the year 1M bug by writing years with three leading zeroes /s
I think hundreds of years ago the norm was to count years from the beginning of the era, typically the rule of the current emperor, e.g., 文政five年. (In that system it's currently 令和3年.) Of course that varied by locality; in much of Europe, for example, the norm was to use Roman numerals counted from a year that Dionysius Exiguus had miscalculated as the year of Jesus's birth, e.g., MDCCCXXII.
I mean, OK, but one could also argue that the reason a given artist is struggling is because their work is not highly valued in the first place.
Maybe the artist is making under-appreciated contributions, or maybe their work is just not good. It's subjective, which means criticism is subjective too, but it seems a poor place to start with any UBI scheme executed in good faith.
I would think it would have more value as an experiment to start with some of the poorest people in a society and then measure their quality of life and economic contribution throughout and after the programme. If you could show a net-positive economic contribution during the programme, and a net-negative contribution before and after (as unlikely as I suspect that is to achieve) it would make it substantially easier to get popular support for UBI.
> I mean, OK, but one could also argue that the reason a given artist is struggling is because their work is not highly valued in the first place.
Many artists that are highly valued today weren't in their times, with many dying destitute or never selling anything of note. Current valuation isn't a predictor on later appreciation.
> It's subjective, which means criticism is subjective too
But that's precisely the point of the subsidy. Society as a whole already expresses value judgements, every day, through money. If an artist is valued, he is successful and accumulates money, so he doesn't need subsidies; but the fact that an artist is valued or not-valued today, we know, is a poor indication of their overall value in the long run. Maybe their art will explode in value after death, maybe he will start a movement that will generate better artists and designers...
The point of universal income, surely, is exactly to remove the immediate value judgement from the equation. UBI is supposed to pay everyone, regardless of what they choose to do (except for raping and murdering, I guess; but ironically, convicts are among the first to actually "enjoy" an UBI of sorts already, although to the price of their liberty). In this sense, starting from art actually makes the most sense.
> it would have more value as an experiment to start with some of the poorest people in a society and then measure their quality of life and economic contribution
The minute you start measuring economic contribution, you are not really in UBI territory anymore - you are just subsidising the market at its fringes. That's already done in social democracies, in practice, through various means.
Remember: van Gogh was undervalued while he was alive. I guess he should just have thrown his stuff away early and become a baker. Mozart had virtually non-stop money troubles, even before he started becoming a party animal, and died a pauper who was buried in a linen sack in a mass grave. Guess he would have had a better life being a potter.
Art is something that may only be valued highly ex post facto, and which takes a long time of intensive training to get started...
I get this with regards to Van Gogh, and I assume a thousand Van Gogh’s we never got to hear about or appreciate. I wasn’t suggesting at all that he should’ve given up if he wasn’t making money.
I’m just saying that there are easily hundreds of creative activities people do every day just for the love of it. Each of them could be artistically appreciated later. Narrowing in on this one subset, especially with taxpayer funding, seems not only unfair but also uninformative at large (we learn little about the economic impact of UBI as the U is missing here).
As others have said though, this appears to actually be an artist’s grant labelled as UBI, which makes the whole thing moot (these have been around for a long time with allocated funding).
> but it seems a poor place to start with any UBI scheme executed in good faith.
This isn't intended to start a UBI scheme, that's an embellishment from the article title. From the article text:
"The scheme [...] is meant to assist those working in the fields of arts [...] who suffered economically as the global Covid-19 crisis surged in-country."
From another source [0], it's also time-limited to 3 years.
I think the less hype reading of the news is that artists are struggling through COVID so the government is offering support to ensure they don't lose a good chunk of the industry.
> one could also argue that the reason a given artist is struggling is because their work is not highly valued in the first place.
Art that's not valuable now could very well be found to be valuable later. Van Gogh died broke and essentially unknown but now he's one of the world's most well-known artists.
> Art and cultural heritage may have worth outside that represented by short-term supply and demand?
Or it may not. We can't tell objectively, because there is no metric to measure.
I suppose my point is, if you cannot tell that there is a benefit at all, why leap to the assumption that it's a large enough benefit to pay 25m euros for.
Because not of bread alone you shalt live. You can't get to the moon without moonshots. There is a queue of people willing to fund for-profit moonshots, but when it comes to art and other non-monetizable human endeavours, in practice there is only the State.
What great works of art have ever come from the State?
If anything, we need the ultra rich to fund this kind of thing based on their taste. That worked well in the past with the court musician/composer and patronage.
There are so many problems with this UBI idea. The medium is one that comes to mind. We have largely moved on from paint on canvas to video the way we moved on from sculpture in stone to paint on canvas.
Does the artist have the artistic freedom to start a youtube channel with the money? I would suspect not.
Most likely this goes to propping up outdated mediums of expression and will lack the complete freedom needed for a true artist to really express themselves.
Then of course you have to contend with those gaming the system to free roll by collecting old toilets from the trash to work on their homage to Duchamp masterpiece.
I suspect there is reason for the starving artist archetype.
Indeed, which is why, in my opinion, it is a reasonable thing for the government to fund. The government funding things which are of value but would not make economic sense in a free market economy is a good use of resources.
Assuming what's "actually important to you" remains fixed as you age. The article suggests otherwise, with caveats:
> At the same time, stagnation is not a certainty. Research suggests that open-eardness and the discovery of new songs can be cultivated. Finding new music is a challenge, but it is achievable with dedicated time and effort.