656 karma · joined June 23, 2014
Yay capitalism, I guess.
This helps (I use bash rather than zsh):
# Sort out history$
export HISTIGNORE="&:ls:vi:bg:fg:history"
export HISTCONTROL=ignoredups:ignorespace
export HISTSIZE=100000
export HISTFILESIZE=100000
shopt -s histappend
shopt -s checkwinsize
But the long-term (multi-machine) solution is to keep another append-only copy, one per machine: function storehist() {
# Bug in mac version of bash stops HISTCMD getting set in function called from PROMPT_COMMAND...
CMDCNT=`history 1 | sed -e 's/\w* *\(.*\)/\1/'`;
if [ "$CMDCNT" != "$LASTCMDIND" ] && [ -n "$LASTCMDIND" ] # First time, no prev, do not log random
then
DATE=`date '+%Y%b%d %H%M'`;
if [ "$LASTCMDIND" != "$CMDCNT" ]
then
echo "$DATE $HOSTNAME:$BASHTTY $CMDCNT" >>~/.custom_history;
fi
LASTCMDIND="$CMDCNT";
fi
LASTCMDIND="$CMDCNT";
}
export PROMPT_COMMAND='storehist; ....
A little bit over the top and crusty but it has worked like that for years so I've not updated it in a while. There is a separate sync script that puts the .custom_history from each machine / container into a folder on each machine with the orginating machine name in the file-name.This keeps ^-R working over a long period of time, but eventually that stops being a good way of find obscure commands from long ago and then something like this works:
cat .histories/* | grep CMD | grep WERID_ARG | grep RANDOM_RELEVANT_STR | sort -u | less
The overall cost of running some script on each prompt is negliable on a modern machine and as the OP notes the disk space does not amount to much. It becomes very useful over time. I have about 20MB of shell history that stretches back to '06. It is one of things that is easy to setup, and yet the value accrues steadily over time. Across the dozen or so machines involved I doubt that the archive would have survived long-term without the step to export it outside of the shell's real history file.There may be another lens through which to view this instead of "balanced critique of technology". Describing this as "sick" seems somewhat hyperbolic.
More generally, is it really technology that makes us anonymous or is it simply an emergent property of scale? When there are millions of similar engineers out there (to use a single field as an example) relying on word of mouth, or similar non-technological approaches seems unlikely to find the best candidate with any degree of probability.
The rest of it comes down to how complex their simulation steps are, and where they have losses in fidelity because they have not captured a realistic model of how the biological system works.
There is a lot of marketing hype in the title (its an SC announcement), but they can probably do something interesting with this system.
As a (very) small scale provider video was costing me about 0.25 cents / hour. It is certainly cheaper for a larger provider. Ad rates are not that low, the margins involved are huge.
For a premium server I would take a heavy user as a model, say 8hr/day, giving a cost of 60 cents per month. Assume processing fees and overheads are about 30%, and a user is willing to pay $10/m for a service. That still leaves $6.40 to be split between platform and content creator.
Yes, video is expensive compared to text. But in absolute terms the costs are not that expensive.
This beautiful, it has a hook in both directions. Like a little piece of art sitting here on the site.
It is pronounced "documentation".