Threads for eBPF
-
Reminds me of this article
-
eBPF
19 days ago
|
link
| on:
If you have a public dotfiles repo, do you hide some of your configs? How?
I use chezmoi to manage my dotfiles and I can set it up to use my Bitwarden vault to put secrets in config files.
-
Came here to say this; I don’t use the functionality myself, but you can also encrypt entire files with Chezmoi using gpg or age and it will transparently decrypt/encrypt them on your host: docs link
-
-
-
Neovim with a LOT of addons.
https://github.com/9p4/dotfiles/tree/main/dot_config/nvim
I use Packer for plugin management and Mason for LSP server/whathaveyou management. I’ve thrown in a smattering of LSP-related plugins to make life easier for myself, as well as a bunch of autocomplete plugins. I make heavy use of Telescope to navigate my files and buffers. My setup starts almost instantly (thanks to lazy loading) so I can have a bunch of ephemeral sessions. The time where I always have an instance of nvim running is when I’m working on a large project with an LSP that needs to reinitialize every time I start nvim.
At this point I should’ve just used Spacemacs in evil mode…
-
-
It was actually pretty easy to implement what the author was recommending on my website.
@media screen and (prefers-color-scheme: light) { html { background: #fefbea; } body { color: #191917; } a { color: #191917; } .header-img { filter: brightness(0%) saturate(100%) invert(5%) sepia(9%) saturate(548%) hue-rotate(22deg) brightness(97%) contrast(90%); } }I used an online tool to generate the SVG filter to make it match the rest of the website. My only gripe is some of the pictures I have on the website with white backgrounds don’t really match the cream colour, but that’s fine. I’ll work to add borders or something later (they didn’t really match the dark theme either so it’s fine I guess).
That being said, my website is incredibly simple. I’m sure it’ll be a little more complicated to do the same for bigger or more complicated sites/CMSs. But it’s incredibly easy and follows what the user wants, so I do recommend spending thirty minutes finding a colour scheme that works for you and throw it on your website.
-
-
It’s so nice to see that people still care about reducing binary size by ~30mb in the age of terabyte disks :)
-
-
Ideally I should be getting my amateur radio license this week. I’ve been going through Hamstudy a bunch and I should get my certification soon.
I should also be doing the first boot of my blade system today. I’m looking forward to how much current it draws and how loud it gets :)
-
-
My screen happens to be exact size that when scrolling down, the background seems to be going the wrong way because there isn’t any smooth scrolling on my Firefox.
-
I wonder how it would work by using sixel graphics instead
-
I just came into possession of a blade server with all the blades in it for really cheap. My plan is to get that running and figure out some place to put it. It’ll definitely be an interesting project! I’m planning on putting OpenStack or something on it eventually. It’ll be nice to get it all working.
-
I disagree. The web is a place for art and graphic design as much as anything else. Websites are allowed to be pretty.
Anecdotal at best. Misleading at worst.
You are not all users. I, for one, do not enjoy using websites that don’t look nice.
Again, anecdotal (though it does seem plausible).
I find myself agreeing with all the other points brought up in the article (system fonts are usually good enough, consistency across platforms isn’t essential, performance). I don’t have any extra fonts used on my website (except for where Katex needs to be used) and I think it’s fine (in most cases. I’ve seen the default font render badly on some devices and it was a little sad).
I still disagree about “websites are tools and nothing else”. I don’t want my website to be a tool. I want it to be art. I’ve poured in time and effort and money and my soul into what I’ve made. I do consider it art. I consider it a statement. And if I have to make a 35kb request to add in a specific typeface, then I’ll do it to make it reach my vision.
That was obviously not the real question though: the point is, do web fonts help users in any way, compared to widely available system fonts? My guess is that the difference is small enough to be hard to even detect.
As a user, they make me happy and I tend to be more engaged with the content (when used effectively), so yes I find them helpful. I don’t want to live in a world without variety or freedom of expression. As long as there are ways to turn them off, surely everyone can be happy.
We live in a world full of colour. I don’t like this idea of the hypothetical ‘user’ who ‘just wants to get things done’ and has no appreciation for the small pleasures in life. I don’t have anything against anyone who feels that way of course (it’s completely valid). Just this generalisation of ‘the user’.
It really depends on the metrics measured.
Does the font help the user fill out the form and submit it? No, not really.
Does the font help engender a brand feeling of trust across platforms and mediums? Probably yes.
It’s impossible not to detect my own instinctive, positive reaction to a nice web design, and typography is a big part of that. I am quite certain I’m not alone in that feeling. That enjoyment is “helpful” enough for me to feel strongly that web fonts are here to stay, and that’s a good thing. There’s also plenty of UX data about what typography communicates to users, even if those findings aren’t normally presented in terms of “helping.”
A poorly chosen font can be hard to read in a certain context, but that’s a far cry from “all custom web fonts are bad for usability” and I haven’t seen any evidence to back up that claim. So given there are obvious positives I think the question is really what harm they actually do.
I’d wager typography is not limited to fonts.
Now obviously there’s a difference between a good web font and a crappy system font. But are all system fonts crappy? I haven’t checked, but don’t we already have a wide enough selection of good fonts widely installed on user’s systems already? Isn’t the difference between those good fonts and and (presumably) even better web fonts less noticeable? Surely we’re past the age of Arial and Times New Roman by now?
See this related submission: https://lobste.rs/s/tdiloe/modern_font_stacks
It’s basically grouping “typeface styles” across different systems’ installed fonts.
This is big, thank you.
I mean, I guess it won’t be as good as the best web font someone would chose for a given application, but if anything is “close enough”, that could be it.
Obviously fonts are a subset of typography (didn’t mean to imply they are the same), but they are absolutely central to it. And I didn’t say that system fonts are all crappy. My argument doesn’t rely on that premise, and anyway, I like system fonts! I think that designing within constraints can foster creativity! I just don’t think we should impose those constraints on everyone. At least not without a lot more evidence of actual harm than I’ve seen presented.
And although we are definitely past the New Roman Times ;) I don’t think that means that a striking use of a good font is any less effective on the web.