Kalcifer

joined 1 year ago
11
Share your Bash prompts! (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 10 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

I'm looking for inspiration for a custom Bash prompt^[1]^. I'd love to see yours! 😊 If possible, include both the prompt's PS1, and a screenshot/example of what it looks like.

References

  1. Type: Documentation. Title: "Bash Reference Manual". Publisher: Gnu Project. Edition: 5.2. Published: 2022-09-19. Accessed: 2025-03-21T02:46Z. URI: https://www.gnu.org/software/bash/manual/html_node/index.html.

Crossposts:

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago

Avocado tree?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

An interesting alternative that I've found (for when making English breakfast or something similar) is to steep the teabag in the milk first before adding the hot water. I find that it cuts down on the bitterness and makes a much smoother tea.

 
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (11 children)
[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (8 children)

CMV: Trypophobia should be tagged as NSFW.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

[…] i don’t appreciate how you deleted then reposted to spam my notifs.

What? I haven't deleted, nor reposted anything in this context. Are you sure you aren't just getting a ping because I @mentioned you in the comment's references ^[1]^?

References

  1. Type: Comment (Through: Website. Name: "sh.itjust.works".). Author: "Kalcifer" ("@[email protected]"). Publisher: [Type: Post. Title: "I mean we’ve done it twice let’s get it started already". Author: "@[email protected]". Publisher: ["Political Memes" ([email protected]). sh.itjust.works. Lemmy]. Published: 2025-03-05T23:50:32Z. URI: https://sh.itjust.works/post/33860262/17095410.]. Published: 2025-03-06T01:56:28Z. Accessed: 2025-03-06T02:26Z. URI: https://sh.itjust.works/post/33860262/17095410.
      • Highlighted in yellow are the mentions to @[email protected]'s contained within the comment's "References" spoiler.
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I think OP is editing this comment ^[1]^ in bad faith:

  • Current version ^[1.1]^:

  • Original version ^[1.2]^:

References

  1. Type: Comment. Author: "@[email protected]". Publisher: [Type: Post. Title: "I mean we’ve done it twice let’s get it started already". Author: "@[email protected]". Publisher: ["Political Memes" ("[email protected]"). "Lemmy".]. Published: 2025-03-05T23:50:32Z. URI: https://sh.itjust.works/post/33860262/17095410.]. URI: https://sh.itjust.works/post/33860262/17095972.
    1. (Through: Website. Name: "sh.itjust.works".). Published: 2025-03-06T00:02:54Z. Accessed: 2025-03-06T02:04Z.
    2. (Through: App. Name: "Thunder".). Published: 2025-03-05. Accessed: 2025-03-06T00:01:03Z.
[–] [email protected] 51 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (10 children)

Please tag your post as a joke, not real, or similar. If you leave it in its current state ^[2]^, you are knowingly peddling disinformation ^[1]^.

Update (2025-03-06T01:45Z): OP has modified the post's body stating that it's a fake tweet ^[3]^. Imo, the title should preface that it's fake ^[1]^.

References

  1. Type: Article. Title: "Trump post saying US president should be impeached if Dow drops 1,000 points in 2 days isn't real". Author: "Jordan Liles". Publisher: "Snopes". Published: 2023-03-05. Accessed: 2025-03-06T01:37Z. URI: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-post-dow-impeachment/.
    • ¶4.

      […] Trump did not post a 2012 tweet saying the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropping 1,000 points in two days should result in a U.S. president's immediate impeachment. […]

  2. Type: Post (Through: App (Name: "Thunder".)). Title: "I mean we’ve done it twice let’s get it started already". Author: "@[email protected]". Publisher: ["Political Memes" ("[email protected]"). sh.itjust.works. Lemmy.]. Published: 2025-03-05. Accessed: 2025-03-06T01:42Z. URI: https://sh.itjust.works/post/33860262/17095410.

  3. Type: Post (Through: Website (Name: "sh.itjust.works")). Title: "I mean we’ve done it twice let’s get it started already". Author: "@[email protected]". Publisher: ["Political Memes" ("[email protected]"). sh.itjust.works. Lemmy.]. Published: 2025-03-05T23:50:32Z. Accessed: 2025-03-06T01:54Z. URI: https://sh.itjust.works/post/33860262/17095410.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

[…] I'm not sure […] voting on each defederation is necessary. […]

My proposal does not include voting on cases of defederation.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

[…] I am not sure engaging the admins in a philosophical debate about why they blocked an instance is going to be productive. […]

To be clear, I didn't specify that the admins would be required to engage with and resolve every comment that they receive on the posts about the instances that they are defederating from; they simply have that option. The main aspiration of the proposal is that the admins simply provide their rationale for defederating an instance when they do so. I wasn't advocating for some involved process where they must receive agreement and input from the community before a defederation occurs (though, I don't necessarily think that is entirely a bad idea).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

[…] it’s potentially the hundreds of options that would need sorting through from the users. […]

I'm not sure that I understand; could you clarify what you mean?

 

The Issue

Currently, it seems to be that the majority of instance defederations happen silently on SJW: As of writing this, SJW currently blocks federation with 86 instances ^[1]^, yet, from what I can tell ^[2]^, there has not been 86 announcements. For clarity, this is not intended to be construed as an accusation, pointed at the SJW admins, that this is some sort of intentional obfuscation; however, for the sake of transparency and understanding, I think it would be a good practice to open these practices up to the rest of the instance.

Proposal

I propose that whenever an instance is to be defederated, an open (ie unlocked) post should be published by the SJW admins (eg it could be published to [email protected]) detailing the name of the instance that is to be defederated, the rationale for why it is to be defederated (including evidence to support the rationale), and what steps would need to be taken by the respective instance's admins in order for that instance to be re-federated.

Benefits

  • I think it would provide users with an opportunity to better understand the rationale and alignment SJW's admins.
  • I think it helps keep the administrators (both locally and federated) publicly accountable.
  • Having an open announcement for defederation could invite discussion on the topic. I think this discussion could offer enlightening insight.
  • It will create a sort of searchable database for users to reference if they wish to know why a given instance is defederated.
  • I think it could potentially reduce the administrative burden on the admins in that it serves as a sort of FAQ in place of users repetitively asking the admins why an instance was defederated.
  • I think that It may provide a more targeted opportunity for the admins of the defederated instance to directly, and publicly, engage with the issue.

Drawbacks

  • If there ends up being a large volume of defederations, this practice may end up becoming a sizeable burden for the SJW admins. One note on this is that it may be possible for some defederations to be grouped together, but this would have to be done carefully so as to not become obfuscative.

Additional Context

I think a potential counterargument could be: "If a user wishes to know more about why an instance is defederated, then they should just make a post asking about it, or they should dm the admins."; however, I think this may actually increase the workload on the admins if the question is posed frequently enough, furthermore, I fear that this sort of active approach on the part of the inquirer could have a sort of chilling effect: the topic of "instance defederation" is often a contentious one, and some may be hesitant to actively open themselves up to that sort of potential conflict in order to seek the desired information. This proposal would offer sanctuary for the inquisitive lurker.

References

  1. Type: Website. Publisher: sh.itjust.works. Accessed: 2025-03-03T05:15Z. URI: https://sh.itjust.works/instances.
    • See the "Blocked Instances" tab.
  2. I simply searched for posts with keywords like "defederate" and "block" in [email protected].
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

An update for anyone finding this in the future: This proposal has been implemented! ^[1]^

References

  1. Type: Post. Title: "The 2025 SJW Update: Donations, costs and other points". Author: "TheDude" (@[email protected]). Publisher: ["sh.itjust.works Main Community" ([email protected]). sh.itjust.works. Lemmy.]. Published: 2025-01-29T19:02:48Z. Accessed: 2025-03-03T04:16Z. URI: https://sh.itjust.works/post/31922118.
    • §"New Tesseract front end available".
 

nginx ("engine x") is an HTTP web server, reverse proxy, content cache, load balancer, TCP/UDP proxy server, and mail proxy server. […] [1]

I still pronounce it as "n-jinx" in my head.

References

  1. Title (website): "nginx". Publisher: NGINX. Accessed: 2025-02-26T23:25Z. URI: https://nginx.org/en/.
    • §"nginx". ¶1.
 

I propose that the UI version be included alongside the backend version at the bottom of the page. For example, Lemmy.ml does this ^[1]^:

I think this information is useful to have for diagnostic purposes, reporting bugs, and for referencing documentation.

References

  1. Lemmy.ml. Lemmy. Accessed: 2025-02-08T05:59Z. URI: https://lemmy.ml/.
    • Found at the bottom of the page.
 

Unclasped version

 

I think it could be useful to collect this data, both for administrative and research purposes.

I'm unsure, currently, exactly what data should be collected by the censuses (that would be proposed and discussed here). The data that is collected, should be collected anonymously. Furthermore, participation should be entirely voluntary.

 

References

 

In case you aren't sure what to look for: If you look at the left side of the tracks, you can see the imprint of the wing feathers on the snow. I'm guessing this is where the bird landed on top of the prey, which it saw on the surface of the snow.

 
  • R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 365. Justice Laws Website. Government of Canada. Published: 2024-12-10. Accessed: 2025-01-04T22:46Z. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-365-20030101.html.

    365 Every one who fraudulently

    (a) pretends to exercise or to use any kind of witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment or conjuration,

    (b) undertakes, for a consideration, to tell fortunes, or

    (c) pretends from his skill in or knowledge of an occult or crafty science to discover where or in what manner anything that is supposed to have been stolen or lost may be found,

    is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

  • "An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act" C-51. 42nd Parliament, 1st session. Parliament of Canada. Published: 2018-12-13. Accessed: 2025-01-04T22:50Z. https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/42-1/c-51.
    • §41

      Section 365 of the Act is repealed.

view more: next ›