The opposite can be just as dangerous * . "Medlife Crisis" has an [informative video][1] that explains some of what can happen.
* Edit: I shouldn't have equated the dangers here. This was a bad take. I still believe there are good bits of info provided in the video, but the relevance to this thread is less than I considered and I should have thought more about what I was sharing.
Edit 2: I didn't mean to link to a specific timestamp of the video in the original link. That has been removed.
I clicked on his COVID-19 video[1] on a whim and while I have not watched it yet, my god is the comment section alarming. Is the YouTube comment section always like this when it comes to this topic?
Yes that seems to be typical. YouTube comment sections tend to be of poorer quality when the topic is popular or if the channel has a large enough audience.
Yes, beer would be acceptable in moderation by the Puritans and their Protestant descendants. Early Americans advocated temperance rather than complete abstinence. Much of this was a result of seeking a better/perfect society after the American Revolution. Evangelical Protestants spread religion and reform through the USA in what is known as the "Second Great Awakening" from 1790 to 1840. During this time, the temperance movement gained support. This led to a gain in popularity of complete abstinence from alcohol and the formation of various groups advocating for teetotalism. Through the late 1800's and early 1900's prohibitionist movements gained traction including the Anti-Saloon League which was driven by evangelical Protestantism. It was this organization that ultimately led to the Eighteenth Amendment of the United States constitution being ratified and prohibiting sale and manufacture of alcohol.
It has been a battle ever since. The area I live in only recently allowed the sale of liquor in restaurants and bars and still does not sell liquor by the bottle. There were many movements that had influence so perhaps it isn't fair to lay the blame solely on the Puritans, but they did have great influence in regards to alcohol in the USA and the parent isn't wrong, but has certainly omitted details.
Puritans, mostly because of the modern misunderstanding of the term, are blamed for all enforcement of any vice in the United States. I'm saying that the larger society, made up of different religious beliefs, has its own course and its social institutions are not constantly controlled by the "Puritans".
I am currently using Fedora 31 Cinnamon which uses GNOME Terminal and the shortcut to reset and clear screen/scrollback is CTRL+L. I am not sure if this shortcut is standard on GNOME Terminal or not, but it's present in this flavor.
EDIT: On my windows machine I think it is ALT+F8 in Git Bash. May be similar in other terminal emulators.
CTRL-l is a standard "clear the screen" keystroke, and should work in all terminals, but it does not necessarily clear the scrollback buffer. Since "scrollback" is something implemented by the emulator itself, you'll have to look up how to do it there.
I use konsole, and it's CTRL-SHIFT-k there by default, I believe. I just ran gnome-terminal, and I see in Edit -> Preferences -> Terminal -> Reset and Clear that you can give it a shortcut key but it does not appear to ship with one configured by default.
The reset command should clear the scrollback buffer. On older terminals where you'd get a garbled screen if you accidentally cat a binary file, it will give you your ASCII back.
Trying it just now on konsole, it does not. Whether that's because your terminal is following standards or because your terminal is interpreting a terminal command that doesn't actually say anything about scrollback to also clear scrollback, I don't know, and await anyone who does to answer that question.
My gut is that the terminal protocol would know nothing about scrollback and thus not have a "clear scrollback" command in it directly. There are plenty of other indications that scrollback is basically a hack.
[Konsole] Settings -> Configure Keyboard Shortcuts ... "Clear Scrollback and Reset". On my Arch boxes it is mapped to Ctrl + Shift + k. That's probably a default from upstream.
It's a common feature, but not formally standardized.
ED 3 isn't actually in the [ECMA-048] spec.
It was an xterm feature introduced in June 1999. Several terminal developers later adopted the feature. In April 2011, a Red Hat developer submitted a patch to the Linux kernel, modifying its console driver to do the same thing.
So it's not a formal standard, but it's universal on Linux since 3.0 and many terminal emulators have adopted it.
This history is covered in [clear(1)] from the ncurses project.
... none of which contradicts the point that the protocol does know about scrollback. The aforementioned developer, Petr Písař, got the implementation wrong, note.
It's actually an Emacs keybinding, that was added to GNU readline, which is used by Bash; most shells followed suit (either by using readline, or implementing it themselves).
While many of the readline keybindings come from Emacs, I would have said the common shell handling of Ctrl-L comes from that ^L is ASCII form-feed, which is "clear the page; start a new page" (in the same way that ^H is ASCII backspace).
I hadn't considered Bash C-L to be the same as Emacs C-L, since in Emacs I can hit C-L again to "undo" it (kinda).
C-l doesn't clear anything in it's default behavior right? It changes the line-at-poit to be at the center of the screen, bottom, or top, depending on how often yoi press it.
I would never have associated that with screen clear.
E: excuse me, of course C-l does the same scrolling in the terminal, it doesn't clear the history of course.
"Citizenship"
A celebration of all the moments our children will remember as the beginning of the end, thanks to our desire to change the world for the butter.
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
Hard to say their cloud "sucks" when they offer a solution featuring the very thing being complained about in regards to other cloud services. Or maybe IBM's cloud really is terrible, but it would be hard to know that as an outsider since you failed to provide any substantiating info. If you could expand upon your initial assertion, that would surely help the rest of us see your point and assist you in proving your case.
I believe it is just a naming issue. Not even sure that PHP devs have agreed on how to name the type. Internally, PHP calls them both arrays and hash tables if I understand correctly.
That being said AFAICT, HashTable and zend_array are used interchangeably throughout the source. I am not a C programmer, but I did write a couple of PHP extensions and that was my general understanding. Perhaps it is a compatibility issue or just used to abstract types differently in various areas of the C API.
Check out [2] for a deeper understanding of how arrays are handled internally in PHP.
IANAL, but from what I can gather (at least with the USPTO in the USA), a trademark can be weakened and even lost when not properly monitored and/or enforced. It would be unwise for any business to fail to protect their trademark(s).
I got bored with just beating the game and added some flare on level 20 by using a canon and photon torpedoes and kappa-face explosions[1]. Because why not.
* Edit: I shouldn't have equated the dangers here. This was a bad take. I still believe there are good bits of info provided in the video, but the relevance to this thread is less than I considered and I should have thought more about what I was sharing.
Edit 2: I didn't mean to link to a specific timestamp of the video in the original link. That has been removed.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNzQ_sLGIuA