Minimise your windows one at a time and check that the gnome keyring hasn’t popped up a dialog box sonewhere behind everything else that’s asking you if it’s okay to proceed.

It’s the gnome key ring ssh agent.

It’s possible that this has popped up a window asking gor permission / a passphrase / something and you’re not seeing that.

That’s only part of the handshake. It’d require agent input around that point.

Is this problem a recurring one after a reboot?

If it is it warrants more effort.

If not and you’re happy with rhe lack of closure, you can potentially fix this: kill the old agent (watch out to see if it respawns; if it does and that works, fine). If it doesn’t, you can (a) remove the socket file (b) launch ssh-agent with the righr flag (-a $SSH_AGENT_SOCK iirc) to listen at the same place, then future terminal sessions that inherit the env var will still look in the right place. Unsatisfactory but it’ll get you going again.

Okay, that agent process is running but it looks wedged: multiple connections to the socket seem to be opened, probably your other attempts to use ssh.

The ssh-add output looks like it’s responding a bit, however.

I’d use your package manager to work out what owns it and go looking for open bugs in the tool.

(Getting a trace of that process itself would be handy, while you’re trying again. There may be a clue in its behaviour.)

The server reaponse seems like the handshake process is close to completing. It’s not immediately clear what’s up there I’m afraid.

Please don’t ignore the advice about SSH_AGENT_SOCK. It’ll tell yoy what’s going on (but not why).

Without the ssh-agent invocation:

• what does ssh-add -L show?
• what is the original SSH_AUTH_SOCK value?
• what is listening to that? (Use lsof)

This kind of stuff often happens because there’s a ton of terrible advice online about managing ssh-agent - make sure there’s none if that baked into your shellrc.

Experience. For what it’s worth, the instinct I distrust is absolutism.

I think it’s like the distinction between art and obscenity; it’s not a nuanced distinction in the case in question. If it were, I’d largely trust UK courts to get it right (they are by-and-large capable of this, and much less politicised than their US counterparts).

I’m coming around to it.

I think unqualified freedom to say anything can lead to negative utility, pragmatically speaking. Malicious lies bring less than nothing to discourse.

I’m concerned that the libel system can be abused, of course; and I don’t approve of arresting octogenerians under the Prevention of Terrorism Act for shouting “nonsense!” at Jack Straw. But I don’t see there being a need to draw a distinction between online and in person speech, and I think that incitement to riot isn’t something I’d typically defend.

Having said that: I hope the woman in question (who has a history of being a deniable pot-stirrer) gets a trial rather than copping a plea, because the bounds of these things are worth testing.

That’s a cracking article.

My own use of jvm errors tends to follow the same kinds of patterns: I think the major fault with that model is having RuntimeException as a subclass of Exception, because it’s really intended for abandonment-style errors. (The problem is that lots of people use it instead as an exception system in order to cut down on boilerplate.)

I find it eye-opening that the author prefers callsite annotation with try (although I’m not going to argue with their experience at the time). I can see this being either “no big deal” or even “a good thing” to Rust users in particular - mutability and borrowing annotations at both callsite and definition aren’t required to make the language work afaict (your ide will instantly carp if you miss 'em out) but the increased programmer visibility is typically seen as a good thing. (Perhaps this is down to people largely reviewing PRs in a browser, I dunno.) Certainly there’s tons of good food for thought there.

In which case, perhaps unqualified “freedom of speech” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

(I appreciate that Chomsky’s opinion resonates more with 1968 than now.)

Have you seen pictures of the sub? What makes you think the wiring was all hidden?

You joke, but watch this:

https://archive.org/details/take-me-to-titanic

from 29 minutes in. A last-minute adjustment before launch plugged in a thruster backwards; no protocol to check the behaviour prelaunch. They doscovered it when they got to the bottom.

Was at the time (as per usual).

Cf. previous comments about dogwhistles.

I’m not sure why it’s “obviously” good to move from one mechanism to two: as a user I now have to categorise every path to work out which is appropriate.

What I said was less about adding to a function signature than it was about adding to a facade - that is, a system boundary, although the implementation may be the same depending on language. People typically use exceptions pretty badly - a function signature with a baggage-train of internal exceptions that might be thrown by implementation guts is another antipattern that gives the approach a bad rep. Errors have types too (or they should have), and the typical exception constructor has a wrapper capability for good reason.

I think you’re spitting the situation on the wrong horn of Jefferson’s dilemma. They have the freedom to speak. It comes with the danger of being arrested if that speech meets the requirements of being an exhortation to violence.

I take it that you can see a distinction between “Vance fucks couches” and “burn those people in their hotel”. They are not the same thing.

If the distinction is hard to determine - that’s why there’s a judicial process.