My twitter banner!
<div id="simple-translate"><div class="simple-translate-button" style='background-image: url(moz-extension://9394067b-ba92-4193-a74c-da89451ffbe3/icons/512.png); height: 22px; width: 22px; top: 10px; left: 10px;'>
<div class="simple-translate-panel" style="width: 300px; height: 200px; top: 0px; left: 0px; font-size: 13px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="simple-translate-result-wrapper" style="overflow: hidden;"><p class="simple-translate-result" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><p class="simple-translate-candidate" style="color: rgb(115, 115, 115);">
Eventually i'll probably find blogs i like to follow.
I mean, when i was initially on tumblr i was pretty much dead silent for the first few years.
Although i'm stressed today, for a bunch of reasons. Been stressed more like it, such is my existence on this shit earth. If only i had somewhere else to go.
You mentionedc in an older post that Waterfall doesn't cost you anything to run but time - can you elaborate on that? Doesn't it cost in the fact that you have to buy the servers to begin with? I'm kinda curious!
This is actually a pretty good question that would probably have been better off sent to thelldev, but I'm too lazy to switch it in the database and other folks might be curious too.
When I say Waterfall doesn't cost me anything, a basic understanding of money will show that's not true - there's electricity, Internet, spare parts etc etc. But the reason it becomes cheap is that I use these servers to make money - we can apply similar logic to anything, so let's use an example! For reference, the servers that WF runs on are used for the business I own and run (primarily gamedev, but also freelance web development).
Let's say you're a parent, and your kid has a bike that they don't use very often and they want a new BMX that costs £50 or something. They don't use the bike they have, so you're not gonna buy it, But they get a job delivering newspapers, and they come to you and say "hey, this new bike is £50, but will let me deliver newspapers 30% faster, and I'll make that money back in 7 days" - now it's not as expensive. Even though it costs the exact same amount of money, it's a matter of measuring the amount it costs against the ROI it provides for the business. So it's not that I'm too rich or don't care about the costs - hell, they were fucking expensive and I still havn't paid them off my credit card - but the different calculation shows you the other factors at play. Besides, price is an arbitrary measurement of value so if you value it differently because of a different set of circumstances, that's entirely valid.
In my specific circumstance, there's a ton of benefits that the servers have, and Waterfall itself brings some too - the servers are used to automate testing and building of my game projects, a version control repository for them, as well as hosting client websites and a multitude of other functions. Waterfall itself provides a stress test on the servers to make sure they can handle the load my clients expect. In addition, it (theoretically, I havn't done this yet) saves me money on training any new staff, since I have a complex application for them to study to learn the code style I use, and I can also train any CS agents using the site since it's a low risk environment that already has audits built in and their working can be checked.
So in short, while Waterfall might cost me money to run on a purely numerical level (albeit pennies on the dollar - as I mentioned before, Waterfall is a thin slice of the much larger resource pie), on a practical and business scale, the benefits it provides saves me money in other areas resulting in a net balance or, potentially, even a gain thanks to the savings. If we want the numeric figure though, EXTREMELY rough napkin math taking its share of the resource pie (16GB/256GB, 1TB/58TB), it works out to maybe £8.50 a month after factoring in the reserved IP and offsite backups.
hello! when blogs will be allowed to have their own custom css, will there also be a setting for forcing everything back to the default css just for your viewing? frankly, most user-made css is an accessibility nightmare and i'd greatly appreciate the ability to sidestep it entirely if i have to view someone's blog directly.
I'll probably add a "fuck this" button somewhere, yeah. As cutesy as pastel pink, autoplaying music at 500% volume, and forcing an override on the cursor to be glittery and have sparkle trails is, it hurts my eyes.
I've also been writing a "good design" guide for theme makers as I go, to help folks leave the 2003-era freewebs stuff behind as they migrate here.
Oh boi, I am really not used to....having a blog type thing again.
gotta find shit to follow and whatnot