Zen (Firefox-based) has been really refreshing. You could probably accomplish the same thing with some user scripts and user CSS, but the concern with those has always been that they could break at any time with a new update. That shouldn't happen with a fork like Zen as they have control over updates.
An integrated experience. In the past I found that the vertical tab options in Firefox had the tabs duplicated across the side and the top, which I always found to be a subpar experience. Again, probably something you could accomplish with user.js and user.css but there's a good chance an update could break your modifications.
Seems quite similar to Zen's experience, except it seems to be missing folders (which I admittedly don't use often, but they're sometimes handy to group a Jira ticket with a PR, or similar). I'll probably still stick with Zen while it's around, and maybe I'll hop over to LibreWolf as I'm not too happy about Mozilla's recent stance on privacy.
TUIs and CLIs are often keyboard centric only use as many resources as it takes to do the task, and then minimal resources to draw the text. Most CLIs also follow the Unix philosophy of doing one thing well, so you can get an output from a CLI and then pipe it into another.
At work I literally use the same workflow at home across two different operating systems because they both share a terminal. I don't even know how to switch workspace on a Mac because I don't need to, tmux sessions fulfil the same task.
>Most CLIs also follow the Unix philosophy of doing one thing well,
basi cli tools yes, but software like the one we're commenting on has a TUI so complex they simply emulate graphical user environments and widgets but on a text rendering stack, akin to web apps pretending to be graphical applications on top of a markup language, except they do it out of necessity because that's how the web works.
If you want to draw graphical user interfaces on an operating system just use the... actual graphics stack. There's terminal apps with widget frameworks now that painstakingly try to reproduce what every OS ships with just because it's.. cool to be a terminal hacker or something?
Because its convenient in a terminal flow to simply hot key through everything without ever touching a mouse. Most GUI programs are inherently mouse driven so if you never touch your mouse they are not very convenient.
It's not an alternative to kitty; it's an alternative to tmux or GNU screen.
I believe it's positioned to be more user-friendly than tmux but I've already got things memorised with tmux and it wasn't bringing anything new to the table, so I didn't try zellij for more than a few days.
I feel the same. If someone would ask me for a recommendation I would point them toward Zellij but if you've been using tmux for years it's probably not worth it.
Fantastic. I was actually working on something like this myself. I was planning to use an LLM as a fallback for recipes that don't contain properly formatted recipe data.
Curious as to how you get around some of the anti-scraping measures like Cloudflare. I put in a recipe blog (https://www.maangchi.com) that usually blocks me with Cloudflare but your site was able to scrape it just fine.
Edit: also as a very minor point your counter on how many recipes have been imported seems to keep going up each time I try to visit the same recipe. It says I've converted 5 but I've just tried to visit the same recipe 5 times.
Hello, I am using different datacenter IPs first. If all fail to crawl, I have a Raspberry Pi in my house that crawls using my residential IP. ;)
My home IP has not been blocked yet since I regularly do human-like operations from it. Hehe.
But on a serious note, you can try services like Bright Data or Apify that have a ton of residential IPs. So if you see a cloudflare block page, just rotate the proxy.
That works for some recipes, but for bread precise is better. I'm astonished when I read bread recipes that casually ask for 2 cups of flour (which could be wildly different amounts).
Looking through your comments, your spelling indicates you might be from a Commonwealth country, which means you might not be familiar with the fact that a "cup" is a standardized measurement in the US.
Yes but it's a measure of _volume_, whereas flour is best measured by _weight_. Any volume measurement of flour can vary wildly depending on many factors, such as how densely packed it is.
King Arthur Flour have a short video[0] demonstrating the wildly different weight measurements from measuring a "cup" (the same cup size across samples).
Measuring liquids by volume is totally fine because you generally won't get a large difference between two different cups of water (although I still generally measure that by weight as a personal preference).
But that doesn't work. The chart states that 1 cup of 00 flour is 116g which is simply not true. It _might_ be 116g, but it could also be 200g (!). Volume measurement is simply not suitable for baking.
For things like sauces or marinades, you use a much smaller amount, and approximate is generally fine.
Well yes, but it's a matter of perspective I think. Is it the amount that the recipe author used? Maybe, maybe not. But is it the amount you used the last dozen times you used this recipe? Of course, as long as your chart hasn't changed.
To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with your general premise, everything would be much easier if all recipes used weights for powder-like-ingredients. But recipes that actually have weights listed are few and far between, I find.
There is no (serious) baker that use volume for flour. If the recipe uses volume, it is flawed and you should find another recipe.
Every recipe on King Arthur that you linked has weights.
I realize how I sound, but there is a very big difference in a couple of percentages of flour, and you'd definitely mess up a beginner with the difference with the amount of flour.
The issue is that flour is quite compressible. So if you've opened a fresh bag and scooped out a cup from the top, you'll get quite a different amount than if you dig in the cup and compress the flour against the side of the bag.
It's not like scooping out rice or sugar, where a cup is a cup, assuming you're careful to use a measuring cup and fill it exactly level.
I'm not sure of the exact error margins (there is research on these things though if you care to look) but at a guess I'd say you should expect 15% error margins on scooping white flour even if you're extremely careful to fill the measuring scoop to the same level each time. Probably a bit less on heavier flours.
Note, I run a bakery, although I'm not a baker myself. But I am the one focused on making sure we have repeatable processes, as much as that's possible for sourdough!
Volume measurements are extremely innacurate and should be avoided for pretty much everything in baking, except maybe water. Not a big deal if you're baking at home - bread with +-15% flour will be totally edible - but if you want repeatable bread quality, use a scales with accuracy to 0.1g. You can buy one for $20 that's good enough for home use.
If you're going to weigh even one thing, weigh the salt. Small variations can have a big effect on yeast activity and final bread flavor. Volume measurements of salt are not at all accurate because crystal sizes vary a lot. People assume (even some bakers that I've met!) that salt is just added to bread for flavor, but it's more like a chemical reaction rate control dial, and you need to be very accurate in how much you turn that dial.
Sure, but in practice people don't use measuring cups all that precisely a lot of the time. Specifying a weight forces people to bust out the scale and pay attention.
You don't need to get that precise to make bread. I've made bread successfully all the time with volume measurements, it's not like the recipes are that finicky.
It's not that you can't, it's just that it's harder to get consistent results. Switching to weight measurements is the first advice I give to any friends who are struggling with making bread.
You can be wildly off in baking and produce an edible, enjoyable product. Especially if you have a sense of how to adjust the consistency of what you're mixing and can adjust baking times.
But-- if you use weight measurements and attend to precision, you'll have to adjust a lot less and you'll come much closer to the best possible output.
Non-profits allow projects to grow beyond hobbies. Covering costs (whether that's the expense of hosting / running the project or hiring talented people to work on it) is going to be a better incentive to keep the projects alive in the long term, meaning that people can rely on them instead of being wary that the project might become abandonware in a year.
I'm always running tmux so it's not typically a feature I look for, but as you mention it doesn't seem to trigger a find for terminal scrollback. Wezterm doesn't do this either so maybe that's an iTerm thing. I always assume Ctrl keybindings will trigger emacs mode shortcuts in the tty.
I would love to use tmux. I have used yazi in the past and I really liked it but I was barely using it to its fullest potential.
I think I have "skill issue" regarding tmux and I used to use hyprland (recently went to niri) and I just always preferred opening up another terminal I used to use (which was foot back when I was using my own config and it was alacritty on cachy/ idk what was on omarchy for the time I was on omarchy but I don't like omarchy)
Is there actually a way to fix this skill issue, like I want something so simple in start that I just run it and forget and still get decent amount of benefits?
tmux fits my personal use case better so I'll tell you why I use tmux and then if that resonates with you, then you might get value from that as well.
- It's generally bundled on most distros, or available for install in most default repositories.
- tmux sessions are available over ssh, so if I can continue where I left off over ssh (this is probably my main use case).
- I can full screen my terminal instead of having multiple terminals, and split in tmux. I usually split vim buffers, but then keep a terminal split beside it or in another tmux window.
- It's keyboard-driven, and universal across different window managers. Even if I switch from MacOS to Windows or to an X11 distro, tmux will still have the same keybinds using the same configuration language. I can also use vim keys to navigate the scrollback history.
- Its config language is simple enough for the modifications I personally need. I haven't felt that I need to learn the syntax beyond the basics.
- Knowing tmux is also a helpful skill for managing servers, which I do from time to time (my raspberry pi is still running a tmux session from when I last rebooted it).
it may happen that you just don't need it - the same way not everyone need to use vim/neovim.
without tmux/screen though, it's much harder, even less reliable, to work over ssh, so it becomes natural need for such sort of tools.
Say I use screen and later tmux since I believe ~ 2010 but not using "advanced" features like "panes" and screen splitting every month, most of the time for me it's just switching between windows in session and different sessions (not that often) and that's all.
As a helper, for some projects, I do use predefined layouts (say first 4 windows opens with inventory dir, other 2 with root folder of ansible repo) so on, but need this also not very often, like when laptop reboots (which is every ~ 3 week on Win11 nowdays)
As with anything, people tend to get excited about something new (new-er, anyway) and go a bit overboard. At some point we'll find the ones that actually stick around. I quite like .app and .dev now that the future of .io is dubious, but I do not like the price. A YouTuber, CodingGarden, nabbed null.computer which I personally think is excellent.
It's cute but it's definitely niche, especially given the price. It's got some real potential for immersive D&D games though if the Board could use feedback from pieces people placed on the board.
reply