Search
286 results for “YesJustWolf”
-
@FritzAdalis @RuntimeArguments @jammcq @YesJustWolf
Thanks. I did look this up after I wrote the post. I should have looked it up before. But still, without knowing that history, it appeared the speaker was either confused about #OpenSSH and #OpenBSD or equating them or something. It wasn't obvious to me that the OpenBSD team *wrote* OpenSSH. That's the way I heard it, might have misinterpreted what was said.
-
@RuntimeArguments @jammcq @YesJustWolf
You touched on the -R flag briefly. I've used it, but I don't recall it for the purpose you mentioned.
I need to check out using certificates.
I didn't know about password managers being ssh key agents. Another thing to check out, as I use a few 😀
I also didn't know about ssh-import-id-gh, which doesn't appear to be part of any package in the Fedora repos.
A better episode than I expected given my long use of #SSH.
2/2
-
@RuntimeArguments @jammcq @YesJustWolf
I've been a #UNIX user since 1984, and spent my working life developing flavors of Unix and now #Linux. I listened to this episode over the past couple of days. I'm a long time user of #SSH One point of confusion and a few points that I learned.
When talking about the origins of #OpenSSH you talked about #OpenBSD but didn't explain how it related to OpenSSH . Was OpenBSD involved in the creation of OpenSSH ? It could have used explanation.
1/2
-
When someone tells you how to solve their problem, they're almost always wrong. Not because they're foolish. Because the reason they need you at all is that you're better at How, in this particular domain, than they are.
But their "ask" is completely upside-down! Does their How even achieve what they need? That's the What. And does the What serve what they actually care about? That's the Why. You almost never get to Why from outside. When you do, you give them something they couldn't have asked for. How is exactly the wrong place to start.
Three levels every decision lives at (and this is the order that matters):
Why: values, principles. What you act from, not toward. No completion state.
What: the specific outcome you need. Testable. You'll know when you have it.
How: the implementation.
Most thinking happens at How. Most arguments too. Start at Why, get the What clear, then let the What evaluate the How. Once you've stated the What clearly, every How is just yes or no. I align completely with Sinek: start at Why.
Simon Sinek's Golden Circle is in this neighborhood. His order is Why, How, What, and it's about communication: lead with belief, not product. Useful! Mine is about decisions, not messaging. The order is Why, What, How. The What in the middle is load-bearing. Without it you're either arguing about details or just hoping.
#productivity #leadership #tech #programming #management #philosophy #DecisionMaking #ProductManagement #career #SimonSinek #Consulting
-
When someone tells you how to solve their problem, they're almost always wrong. Not because they're foolish. Because the reason they need you at all is that you're better at How, in this particular domain, than they are.
But their "ask" is completely upside-down! Does their How even achieve what they need? That's the What. And does the What serve what they actually care about? That's the Why. You almost never get to Why from outside. When you do, you give them something they couldn't have asked for. How is exactly the wrong place to start.
Three levels every decision lives at (and this is the order that matters):
Why: values, principles. What you act from, not toward. No completion state.
What: the specific outcome you need. Testable. You'll know when you have it.
How: the implementation.
Most thinking happens at How. Most arguments too. Start at Why, get the What clear, then let the What evaluate the How. Once you've stated the What clearly, every How is just yes or no. I align completely with Sinek: start at Why.
Simon Sinek's Golden Circle is in this neighborhood. His order is Why, How, What, and it's about communication: lead with belief, not product. Useful! Mine is about decisions, not messaging. The order is Why, What, How. The What in the middle is load-bearing. Without it you're either arguing about details or just hoping.
#productivity #leadership #tech #programming #management #philosophy #DecisionMaking #ProductManagement #career #SimonSinek #Consulting
-
When someone tells you how to solve their problem, they're almost always wrong. Not because they're foolish. Because the reason they need you at all is that you're better at How, in this particular domain, than they are.
But their "ask" is completely upside-down! Does their How even achieve what they need? That's the What. And does the What serve what they actually care about? That's the Why. You almost never get to Why from outside. When you do, you give them something they couldn't have asked for. How is exactly the wrong place to start.
Three levels every decision lives at (and this is the order that matters):
Why: values, principles. What you act from, not toward. No completion state.
What: the specific outcome you need. Testable. You'll know when you have it.
How: the implementation.
Most thinking happens at How. Most arguments too. Start at Why, get the What clear, then let the What evaluate the How. Once you've stated the What clearly, every How is just yes or no. I align completely with Sinek: start at Why.
Simon Sinek's Golden Circle is in this neighborhood. His order is Why, How, What, and it's about communication: lead with belief, not product. Useful! Mine is about decisions, not messaging. The order is Why, What, How. The What in the middle is load-bearing. Without it you're either arguing about details or just hoping.
#productivity #leadership #tech #programming #management #philosophy #DecisionMaking #ProductManagement #career #SimonSinek #Consulting
-
When someone tells you how to solve their problem, they're almost always wrong. Not because they're foolish. Because the reason they need you at all is that you're better at How, in this particular domain, than they are.
But their "ask" is completely upside-down! Does their How even achieve what they need? That's the What. And does the What serve what they actually care about? That's the Why. You almost never get to Why from outside. When you do, you give them something they couldn't have asked for. How is exactly the wrong place to start.
Three levels every decision lives at (and this is the order that matters):
Why: values, principles. What you act from, not toward. No completion state.
What: the specific outcome you need. Testable. You'll know when you have it.
How: the implementation.
Most thinking happens at How. Most arguments too. Start at Why, get the What clear, then let the What evaluate the How. Once you've stated the What clearly, every How is just yes or no. I align completely with Sinek: start at Why.
Simon Sinek's Golden Circle is in this neighborhood. His order is Why, How, What, and it's about communication: lead with belief, not product. Useful! Mine is about decisions, not messaging. The order is Why, What, How. The What in the middle is load-bearing. Without it you're either arguing about details or just hoping.
#productivity #leadership #tech #programming #management #philosophy #DecisionMaking #ProductManagement #career #SimonSinek #Consulting
-
When someone tells you how to solve their problem, they're almost always wrong. Not because they're foolish. Because the reason they need you at all is that you're better at How, in this particular domain, than they are.
But their "ask" is completely upside-down! Does their How even achieve what they need? That's the What. And does the What serve what they actually care about? That's the Why. You almost never get to Why from outside. When you do, you give them something they couldn't have asked for. How is exactly the wrong place to start.
Three levels every decision lives at (and this is the order that matters):
Why: values, principles. What you act from, not toward. No completion state.
What: the specific outcome you need. Testable. You'll know when you have it.
How: the implementation.
Most thinking happens at How. Most arguments too. Start at Why, get the What clear, then let the What evaluate the How. Once you've stated the What clearly, every How is just yes or no. I align completely with Sinek: start at Why.
Simon Sinek's Golden Circle is in this neighborhood. His order is Why, How, What, and it's about communication: lead with belief, not product. Useful! Mine is about decisions, not messaging. The order is Why, What, How. The What in the middle is load-bearing. Without it you're either arguing about details or just hoping.
#productivity #leadership #tech #programming #management #philosophy #DecisionMaking #ProductManagement #career #SimonSinek #Consulting
-
If I recall correctly, it was Akkana Peck @akkana who first introduced me to Python, probably around 1998 or 1997 (so something in the neighborhood of Python v1.5) while working together at Netscape (I had a different name back then). **That** turned out to be a life-changing event; so thanks, Akkana!
-
I’ve fully switched to OmniFocus (The Omni Group) from Things (Cultured Code). The two driving factors were that OF can handle some more complex relationships than can Things; and better external access into OF’s data (in this case through an MCP).
Both are great. Things is perfect for most people. If not for my new needs, I would probably still be there.
-
I’ve fully switched to OmniFocus (The Omni Group) from Things (Cultured Code). The two driving factors were that OF can handle some more complex relationships than can Things; and better external access into OF’s data (in this case through an MCP).
Both are great. Things is perfect for most people. If not for my new needs, I would probably still be there.
-
I’ve fully switched to OmniFocus (The Omni Group) from Things (Cultured Code). The two driving factors were that OF can handle some more complex relationships than can Things; and better external access into OF’s data (in this case through an MCP).
Both are great. Things is perfect for most people. If not for my new needs, I would probably still be there.
-
I’ve fully switched to OmniFocus (The Omni Group) from Things (Cultured Code). The two driving factors were that OF can handle some more complex relationships than can Things; and better external access into OF’s data (in this case through an MCP).
Both are great. Things is perfect for most people. If not for my new needs, I would probably still be there.
-
Today my work machine graduated from Windows 11 to Ubuntu 24.04. The hardware hasn’t changed. I would have preferred Kubuntu. They gave me ext4 instead of btrfs. But my wishes there are nice-to-haves. What they gave me is a huge step!
-
I love Bash. I used to write tons of Bash. There is a lot of Bash in my life, even to this day.
But here's my life now:
* Bash holds some stuff together (small stuff: usually setting variables, aliases, and/or piping together a few CLI tools. See https://github.com/wolf/dotfiles/tree/main/shells/dot-config/shells/topics for examples)
* Zsh is good at doing stuff when I type, so that's my login shell
* If I have to do something interesting, why not just a Python script? In modern times, with a `uv` shebang line and self-specified dependencies ... the only externally visible additional requirement is `uv` itself (you don't even need Python). Just like a shell-based answer: you end up with a single stand-alone file
I'm not going to argue about "but you have to install `uv`". You do you.
-
My friend Jay Wren recommended a book yesterday at lunch:
"Thinking, Fast and Slow"
by Daniel Kahnemanhttps://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman
A recommendation from Jay is an insta-buy. I got it as an audio-book (because of my commute).
It is not **at all** what I was expecting! I guess I thought maybe I was expecting something like a "self-help" book or the like. No. This is **not** a book aimed at a broad audience. This is a book aimed at people who understand (at least a bit about) probability and bias and category theory and ... What I'm saying is: it's not fluff. It's genuine knowledge aimed square at me. Jay's recommendation was on the money.
I wouldn't hand this to my MIL (it's past her at this point). I wouldn't hand it to my wife (she's certainly smart enough, but I don't think it falls in her circle of interest). I absolutely **would** recommend it to **you**, or to anyone in my circle of friends.
Go have some fun!
-
My friend Jay Wren recommended a book yesterday at lunch:
"Thinking, Fast and Slow"
by Daniel Kahnemanhttps://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman
A recommendation from Jay is an insta-buy. I got it as an audio-book (because of my commute).
It is not **at all** what I was expecting! I guess I thought maybe I was expecting something like a "self-help" book or the like. No. This is **not** a book aimed at a broad audience. This is a book aimed at people who understand (at least a bit about) probability and bias and category theory and ... What I'm saying is: it's not fluff. It's genuine knowledge aimed square at me. Jay's recommendation was on the money.
I wouldn't hand this to my MIL (it's past her at this point). I wouldn't hand it to my wife (she's certainly smart enough, but I don't think it falls in her circle of interest). I absolutely **would** recommend it to **you**, or to anyone in my circle of friends.
Go have some fun!
-
My friend Jay Wren recommended a book yesterday at lunch:
"Thinking, Fast and Slow"
by Daniel Kahnemanhttps://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman
A recommendation from Jay is an insta-buy. I got it as an audio-book (because of my commute).
It is not **at all** what I was expecting! I guess I thought maybe I was expecting something like a "self-help" book or the like. No. This is **not** a book aimed at a broad audience. This is a book aimed at people who understand (at least a bit about) probability and bias and category theory and ... What I'm saying is: it's not fluff. It's genuine knowledge aimed square at me. Jay's recommendation was on the money.
I wouldn't hand this to my MIL (it's past her at this point). I wouldn't hand it to my wife (she's certainly smart enough, but I don't think it falls in her circle of interest). I absolutely **would** recommend it to **you**, or to anyone in my circle of friends.
Go have some fun!
-
My friend Jay Wren recommended a book yesterday at lunch:
"Thinking, Fast and Slow"
by Daniel Kahnemanhttps://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman
A recommendation from Jay is an insta-buy. I got it as an audio-book (because of my commute).
It is not **at all** what I was expecting! I guess I thought maybe I was expecting something like a "self-help" book or the like. No. This is **not** a book aimed at a broad audience. This is a book aimed at people who understand (at least a bit about) probability and bias and category theory and ... What I'm saying is: it's not fluff. It's genuine knowledge aimed square at me. Jay's recommendation was on the money.
I wouldn't hand this to my MIL (it's past her at this point). I wouldn't hand it to my wife (she's certainly smart enough, but I don't think it falls in her circle of interest). I absolutely **would** recommend it to **you**, or to anyone in my circle of friends.
Go have some fun!
-
I have found voice input to be super helpful. I use it entirely for prose: notes, tasks, and reminders. I **don't** use it to make the machine "do things" or for coding (but that's just me ... you do you; and also, I don't use it for coding **yet**).
I currently use two tools:
* Spokenly (phone + laptop)
* Just Press Record (watch + phone)Each has advantages. Both produce transcriptions which I then "route" to the appropriate place (Things, Obsidian, Fantastical) with Sharing.
Just Press Record also runs on my watch, so I can use it while driving or other situations where the phone is inconvenient, illegal, or unavailable. I can later look at a list and handle them one at a time or in bulk.
Spokenly is significantly more accurate. You pick the underlying model, so you can decide if you want local-only (as I do, so no fees of any kind), size (controls memory used and speed of translation, at the cost of accuracy), and what spoken languages it knows. You can switch at will; and you don't have to have the same model on your phone as on your laptop. You typically handle results in Spokenly immediately (for a while I thought this was the only choice), but they are saved and you can look at them all in History and deal with them from there.
I'm still playing with which models are the best balance of speed and accuracy for my use case. On my phone I'm using "Distil-Whisper Small (English Only)". On my Mac, the same but "Medium".
This doesn't **sound** like a huge win. I certainly didn't expect much when I decided to try it. But it turns out to punch far above its weight.
#VoiceInput #Spokenly #JustPressRecord #Things #Obsidian #Fantastical #Productivity
-
I evaluated zoxide as a cd replacement and decided against it.
zoxide does one trick — frecency-based (yes, that's a real word, it means frequency+recency) fuzzy directory jumping — and it's a genuinely great trick. `z foo bar` instantly finds the best-matching deep path. If that's your main pain point, zoxide is excellent.
But it can't replace cd. What breaks:
* No $CDPATH support (open issue since 2022, no fix coming)
* `cd old new` path substitution becomes a frecency search instead
* Flag pass-through (-q, -P, -L) doesn't work
* CDABLE_VARS (zsh) not supportedIf you already use $CDPATH and the directory stack, zoxide's one trick doesn't justify the regressions. The frecency jump solves "navigate to deep paths from scratch" — but $CDPATH already solves that for directories you work in regularly.
I am sad. I really want this power.
-
I evaluated zoxide as a cd replacement and decided against it.
zoxide does one trick — frecency-based (yes, that's a real word, it means frequency+recency) fuzzy directory jumping — and it's a genuinely great trick. `z foo bar` instantly finds the best-matching deep path. If that's your main pain point, zoxide is excellent.
But it can't replace cd. What breaks:
* No $CDPATH support (open issue since 2022, no fix coming)
* `cd old new` path substitution becomes a frecency search instead
* Flag pass-through (-q, -P, -L) doesn't work
* CDABLE_VARS (zsh) not supportedIf you already use $CDPATH and the directory stack, zoxide's one trick doesn't justify the regressions. The frecency jump solves "navigate to deep paths from scratch" — but $CDPATH already solves that for directories you work in regularly.
I am sad. I really want this power.
-
I evaluated zoxide as a cd replacement and decided against it.
zoxide does one trick — frecency-based (yes, that's a real word, it means frequency+recency) fuzzy directory jumping — and it's a genuinely great trick. `z foo bar` instantly finds the best-matching deep path. If that's your main pain point, zoxide is excellent.
But it can't replace cd. What breaks:
* No $CDPATH support (open issue since 2022, no fix coming)
* `cd old new` path substitution becomes a frecency search instead
* Flag pass-through (-q, -P, -L) doesn't work
* CDABLE_VARS (zsh) not supportedIf you already use $CDPATH and the directory stack, zoxide's one trick doesn't justify the regressions. The frecency jump solves "navigate to deep paths from scratch" — but $CDPATH already solves that for directories you work in regularly.
I am sad. I really want this power.
-
I evaluated zoxide as a cd replacement and decided against it.
zoxide does one trick — frecency-based (yes, that's a real word, it means frequency+recency) fuzzy directory jumping — and it's a genuinely great trick. `z foo bar` instantly finds the best-matching deep path. If that's your main pain point, zoxide is excellent.
But it can't replace cd. What breaks:
* No $CDPATH support (open issue since 2022, no fix coming)
* `cd old new` path substitution becomes a frecency search instead
* Flag pass-through (-q, -P, -L) doesn't work
* CDABLE_VARS (zsh) not supportedIf you already use $CDPATH and the directory stack, zoxide's one trick doesn't justify the regressions. The frecency jump solves "navigate to deep paths from scratch" — but $CDPATH already solves that for directories you work in regularly.
I am sad. I really want this power.
