Funny, I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic or sincere because I can’t tell the difference between that car and a Mustang or a Charger from the same decade.
In any case, the '67 and '68 Mustangs are the best looking of the Mustang line, and the '68 Dodge Charger is to die for.
If you cannot tell the difference, may I suggest you spend a wonderful evening watching "Bullitt".
When I was in high school, a friend of mine bought a '67 Mustang for $200, so of course he offered me a ride. I had never ridden in one before. I barely had the door closed when he stomped on the gas. What can I say, it was a transformative experience! I soon acquired one for myself. Converted it to a 4-speed, hopped up the engine, and had a grand time with it for years until a garbage truck turned it into an accordion.
I still miss that car.
But I did wind up replacing it with a 72 Dodge Challenger, which is close to being a Cuda. I spent a lot of money on its engine in the machine shop. I enjoy every second driving it, and giving friends rides in it.
Like me before I got the ride in the Mustang, you gotta get a ride in one before you dis it.
Everyone telling you that it's fast because iTerm2 is slow. Terminal.app is already faster than iTerm2 and on par o very close to most other alternatives in terms of speed.
I also used Terminal until recently and don't use any of the advanced features alternatives provide. The main reason to switch from Terminal.app is truecolor support. The terminfo thing is annoying but I just setenv TERM in ssh config. Better split panes is nice. Configuration in a text file is a matter of taste, but documentation is good.
> Playlists are ok, but heavily recommending entire albums is bizarre. Its like trying new foods by going to Costco. It would make more sense to select top picks from an artist.
Strongly disagree. It’s probably a generational thing but I listen to music in albums, not in popular hits. This was by far the main reason I used to use Rdio instead of Spotify.
I listen to entire albums too! But not from artists I've never heard of before, as is commonly the case in recommendations. It takes me a few listens from their singles to warm up to them, and then dig further into their discography.
"My New Music Mix" is updated 1x week for some inexplicable reason (I know Spotify does this too), while it seems to recommend albums programmatically based on likes/listening habits. Other playlists seem to be manually curated and recommended based on genre.
Understandably, there is just no way to expect manually curated playlists to cover everyone's personal tastes.
I believe it is possible to recommend songs/artists/albums without favoring one form of discoverability over the other as it is currently done.
Spotify does suggest albums (and singles, it makes no distinction, ugh). But yeah I use the Spotify Premium subscription to almost exclusively play albums.
EDIT: Discovery is terrible, the only sites that had excellent discovery was last.fm (butchered by CBS) and what.cd (nuked by law enforcement)
Strangely the on that had the best discovery for me was Google Music. It just seemed to eerily read my mind and I stumbled on so many good titles that I love. Rarely did I need to skip any song during, say, a workout playlist.
As for the UI, I loved the Google Music one... when I was on Android. Now that I'm on iOS it's totally alien and just unusable because zero iOS conventions are respected, like I'm in a virtual machine, it's just frustrating. I find all of the other music platform UIs quite awkward and despite its flaws Apple Music is still the best for me.
Seems like we hit a wall and "all MUAs suck" just changed the M from "Mail" to "Music".
There's a lot of things I don't like about Google Music UI but the artist page with the top 5 songs and the albums below works great for both getting a taste of a new artist and entire album listening.
yea, but still the problem is that all users who created a vault before Nov 2015 never got any message neither is their database upgraded automatically. They will unknowingly keep using the old database format.
Seems alarming for a company who's business is security/privacy.
> and is not selected by default when you create a new vault.
I was clearly only responding to this part, which is still useful information. Nowhere I said there is no issue, there is no need to always nitpick on everything. I'll go back to not commenting on anything for another year.
That style is usually called “single story a”. Monaco is a common monospaced typeface that uses it. I suspect that style is less common because at small sizes it's easily confused with o.
I only used Silver Efex. It's more flexible and powerful than basic Lightroom and more specialized than Photoshop. It's great for black and white work, it is a tool specifically made for photography, not a general purpose one.
I could see preferring svn to git because of the simpler model, but cvs? No thanks, a vcs without atomic commits is not much better than snapshot archives, maybe worse actually.
a) SVN seems daunting and complex, tho I didn't ever dive into it. CVS is so simple and easy, a half-arsed programmer like me can actually understand it. Things like git and mercurial are way more complex.
b) RCS is real handy for single files, e.g. a free-standing text file or shell script. But when the thing grows up, it is very easy to integrate the fileset into a CVS repo preserving it's history: move the ,v files to $CVSROOT/$MODULE/.
c) The repository model of CVS is as transparent as it gets.
d) The keywords like $Id$ are really useful.
e.g. I keep my system configuration in "~/Checkouts/system-config", and I have a script that cp's the files to appropriate locations using a map file. When I'm not sure if the active config is not up to date, I can verify very easily. And I can be sure that dirty files won't be active as long as I don't expressly copy them. I know that SVN has this too, but I find CVS easier to use in general.
I guess for fast paced, very active development, yes CVS is sub-par, but for personal stuff, or for something that is patched say at most two-three times a month, it's O.K. It boils down to personal preference.
SVN is way simpler at the interface than CVS, you should really look into it. SVN is a spiritual successor to CVS, and is trivially easy for a CVS user to pick up. We switched from CVS to SVN at work several years ago and everyone was happy with the change.
there are two things that are nice about svn if you use it just like cvs.
1, atomic commits. I edit ten files, that's one checkin, rather than the per file checkins of cvs. On a low volume project, not a big advantage. if you've ever conflicted on a bigger project with cvs, it can be kind of a pain to resolve. seeing the whole commit of the other guy is helpful. If you don't run into this more than, say, monthly, it's not worth it.
2. offline diffs. svn has a whole copy of the repo, so you can compare history even if the central repo is down, or you're working from the beach. This one is pretty nice regardless.
svn is a pretty nice upgrade, if you're working with a distributed team.
All appreciated, but nowadays my biggest repo is my emacs config, some tens of thousand SLOCs, about 2000-2500 of which I authored (I commit packages I use too, no elpa). And my repositories are local, i.e. they are in /var/cvsrepos. Other than that, I admit that SVN is indeed superior.
I believe that one should use the best tool for the case, not the overall best tool in every case.
That said, I'll give a look at SVN. I can consider switch when I have the time if it is easy to import from RCS, because I do use it a lot here and there, mostly for plain text documents. I do not like maintaining unrelated things in a single repository.
> If you're learning for the sake of learning, i'd dig into git.
Well, nearly everything moved to git. I've used it for a while, mostly commit/pull/clone. I actually moved to CVS from git :) It's a bit like perl, git, you either need to be an expert at it, or else you can get going, but at the end you create a mess.
> [...] it's probably not worth the overhead. Sounds like you have a good, efficient setup.
Mostly, yes, but mostly because I don't really need that much more than recording my history, and occasionally looking at what I did in the past and more rarely working on short-lived branches. But there are a couple tools that if I ever code them up, I will make opensource. Tho if I ever do, and they take on, I'll use a 'just send a patch on the mailing list' approach. I believe it's easier to deal with. No flamewars on VCSes :)
