In VSCode, open the command palette with: Command + Shift + P
Then type: shell command
and choose install 'code' command in PATH
#!/usr/bin/env python | |
# $ python ./scripts/diffgit.py nb/AddLabelsToVAE.ipynb | |
# 8a9 | |
# > print('hey') | |
import sys | |
import shlex | |
import subprocess | |
import tempfile |
use async_ssh2_tokio::{ | |
Error, | |
client::AuthMethod | |
}; | |
mod pools; | |
#[tokio::main] | |
async fn main() -> Result<(), Error> { |
// Here is the output for this gist | |
// | |
// Ok(Client { username: "beez", address: 192.168.122.89:22, connection_handle: "Handle<ClientHandler>" }) | |
// Ok(Client { username: "beez", address: 192.168.122.204:22, connection_handle: "Handle<ClientHandler>" }) | |
// killa-a2 | |
// killa-a1 | |
// killa-a2 | |
// killa-a1 | |
// killa-a1 | |
// killa-a2 |
// This was the first draft of something that now exists as a full project, called Eyes | |
// | |
// https://github.com/jmsdnns/eyes | |
use clap::{Command, Arg, ArgAction, ArgMatches, value_parser}; | |
use futures::{stream, StreamExt}; | |
use std::{ | |
net::{IpAddr, SocketAddr}, | |
time::Duration, | |
}; |
#!/usr/bin/env python | |
from gi.repository import Gio | |
app_name = 'Visual Studio Code' | |
for mtype in Gio.content_types_get_registered(): | |
launcher = Gio.AppInfo.get_default_for_type(mtype, False) | |
if not launcher: |
Ive spent a few days thinking on this.
I struggle with the idea that algorithms could be so informed as to nail sharing things you dont know you like. We dont give Spotify nearly enough information to know that kind of thing. It's a utility and not a friend we share real shit with.
I like the language of economics for considering these types of things, but Im gonna tweak it too
The Efficient-Curator Hypothesis is a theory in Jamesian Economics that states that curated playlists fully reflect all available information
A direct implication is that it is impossible to "beat the algorithm" consistently on a mood-adjusted basis since curated playlists only react to new information
It stands to reason that the ethnic and cultural variety among ancient hunter-gatherers was [impressive], and that 5m to 8m foragers who populated the world on the eve ofthe agrictural revolutiom were divided into thousands of separate tribes with thousands of different languages and cultures.
This, after all, was one of the main legacies of the cognitive revolution.
Thanks to the appearance of fiction, even people with the same genetic makeup, who lived under similar ecological conditions, were able to crrate very different, imagined realities, which manifested themselves in different norms and values.
For example, there is every reaosn to belueve that a forager band that lived 30,000 years ago in the spot where Oxford University now stands would have spoke a different language from one living where Cambridge is now situated. One band might've been beligerent and the other peaceful. Perhaps the Cambridge band was communal while the one at Oxford was based on nuclear families. The Canterbridgians might ha
by Stephen Denning
Prior to Kuhn, science was primarily seen as the steady accretion of new facts and relationships, one on top of the other.
Kuhn accepted that science experiences long periods of conceptual continuity and accretion. This is what he calls "normal science". However, it is punctuated by periods of revolutionary science with abrupt discontinuities, as the mental model changes in fundamental ways.
There are three distinct phases.