Yes, I agree. It's been small enough of an issue for me to care (I have `~/.parallel/will-cite` set by my dotfiles repo, so wouldn't even see it on a new machine), but now I switched to `rust-parallel`.
Picked that one because it was supposedly the fastest, I liked the Github page and I will remember the name :) And I guess I was hoping for it to be a drop-in replacement for `parallel` interface-wise, which it turned out it was not, but my needs are quite minimal. I used to do:
Unsure, but thinking aloud, if a bunch of formal (ie high signal) documents say that the link in question is to do with the Epstein files, it would presumably have an effect on how search engines and LLM training runs understand the content of the link.
But why one would want to do this is beyond me -- it would, after all, be an unsavoury association.
Looking at the log, it seems like the author gives each release a name. “Epstein files” is just the latest out of a number of questionable names, the previous one being “Maduro”:
While this explicitly calls out "postinstall", I'm pretty sure it affects other such lifecycle scripts like preinstall in dependencies.
The --ignore-scripts option will ignore lifecycle scripts in the project itself, not just dependencies. And it will ignore scripts that you have previously allowed (using the "allowBuilds" feature).
The end of this article leaves me hanging. Did she manage to find the previously employed insurance lady so that she could thank her, or not? I need closure!
Someone (maybe on this site) suggested to think of the bottom bars of the square brackets around the linked text to kind of frame the underline. Somehow worked really well for me, haven’t forgotten the syntax since.
I applaud this project, “setting all the options”. I think it’s a really good idea to become close friends with the software you use all the time, and getting acquainted through the lens of configuration is one way. Messing around with stuff is good.
I feel it’s worth mentioning that there is a sense in which I think it might be a bad idea. It could be that you’d now be fixating some value that may be optimal right now, rather than benefiting from future improvements to the default settings. But it all depends, of course, on how close friends you plan to be.
"Become close friends with the software you use all the time." That is a beautifully evocative phrase for a lovely idea, thank you for sharing.
If I may share an idea for which I don't have nearly as nice and succinct a summation, but I've come to view my personal computing environments through the lens of being a garden. I spend so much time within them, working, learning, playing and writing. I can see the different seasons of my life reflected through naming conventions, directory structures, scripts I've written and bookmarks I've long ignored. There are new things I want to try and explore in the spring when I hopefully have a bit more free time. I have planted seeds while children slept in my arms or in the next room, and I have enabled their dreams with the fruits of my labour. I would even say I have occasionally communed with the close and holy darkness on long, late nights.
In time everything I have created will return to dust, and probably no one will ever know this garden as I have. But it has still been a place of growth and blessing.
No, it doesn't just mean that (it does mean non-mutating from the point of view of the client and in regard to the target resource, but the essential meaning involves more than that and it is more subtle than simply “non-mutating”.)
The specific definition is in the HTTP spec, and I don't think I can describe it more concisely without losing important information necessary for really understanding it.
reply