I'm assuming your using firefox, if so it's this bug[1] that basically prevents range requests from working. Basically firefox says it will accept gziped data even though it's a range request and github pages dudifly sends back an unreadable slice of a gziped file.
huh. is this due to ambiguity in whether you want gzipped content vs gzipped transport (of arbitrary content), and/or which range the bytes are requesting? I can see both being useful, but I don't know what headers are available for these intentions...
my understanding is that technically only gzipped content is supported, not gzipped transport of arbitrary content. Due to ambiguity around the word 'append' [1] in the spec, firefox adds 'identity' (aka don't compress) to the end of the list of compressions supported while most other browsers replace the list with 'identity'. Also it should be noted that this is not a user configurable header so you can't actually try to override it.
There is a second layer to the bug in that github pages should almost certainly not be sending back slices of compressed files even if gzip is listed before identity and some change to something in the github stack probably exposed the bug that was there in firefox all along.
I literally just stumbled on this last week while doing a side project that involved browser range requests so this is fresh in my head.
1. it comes down to whether it was meant that 'Accept-Encoding:identity' should be appended to the list of header values possibly overwriting the one that already was there or if 'identity' should be appended to the list of values already in the 'Accept-Encoding' header. Firefox does the latter, everyone else does the former.
In my case, loading the entire file is loading a tiny bit more data, so this fallback doesn't hurt, but it's still annoying, and broke any hope I had of doing something more clever with the dataset.
The actual regression might be with githup pages where firefox was sending the same ambiguous headers the whole time but something in github's stack started interpreting them differently.
I get "Error connecting to database: RuntimeError: abort(Error: server uses gzip or doesn't have length). Build with -s ASSERTIONS=1 for more info" from the sposorship stats site lined toand the same as you for the demo.
its interesting, but it is not robust and I very much doubt it will have the claimed benefit for lasting without further work. At the very least its more work and requires cross browser testing.
It seems a lot of effort just to avoid paying a small amount a month for a VPS. Its free and " I forget about the backend and stop paying for whatever VPS it was on" stops being a problem (although running all the little things you have on one VPS would also simplify that).
Working with Django for the past 15 years has been a pleasure. Joining the community was a revelation. Serving on the board and as president of the DSF was a privilege. I look forward to 20 more years of code and community.
This is a good take on one of the many areas that companies need to change process in as they grow. Bad communication can hamper and destroy a company just as much as bad hiring, bad vision, bad money management.
I about the process in this write up though. There is communication and there is discussion. The article is framed in a way that suggests top down communication process needed to change so that a larger company could be sure that everyone is on the same page and aware of what they need to be aware of. Both examples then however name check the idea that feedback is expected at the least, welcome at best.
How are we meant to read this paragraph:
> “Marketing says we’re an observability platform, not a tool.” It isn’t enough that our CMO said the words in All Hands. As a representative of Marketing, it’s important to me that our product, documentation, engineers who are speaking at conferences, and customer success people get the language consistent. That means I need to show up at department meetings and talk to people in their perspective. Next Monday I’ll talk to all of Engineering very briefly, and later to the docs team specifically.
It reads as if marketing has made a decision by fiat for the rest of the company to toe the line. No judgement there, that may well be how the company chooses to operate. What then is the need for "talk to people in their perspective"? Is various department perspectives going to change the marketing language, or is it just to placate everyone that they were heard? Why does the perspective taking not happen _before_ the decision as input on if the language should change?
I read this as just saying "Our propaganda department has a new memo about the approved way to refer to our product, but obviously nobody internally listens to them -- their job is to communicate to potential customers, and so typically don't have anything to say to employees. Since they claim it to be important that everyone use the same jargon, even internally, they'll need to do a roadshow to whip everyone to the same page."
That seems fine. The marketing department's job is to do exactly stuff like this.
> The impact of Markdown becomes clear if we plot a random sample of content websites. (Disclaimer: the data is made-up, based on my perception of the state of the web)
It makes sense that your perception of the web has driven you to create a new tool and market it with a think piece. But to expand that to suggest you have effectively realized and filled a new vector space in the web is excessive
>That sparse area just beyond the limits of Markdown is of vital importance to the web. These websites are not only a joy to read but also the ones that explore the web's possibilities, embracing the medium and evoking a truly web-native feel.
>Currently, these websites are outliers created by individuals who care deeply about the reader's experience or by companies willing to invest extra effort. We need more of them.
Interesting to me that you have added "focus on this paragraph" coloring to your site. I'm not against that in principle, but you have placed it farther up the page than I prefer to read and scroll. So you care deeply about my experience, have created a whole tool to inhabit an area of web design that you think is undeserved, rationalize it based on feels, and, for me, deliver a poorer experience to show it off.
"The Website Wasteland", as you call it, is a good thing if this is the result of populating it.
well put, and I had thoughts just like this while reading the linked article.
I find that most of the use cases in that 'wasteland' would be made better by reducing the fluff and focusing on content. In my younger days, I chafed at the restrictions of Markdown and similar tools. However I now appreciate that the results are almost always easier to read.
Eh, maybe that's excessive for you and the kind of writing you do. But I think the author is right - there's plenty of valuable writing where being able to customize the page more is valuable.
The most obvious example to me is academic articles - where you need footnotes, figures, algorithm blocks, appendicies, math, numbered sections, and so on. Markdown doesn't support any of that stuff and latex is horrible on the web. It would be great to have something with support for those features, but that also supported HTML output.
But, there's plenty more examples where being able to make richer content than markdown supports is super valuable. For example, Bartosz Ciechanowski's blog is incredible:
Doing anything like this in markdown is hard. You're kind of fighting the tool. The ideal tool would support custom components + custom styling - which aren't supported at all by markdown.
This whole comment thread is weirdly down on the article. I suspect most people have simply never come up against markdown's limitations while doing technical writing. They're quite severe whenever the output of your documentation needs to be a rich website or paper, not just a documentation file in a github repository.
Had the same thought. It’s not that you can’t get an index out of Pandoc, it’s that it’s a bridge just slightly too far unless you’re really committed, and then you have a long road ahead of you.
The Transformers song almost certainly doesn't have that weird break as written. The Youtuber spends 18 minutes trying to figure out the music for what is most likely a production artifact - the recorded music didn't line up with the animation beats, so they did a hard cut on the audio track to make it fit.
Budgie Health | Multiple Roles | Full-time | Remote (US - EST or CST) or NY
Join us to make healthcare benefits less confusing. Backed by top VCs (Greycroft and Pear VC), we built a platform to help employees pick the right health insurance through a personalized recommendation. Following successful initial clients, we are growing the team to scale the platform and build more features.
Why Budgie: People shouldn’t need a PhD to understand their healthcare. At Budgie, we are reinventing how Americans interact with their healthcare benefits. We believe that by translating complex healthcare data into simple financial experiences, we can empower people to make better decisions while saving time, money and stress. We are starting by modernizing how employees choose their health insurance plan. Ask your friends if they need help picking their health insurance and you will understand how big the opportunity is.
