But I hit a snag. On macOS, it's standard that in any text window, to select everything for copying, you hit Command-a.

But Command-a in wezterm just printed an "a" character. What?

I spent a while looking in the docs and issues, but couldn't figure out how to Select All.

I don't think I should have to justify it, but in case someone's wondering - it's useful if you want to search or parse an entire Terminal session using some other process (eg, grep), or edit it, or just persist it for example.

Regardless of why, "Select All" is such a standard function it felt quite strange it wasn't suported out of the box.

That's an unmitigated PR disaster for Defcon. It doesn't matter to this who was right or wrong or what laws were broken, even if somehow all legally ended up in Defcon's favour, the damage to the brand is huge, enduring and set aside from those issues.

To address this, whoever at Defcon ultimately actioned this series of events should be held to account, for this PR aspect, and the matter immediately and publicly handed to someone with an appropriate understanding of Defcon's culture & reputation.

> please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.

I call them "flat-earthers", as that's something that is usefully descriptive of their views and that they themselves seem happy to be called.

That is, it's a name that doesn't also necessarily insult them, which as I see it serves no useful purpose for anyone and simply causes antagonism and less of an ability to successfully communicate.

Which, by the way, is the only working solution to disagreement.

Do you think that would help or hinder the situation if we did?

It may make you feel better, but it doesn't work. It's right there at the beginning of cycles of dysfunction, because it is that: dysfunctional.

Essentially, almost entirely one-sided coverage of two highly-influential people of contemporary times have warped some people's opinions of them into an irrational and often incoherent rage, leading to boycotts/"cancelling", etc.

In both cases, these were people who were widely-admired - in Musk's case among the same demographic now hates him - when the MSM supported them prior, which then 180°'d when the MSM machine turned against them, for whatever reason.

It's an interesting phenomenon to observe, but is also rather sad as it divides people quite nastily. My response here will likely be downvoted, flagged and receive endless repeats of the media misrepresentstions against both characters.

Criticism will likely be almost entirely devoid of balance, and especially absent of rational acknowledgement that eg, in the orange mans case, hundreds of millions of people love him enough to believe he will lead their country to prosperity.

Unfortunately, such division leads only to a bleak future for all involved, which is why I try here - humbly - to bring some light, and rationality to it, no doubt failing due to the nature of the problem and its effect on people.

X seems like a pretty much the same platform before and since Musk, only since Musk there is noticably-less "curation", and so discussion is more organic, so, some may find it more raw. I like it better, but it's not particularly different really.

This pejorative term does nothing for anyone making any argument. It weakens your position because you're attempting to rely on emotions and psychology to make your case instead of... well, making your case!

It predictably has the reverse effect of your intention. Those who disbelieve you strengthen in their resolve because now not only do they disagree with you on a factual basis, but they also believe themselves to have been unfairly characterised in a pejorative way for their position. Dumb move, you had one obstacle, now you're made yourself have two.

If Christians went around calling Muslim's "Christ-deniers" instead of Muslims, how well do you think that would help tensions and resolution?

To me it's primitive and ineffective behaviour, and I lose respect for those who resort to it.

Couldn't you say that about half the stuff posted here?

To me that's the "product" - an interesting engineering project targeted at people like us; a starting point for learning that can be taken further and those advancements potentially fed back into it, like all good open source projects.

As that kind of product, similar to a large chunk everything else built around RPi's and arduino's posted here (and... celebrated), it looks great to me and I don't get the hate. I was really excited to see it.

> Why would such a person want to have a robot which does away with that?

The same reason they want the many, often entirely pointless automations posted here daily, only this is not just fun, but also useful?

If this actually produces enough consumable food reliably (idk if it does, and be nice to see criticism along that angle), maybe also the cost could be justified?

IIRC it's ~$3K for the base model, seems it could pay for itself in a year or so if it could supply a years worth of fresh veges to a couple of people, depending on the local cost (which can vary a lot).

I notice the reverse though it does vary by jurisdiction.

I described FTX as an "obvious scam", citing it as an example of the SEC greenlighting a bad actor - so your speechlessness is the result of comprehension issues on your part.

It's not a "conspiracy theory" to hold a different opinion to you regarding financial policy direction.

What I regard as "weak" is the use of such derogatory labels, rather than proper discussion.

Good day!

In the future, vehicles could have their FSD augmented by direct comms with each other, in a trustless way. If the entire traffic network ended up interconnected, it'd behave as a single system, approaching 100% self-awareness.

Obviously, no ordinary human drivers could get anywhere near that level of situational awareness, nor ability to coordinate in parallel. All they have is a small cone of vision/hearing, a bit of sensor augmentation, and little else.

If you're avoiding skin contact, then you might not have time to wipe the peanut butter mess off your hands as you rush to rescue your kid who's got into trouble.

It's not the crypto exchanges pushing for that - they actively work against it as it's a major expense as well as costing them customers.

Aside from exchanges, consider: cash itself is not targeted by these laws, which is crypto's closest existing analog. Do you need to submit KYC and AML documents to pull cash from your physical wallet and pay someone? Yet the push is for that level of involvement in your crypto wallets.

Finally, the SEC's actions for example are very clear: an obvious scammer like FTX gets a tick of approval and ends up reaming customers for billions. Whereas long-stable contributors such as LBRY or Ripple, get bogged down with heavy-handed enforcement. There are more examples.

HSBC was legally found to be actively engaged in facilitating criminal gangs, money-laundering etc. They paid a fine. You think a crypto exchange found to be doing those things would pay a fine? No, the executives would be jailed.

There's a big difference in application, across the board.