any · textlog

wrote:

Finally watched Project Hail Mary. Easily one of my top 5 favourite films but it’s still not nearly as good as the book — I feel like the cut some pretty important scenes

replied to:

It's the first film in a long time that I enjoyed.

…

replied to:

I loved the book and I’m always fearful when a movie script is developed and a movie produced, so my relief after I saw the movie was immense. I too feel they’ve cut-out some bits, but the main thing that a book almost always takes my breath away with is fueling my imagination. A movie would (possibly) never nail that aspect.

replied to:

I just watched it as well. It was fun. There were a number of things that I felt weren't explained well and broke my suspension of disbelief; I haven't read the book, but I found myself really curious whether the book takes the time to justify things more. Obviously, the movie has a lot of pressure to rush to the next "big moment".

…

replied to:

If there’s one thing Andy Weir can’t be critiqued on then it’s not fully justifying all of the science. I think the film on the other hand can be hard to follow for someone who has neither read the book nor has a scientific background. It’s just hard to monologue about gravitational forces and relativistic speeds on screen.

wrote:

and now for something completely different, why do the lovers think I'm ?

replied to:

Is it that you don’t enjoy coffee, or you don’t enjoy Starbucks? I’m not a fan of Starbucks’ coffee myself, but do enjoy coffee I make at home or get from local coffee shops.

replied to:

It is something silly made out of misheard lyrics from a Taylor Swift song. I usually drink instant coffee 🥹

wrote:

Hello, world

wrote:

Phoenix oolong instead of my normal because I'm sick.

wrote:

So annoyed that reddit is gating read-access to it's threads. What's up with that?? (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ (thx ascii-art)

wrote:

signals. thinking about shifting my mental framework to identify signals instead of waiting for concepts to be assembled. exploring the amount of energy and opportunities for distractions through the operations of processing what just happened and what is happening to short circuit latent and unnecessary systems. cut through the assembly processes and identify the raw signals. recognizing that naming these "raw signals" is misleading. maybe, shifting observability lower in the stack.

wrote:

Collected my helper functions to lozenge.el package, e.g. (◊duckduckgo "textlog") opens ddg. Lozenge is ◊ character. Others are (◊find-file), (◊grep), (◊github-search), (◊show-commit) etc.

wrote:

I very much like textlog, it feels like a breath of fresh air

replied to:

this

…

replied to:

feel the same!

replied to:

tysm! welcome!

wrote:

I hate crawlers that don’t advertise they’re crawlers. ’n badly written. They don’t respect the canonical URLs so they keep getting themselves into a loop instead of actually crawling the site properly. They make the logs really hard to read. Can’t block them they’re distributed.

replied to:

I am curious what an actual solution to this problem could be. Everything I've read about it feels like a bandaid — from robots.txt to cloudflare turnstile — there has to be a better way!

continued:

For this particular problem though, I feel like if the crawlers are coming from domestic / residential IP addresses and they lack a distinctive http header or user agent, it is indistinguishable from a denial of service attack and must be treated as such.

replied to:

It would require permaban on IPs which would require permalogging of IPs in order to track them, and we are currently obfuscating them before hitting the DB with daily rotating salt so an anonymous user can’t be tracked. So we’d have to give up privacy/security :/

replied to:

But as long as people can still use the site it's OK, right? Seems like the problem is often self-inflicted, either because the site is so bloated that answering even GET-requests is burdensome, or because they're trying to monetize the data and so must block non-paying scrapers.

…