𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍

       🅸 🅰🅼 🆃🅷🅴 🅻🅰🆆. 
 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍 𝖋𝖊𝖆𝖙𝖍𝖊𝖗𝖘𝖙𝖔𝖓𝖊𝖍𝖆𝖚𝖌𝖍 

Ceterum Lemmi necessitates reactiones

  • 0 Posts
  • 22 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: August 26th, 2022

help-circle

  • Did you look at Pelican?

    I have not, but I will. I may also look at Zola, although it, too, appears at the surface level to be tightly coupled with markdown.

    the template language is buggy and inscrutable

    It’s just Go templates, which are pretty solid; I’d be surprised by any bugs, unless they’re in the Hugo short codes. The syntax is challenging, even if you’re a Go developer and use it all the time. It’s a bespoke DSL, and a pretty awful one: it’s verbose, obtuse, and makes some common things hard.

    Go is my language of choice, but my faith gets shaky whenever I have to use templates.

    I’m not a huge fan of Python; despite its popularity, it’s got a lot of problems, not least of which is the whole Python 2/3 fiasco; which, years later, is still plaguing us. However, if I can containerized it so it isn’t constantly breaking in the background when I do a system update, I’m not opposed to using a project written in it. At least it isn’t Node; I won’t let that crap onto any server I admin.

    Edit: Zola has the same problem as Hugo.


  • Ah, Ok.

    I do as (or a similar workflow): I rsync the content directory and let Hugo on the server render. My sites are public, but perhaps they’re just much smaller or not as popular; Hugo renders even my largest site in about a second, but for a large, slow, heavy-use production situation I could see a push-and-swap process for a more atomic site update.

    I don’t see the degradation you do, but there are so many possible variables.

    My biggest gripe about Hugo is how limited it is in supporting source document formats. There’s no mechanism for hooking in different formats, and the team is reluctant to merge PRs for other formats. When I started with Hugo, I had a large repository of essays spanning a decade and written in a variety of markup, from asciidoc (which I used for years), to reST, to markdown; and markdown is by far the worst. I was faced with converting everything to markdown, which was usually a lossy process because markdown is so limited, or not publishing all of that history. And now we have djot, which is almost the perfect plain text markup language, but I again have to first do a lossy conversion to markdown to get Hugo to consume it. It low-key sucks, and I’m actively looking for an alternative that has a more flexible AST-based model for which new formats can be added; something that consumes a format like pandoc’s AST.








  • Sure; I’m saying that there are trigger words that are guaranteed to generate negative comments: blockchain, crypto, crypto currency, and Bitcoin.

    You said that you can’t understand the negative feedback. I’m giving you one reason why you might be seeing it. Lemmy and Mastodon (the AP FediVerse in general) is not cryptocurrency-friendly. If you mention “Bitcoin” in the post, you’re going to get brigaded. If someone sniffs around on the repo documentation and sees the crypto link, they’ll mention it in the comments and you’ll get brigaded.


  • I think there’s such a knee-jerk reaction to any mention of crypto currency, even in comparison, that even a whiff of a relationship generates negative reactions. As you say, much of it is based on no actual knowledge about the topic. It doesn’t help that there are some truly deplorable people associated with cryptocurrency, a great many bad actors, and proof-of-work was in retrospect a terrible design decision by Satoshi.

    Blockchain isn’t cryptocurrency, and vice-versa, but most people can’t distinguish between the two. If there’s any mention of blockchain on the site, or especially if you mention bitcoin (as you did) you’re going to get crusaders.





  • Counter:

    1. Carry-ons can be objectively better for passengers.

      • Go straight to your gate, no check-in drop-off
      • No angst about lost luggage
      • No interminable waiting at the luggage carousel
      • Less TSA pawing through and stealing your stuff
      • For many trips, a carry-on is all you need
    2. Carry-ons are cheaper for airlines.

      • Carry-ons require no handlers to transport or physically stack luggage
      • Carry-ons are categorically lighter and use less space than checked bags, translating to less fuel

    2b could be mitigated by checking only carry-on-sized luggage; basically a smaller luggage-size limit.

    I traveled for business for years, and got used to traveling only in a carry-on. My GRo (the best luggage ever built, and which you can no longer but) always fit into a single overhead space. I could pack underwear and several business shirts, toiletries, a pair of (compressable) casual shores, and wear my suit, and still have room left for a pair of jeans. It was a stretch to go for two work weeks, but I could do it. One week was no inconvenience at all. Now even when I travel for pleasure, unless it’s a two week vacation I still only pack a carry-on.

    That said: I’m a man, and women in corporate environments - unfairly - often feel obligated to pack more clothes: multiple pairs of shoes, multiple outfits, more cosmetics, etc. It is generally easier for a man to stretch a suit by altering only shirts and ties. Even so, my wife will also pack only a carry-on if the trip is 5-days or less. Even though the company pays for baggage fees, it’s a worse customer experience at both ends of the trip to check a bag, and I don’t think there’s much airlines could do about that. It’s a straightforward logistical problem.

    Except for long, or specialty, trips (e.g, skiing, backpacking), carry-ons for us are subjectively, but uncontestedly, superior. Airlines reversing the fee schedule would be categorically worse for us, enough that we’d switch our frequent flier programs over it.