I find most of shellcheck's opinions quite arbitrary.
Wider shell compatibility is a good reason to use backticks. Avoiding nesting is always possible. Quoting may be a concern in more complex usage. But yes, I know well, and often also use $( ) syntax.
Making a lot of noise about use of (the shellcheck author's) non-preferred syntax, which works perfectly fine in a given context, is a design flaw that renders shellcheck useless to me. I'm perfectly capable of finding an opinionated pedant on my own who will also critize the syntax I use (with little or no justification), and offer no actual help...
Same reasons you might need Ctrl-a instead of Home...
1) Some keyboards don't have it, or have it in an awkward place. Most Android on-screen keyboards don't have it (good time to plug Hacker Keyboard). The gestures on Blackberry (e.g. Android) physical keyboards act like scroll-wheel movements rather than cursor keys.
2) Some shells/systems/terminal emulators/some TERM= settings/etc. just don't handle cursor or home/end keys in the console, and instead splat out garbage like: ^[[C^[[D^[[7~^[[5~
You included no arguments. You only hinted that something is "somehow" more complex and less capable.
Analogies usually help people understand things. I don't see why you're offended and obstinate, but you can of course keep it up if you like. Have a nice day.
I see. What you meant to say is "how is it less capable?" and you just misspelled that as "hurr durr I like nothing but hotdogs". You also straight up ignored the part where I listed the 4-level design that I find complicated. But I'm the obstinate one! Thanks for explaining.
It's a choice. tmux uses the "alternate screen" capability, the same way editors like "vi" do, which (according to man tmux): "preserves the contents of the window when an interactive application starts and restores it on exit, so that any output visible before the application starts reappears unchanged after it exits."
To change that behavior, put the following in your tmux.conf:
set -g terminal-overrides '*:smcup@:rmcup@'
set -g status off
Not sure what this is tweaking (I'll check) but this does not seem to affect the described behaviour.. PgUp/Down does nothing - with and without shift - and mousewheel still just scrolls thru shell comand history and I need to use Ctrl-B ] to get into session output history..
Paper currency has some intrinsic value because there is a government that will accept it for debts owed (e.g. taxes, fines, ID cards, etc.). Not so for Bitcoin, nowhere is guaranteed to accept it. NOTE: I'm not the author.
The government will only accept it as long as the government chooses to accept it. By acting as if that is an absolute that is immutable ignores a lot of history where governments have completely reissued currencies have invalidated currencies have refused to accept it for debts where governments have disappeared and no other government will honor your paper. There is a long history of that happening many times over. Which is why originally paper currency was a representation of the physical gold or silver that backed it and you could exchange it for such.
So the reason our paper money has value is because we, collectively, including our government, has agreed that it has value. When the government stops backing it for any number of reasons, I guarantee you all of the people will back out of it as well and it's nothing more than wallpaper at that point. The same could happen to Bitcoin because bitcoins value is because we have something that is unique and we have all agreed that it has value. When we stop agreeing that this unique thing can have value then it's nothing more than digital wallpaper.
Secondly, have you considered that a thing's fundamental properties can make it better at functioning as money than other things? Which fundamental properties do you think are important?
Meh on the whole thing. If your eyes aren't both focusing quite right, or you pull the two apart a little bit too much, you will see through binoculars in a figure 8, too.
It's a fools errand to take cinematography too literally as what a character can actually see. Should films also show the chromatic aberrations, adjust the camera to match the main character's eyes focusing, simulate blinking, eye 'floaters', and more?
And how about films in caves? Take away the last little bit of light for realism, so the audience is completely blinded, watching a black screen like the character(s)? Never mind that viewers of films don't get to smell, feel, interact with the world as they choose, as the actual character in the film would.
That copper requires upkeep, which is expensive. The maximum speeds are terrible by modern standards. Using the existing right-of-way (established for the copper lines) to install new fiber that will replace the copper, is the right move.
US oil companies like ExxonMobile have survived on the international market just fine, despite the laws preventing them handing out bribes for the past several decades.
There are several examples of bribes being publicized and the guilty company losing out on big contracts as a result (e.g. from ECHELON spying).
Yeah, I have a friend who worked in South-East Asia for a while - he said that his company paid "agents" whose job was specifically to pay the bribes on behalf of his company so that they themselves wouldn't get in trouble for paying the bribes.
Hadn't seen either, but man.... That's a good one. Simple idea, great writing, excellent production, superb acting (I love Robert Carlyle).
I've always respected Johnnie Walker, but thought their offerings are overpriced for what they are (brand-name premium, I guess). However, I just discovered Johnnie Walker Double Black, and: wow. It's a nice, smoky whisky for $30-something a bottle. I don't know anything else I like better in that price-band. It's my new "table whisky". Great stuff.
