I’ve been enjoying using babashka tasks for a while now. It’s nicer than Makefile and a great way to stash commands in your project.

This, for example, is how I compile my requirements.txt from requirements.in in a bunch of python projects, simply running bb pip from the project’s root:

{:paths ["src" "."]
 :tasks
 {pip
    {:task
        (do
            (shell "uv pip compile --no-strip-extras requirements.in -o requirements.txt")
            (shell "uv pip sync requirements.txt"))}}}

It will shine when you have more things to do, and you can import some piece of clojure to do them. This is how I do run a transcription pipeline for some lecture notes, offloading them to a remote machine with rsync, and then running the transcription with some transync I’ve written:

{:paths ["src" "."]
 :tasks
 {sync {:task (shell (str "rsync -vaL --progress --chmod=Du=rwx,Dg=rwx,Do=rx,Fu=rw,Fg=rw,Fo=r \""
                          (System/getProperty "user.home")
                          "Google Drive/My Drive/lectures\" "
                          "remotehost:~/data/transync/input/"))}
  ffmpeg-convert {:requires [transync]
                  :task (transync/ffmpeg-convert!)}

  transcribe-files {:requires [transync]
                    :depends [ffmpeg-convert]
                    :task (transync/transcribe-files!)}

  remote-transcribe
  {:task (do
           (shell (str "ssh-add " (System/getProperty "user.home") "/.ssh/github"))
           (shell "ssh remotehost '. ~/.zshrc && cd ~/path/to/project && git pull && bb transcribe-files'"))}

  sync-back
  {:depends [sync remote-transcribe]
   :task
   (shell (str "rsync -vaL --progress --chmod=Du=rwx,Dg=rwx,Do=rx,Fu=rw,Fg=rw,Fo=r "
               "remotehost:~/data/transync/transcripts \""
               (System/getProperty "user.home")
               "/Google Drive/My Drive/transcripts\""))}}}

You’ll notice that I’m running some tasks on the remote host, after pulling from github with my ssh-add‘ed github key. This might not be the production way to do it but it’s been very convenient for me so far. Especially without having to figure out how to escape strings in bash one more time.

When you hear some pundit say something, unless you have listened to the same pundit for a fair amount of time you have no context. You’ll be better off assuming you have not fully understood what they said.

Penn Jillette illustrates this beautifully in a speech to an atheist audience (source, starts at 24’):

Glenn Beck does four hours of radio then one hour of TV every day.
Now what people do not understand is that if you do talking for a living and you talk for two hours a day in public for two weeks you’ve exhausted every single thing you have to say. And then your career will go on probably another 25 years. In that 25 years you’ll be talking out your ass.
That’s true for Howard Stern, it’s true for Bill Maher, it’s true for everyone that sat in front of a microphone. It’s also true for Glenn Beck.

So Glenn Beck will get himself into convoluted corners, just like Howard Stern does, and I have this strong feeling that anytime you hear something from someone who’s on radio or TV a lot, when you hear what they’ve said it is automatically out of context. I don’t care how long you listen to it, if you listen to a full half hour that’s around that sentence it’s still out of context.

Because what people do (who are on radio/TV a lot, Howard Stern and Glenn Beck are good examples) is that they develop a relationship with their audience that is not purely artistic, it’s not a play, it’s not an essay. It’s a little more of an emotional relationship. It’s a little more like your batshit crazy uncle.

Anything you pull out of there does not include that whole long story of all the favors he did, all the things he said that were right, all the things that touched your heart, all the relationships you have.
So I don’t ever listen to Glenn Beck, and I don’t ever listen to Howard Stern, but I do know that when someone tells me something that they said I just dismiss it instantly, because if I wanna judge what they said I kinda-sorta have to listen for at least a year.

It doesn’t matter if you’ve read their Wikipedia page summary, unless you’ve consumed a fair amount of their content you don’t really know their position.

This might sound like an extreme benefit of doubt for pundits you disagree with, but it’s an equally extreme scrutiny for pundits you agree with.

By doing this you won’t have the knee-jerk reaction of accusing anyone that might be right, nor will you mindlessly forward links around for someone that said something you agree with but might have a dishonorable position.

Unless you’re familiar with a big enough body of work of the person in question you’ll be better off assuming you have no context.

Here’s Balaji answering Sam’s question about problems and solutions to wealth inequality:

The fit are not fit because the fat are fat, one person’s fatness is not the reason everybody else has fitness. Yet people think the rich are rich because the poor are poor.
[…] Status appears to be be locally positive-sum but it’s globally zero-sum, and money appears to be locally zero-sum but it’s globally positive-sum.

Relevant bit starts at 3h30’, very long episode but recommended, the last 30’ especially.

Versione in italiano

The phrase all X but means all X except.
E.G., “The Skittles were all colors but blue” means “The Skittles were of all colors except blue”.

The phrase all but often means almost, other times it means all except, and it’s very confusing.¹
E.G., “The Skittles I ate were all but blue” means “The Skittles I ate were almost blue”.
While “The Skittles I ate were all but the blue” means “The Skittles were of all colors except blue”.

If one knows both meanings, there are few ambiguous usages. An intuitive way to identify the correct meaning is to replace all but with almost² or all except and evaluate which one makes more sense.

I knew only one of the meanings: all except. I don’t know how many things I’ve read and misinterpreted.
It took some time for me to note that some usages didn’t make sense given the context. The very first times I presumed the writer was confused. Then I understood that the mistaken one wasn’t the writer but this very reader.

Is there a way to update the bad ideas I got after misreading all those all but? I don’t think so, I’ll have to live with that extra pinch of self doubt, a bit of self injected humility.

Fortunately I managed to avoid the same issue with cougar, and egregious Netflix & Chill which has at least four different meanings.

Beware of false friends!³

English version.

La frase¹ all X but significa tutti gli X tranne.
Per esempio, “The Skittles were all colors but blue” significa “Le Skittles erano di tutti i colori tranne blu”.

La frase all but spesso significa quasi, altre volte significa tutto tranne, creando tanta confusione.²
Per esempio, “The Skittles I ate were all but blue” significa “Le Skittles che ho mangiato erano quasi blu”.
Mentre “The Skittles I ate were all but the blue” significa “Le Skittles che ho mangiato erano di tutti i colori tranne blu”.

Se i due significati sono noti, gli usi ambigui sono pochi. Un modo intuitivo per eliminare l’ambiguità è sostituire all but con almost³ o all except e valutare quale versione abbia più senso.

Inizialmente mi era noto uno solo dei significati: tutto tranne. Non so quante cose io abbia letto senza capire correttamente.
Ci è voluto un po’ prima di notare che alcuni usi non avessero senso dato il contesto. Le primissime volte ho presunto che chi scriveva fosse confuso. Poi ho capito che a sbagliarsi non fosse chi scriveva ma chi leggeva.

C’è un modo per aggiornare le idee erronee che mi sono fatto dopo aver letto male tutti quegli usi di all but? Non credo, mi dovrò tenere quell’insicurezza, come se fosse una buona iniezione di umiltà.

Fortunatamente ho evitato lo stesso problema per cougar⁴, che ha altri significati oltre puma, e per egregious Netflix & Chill, che ha almeno quattro significati diversi.

Attenzione ai falsi amici!