I see both mastodon and lemmy

How about putting it at the top of the article, or using the dedicated “editor’s note” button they put right below the title ?

Found it thanks

Why did they burry what’s arguably the most important piece of information at the very end though ?

I’m not seeing this editor’s note (at least on mobile). Where is it ?

Edit 2: never mind, found it

How reliable is this website ? I see clickbaity headlines from it all the time around here and the Wikipedia page is mostly empty

Reminds me of the time when I bind mounted my home dir in a chroot, then rm -rfed the chroot when I no longer needed it…

To anyone saying it’s dumb not to use a forge, have you heard of a little open source project called Linux ? It does not use a forge either

Self hosting emails is a pain, but I’ve been doing it for almost 2 years and I do not have any of these issues. I’m not an expert either, I just thoroughly followed a tutorial to properly configure dmarc, dkim and everything else and everything just works (I just hope I’m not jinxing it by writing this :D )

There are a few things I don’t like about this scoring system :

• Why is there a “Top Provider Content Share” metric if its gonna score the same as the “Top Provider User Share” every time ?
• Why is the Top Provider Content Share not higher than the user share ? For instance, emails usually have at least one sender and one recipient, making it twice as likely that at least one of them is using gmail. If an email has 10 recipients across 10 different providers, each provider has a copy of the data
• Why is ease of hosting a mail server rated so well ? How is “leveraging email hosting services” decentralized in any way ?
• Why are we using a random repo created a few hours ago by a random github user as a reference ?

If you are interested in web technologies, you can turn your python program into a local API using something like Flask, then make a web interface using HTML/JS.

Alternatively, if your databases are on a filesystem that supports snapshots (LVM, btrfs or ZFS for instance), you can make a snapshot of the filesystem, mount the snapshot and backup thame database from it. This will ensure the backup is consistent with itself (the backed up directory was not written to between the beginning and the end of the backup)

Enabling multi DC redundancy is really easy though. The other providers you mentioned may have it by default, but they’re also a lot more expensive.

I love that they let me pick my own redundancy strategy, without forcing me to pay for theirs

border-radius: max(0px, min(8px, calc( (100vw - 4px - 100%) * 9999)) );

Oh I missed this. I think it’s only here to showcase doing math between different units, which is really nice in my opinion. I’m thinking about a few instances where I had to resort to dirty JS hacks just because CSS did not support this at the time

We still see somewhat old browsers, especially from people using Safari on Apple devices (because IIRC it only updates when you update the whole OS). But it’s a lot better than it used to be thanks to most browser having auto-updates

Works fine for me. Which OS and browser are you using ?

I’m not sure how this relates to the shared post. I’m just searched the article for “radius” and only found one example where a variable is defined then used later. Were you talking about this ? Or can you clarify what “radius calculation” you hate ?

It seems to be working for me, it’s weird. I’ve updated the post with the same URL anyway, and you can try https://scribe.bus-hit.me/@karstenbiedermann/goodbye-sass-welcome-back-native-css-b3beb096d2b4 if that still does not work

Well it’s in the name, they are code smells, not hard rules.

Regarding the specific example you cited, I think that with practice it becomes gradually more natural to write reusable functions and methods on the first iteration, removing the need for later DRY-related refactorings.

PS : I love how your quote for the Rule of Three is getting syntax highlighted xD (You can use markdown quotes by starting quoted lines with > )

Let’s rephrase my opinion, so that we can (hopefully) agree on something : What I’m arguing against is the “ChatGPT-style” (or “tutorial-style”) comments that I’ve seen all over juniors’ code, even before LLMs got widespread

When refactoring, it’s often the “what” that changes, not the “why”