open-location-code VS Mosh

Pluscode is a trademark. The actual standard is called "open location code" and is unrestricted - https://github.com/google/open-location-code/

Yeah, that seems like a bad design choice. If you look at the spec [0], you can see that they only use "23456789CFGHJMPQRVWX" in the codes. They apparently scored the letters based on how well they can spell 10000 words in 30 languages, without thinking about character similarity. If they had involved actual humans instead of counting letter frequency, they might have noticed that the letter W looks similar to VV, and that its English name is "double U". And tried a letter like N or Y, which would be much harder to confuse.

[0] https://github.com/google/open-location-code/blob/main/docs/...

Lots of thoughts from the founders incl comparison with other systems here: https://github.com/google/open-location-code/wiki/Evaluation-of-Location-Encoding-Systems

It's licensed Apache 2.0 https://github.com/google/open-location-code

I wish https://plus.codes/ took off. The benefit compared to what 3 words is that you can use the closest city to give directions and cells next to each other share the bigger cell name.

And an additional shoutout for https://plus.codes/ from Google.

New to this so sorry if this is stupid. I've been trying to use https://plus.codes to try to check an address for availability at starlink. Whatever code I put in, it simply tells me afterwards "please enter an address or a plus code". That website seems to give me either a shorter or a longer plus code. Neither of them seems to make the starlink website happy. When I try putting in the address, it doesn't like that either. Confused on where to go from here.

If you haven’t already, and I know this doesn’t hold up for GUI emacs or vim, but consider running them through https://mosh.org/

FWIW, I wouldn't try to parse escape sequences "directly" from the input bytestream -- it's easy to end up with annoying bugs. Longer-term it's probably better to separate the logic e.g.:

- First step (for a UTF-8-input terminal emulator) means "lexing" the input bytestream as UTF-8 into a stream of USVs, which involves some subtleties (https://github.com/mobile-shell/mosh/blob/master/src/termina...).

- Second step is to run the DEC parser/FSM logic on the sequence of USVs, which is independent of the escape sequences (https://vt100.net/emu/dec_ansi_parser ; https://github.com/mobile-shell/mosh/blob/master/src/termina...).

- And then the third step is for the terminal to execute the "dispatch"/"execute"/etc. actions coming from the FSM, which is where the escape sequences and control chars get implemented (https://github.com/mobile-shell/mosh/blob/master/src/termina...).

Without this separation, it's easier to end up with bugs where, e.g., a UTF-8 sequence or an ANSI escape sequence is treated differently when it's split between multiple read() calls vs. all in one call.

Btw, you can use mosh to hide the latency of SSH. https://mosh.org/

I've been using Kitty's SSH features for as long as I can remember but I recently setup Mosh and I really like how it doesn't drop connections and supports roaming.

I am surprised many people write about ssh into a server. Mosh[1] feels more responsive and it also supports longer sessions.

[1] - https://mosh.org/

Also they support Mosh which I install on my servers. It's way better than plain ssh when you're on mobile networks and wifi, especially with connections that are unreliable or bandwidth-constrained.

I’ve recently been experimenting with MoSH (Mobile Shell). Basically think SSH but with UDP - so more resilient to shoddy network conditions, roaming access points, etc.

If it is not for production (e.g. running as a daemon or a server) and you only care about the development, another ad-hoc way is using screen/tmus-like software incl. byobu, and combine it with mosh.