You could combine both by adding a stack frame each time the error is returned one level up. This could be done explicitly (cumbersome and not everyone will do it) or automatically by the language (weird magic, but useful).
In a similar vein, I made https://www.wikdict.com/reader/sv-en/ , which adds translation pop-ups to each word in the input text. The cool thing compared to manually looking up words is that it will translate idioms/phrases (if they are in the dictionary) and split compound words (if they are not in the dictionary) into their translatable parts.
I also have some code to add the translations as pop-up footnotes to epub files (I like to use that on my e-reader). That is not mature enough yet for public usage, but if anyone wants to help testing it, I can run some e-books through it. Just let me know!
It doesn't have to. But if it does not end in .py, you have to add the --script (or -s for short) flag to tell it to interpret the file as a python script.
That wouldn't be considered a timestamp in my book. For starters, it doesn't have time information, only date information. Quickly asking ChatGPT it gives this answer:
In computing, timestamps are commonly expressed in formats like "YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm:ss" (year-month-day hour:minute:second).
When pressed about this particular time detail, ChatGPT elaborates:
While "YYYY-MM-DD" is a common date format, it's not complete for a timestamp, which typically includes both date and time information. A complete timestamp might look like "YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm:ss" to include hours, minutes, and seconds.
So, no, this post doesn't contain a timestamp, and it already fails in its own advice.
The blog post contains a timestamp in the RSS feed. In fact, the referenced post by Julia Evans also contains a timestamp in its RSS feed as well.
However, the post is making the point that the date should be in the post as viewed by the human reader as clearly as possible, which isn't the case in the the referenced post by Julia Evans.
In the third paragraph the author notes that "Only when I copied the URL to complain about it I discovered the date there". So there is no confusion on the author's part about what a timestamp is versus what a date is.
Quite the nitpick. They obviously mean date not timestamp.
The fidelity increase of Date->Timestamp for a blog post is almost nothing (unless you are reporting on current events, e.g. the BBC has timestamps in their live reports).
The fidelity increase of {} -> Date is much higher. For tech you now know that this article is likely incorrect. E.g. if it is 10 years old and about how to install Node or something.
I do not want to support anything that optimizes for "engagement". It penalized all the really useful offerings that I use for a minute to solve my problem and then don't touch again in a long time and instead encourages addictiveness.
There is no addictiveness here, because the person whose behavior is measured and the one being rewarded for it are two different people.
EDIT : I think what you missed is how this is an issue mostly with advertising-funded websites, especially platforms. More views = more money for the website. (It even goes for Hacker News, somewhat !) But for Flattr 2.0, more/longer browsing doesn't (directly) equal more money (even for the creators, in aggregate) ! Even Patreon has an issue like this - GP is talking about the bundling issue, but Patreon still has an artificial moat that exacerbates this : not only it's annoying to reduce the funding for many other creators at once when you add a new one, you can't even reduce your funding for a specific artist to less than $1/month - regardless of how much you might be paying per month to Patreon in total !
Or are you against free markets ?? They tend to promote what people want and manufacturing wants too, you know ?
Flattr 2.0 of course still has some issues : why a very short music video should be rewarded much less than a long form blog post ? (OtoH the music video is much more likely to be much more popular across a wider variety of people, so I guess that issue is self-fixing ? EDIT: not so much for a poem ?)
The creators are encouraged to create engaging/addicting/long content if that is what causes higher payments. Therefore, I much preferred the original Flattr where I defined which creator was beneficial to me.
I don't think that Flattr2 is more true to a free markets vision than Flattr1. Neither do I believe that a free market is necessarily better than a regulated market. Markets are a highly useful tool, not a goal themselves.
Hmm, good point, but since the extension is open source you could always have decided to disable that part, or even more importantly - reprogram it yourself to whatever definition and weights of engagement that you would like ?
I agree that `envsubst` is a good choice for this. Unfortunately, it is not part of posix, so you can't rely on it being present everywhere. But as part of gettext, it is still very common.
