I wrote this also in the 90’s when I started my own site and my own blog as one of the first blogs.
But 30 years later, I think there are many reasons why you would not want to do this. (I also stopped doing so after 15.000 posts or so).
– you will grow and you will change opinions about things often 100 percent, the internet memory is however forever
– you will enter in different careers and depending on the customer you would not want to be completely frank about every little thing you think or what your preferences are or what your experience is
– in real life there are larger groups of persons with very different and often extreme viewpoints on either religious related, political related, culturally related etc viewpoints. This has grown and grown and has become a real life danger if you get picked up by some internet thread on some social media forum. This has changed from the 90’s where the internet was filled with intelligence and a hopeful view on the world. It is easy to fall into the trap of engaging in various discussions
– you get children and often different social circles where you want to engage into blanco your children might not like at a certain stage you posting stuff (or pictures) (or opinions)
– there are tons of frauds and criminal networks who gladly scrape everything you are from there not in the least for phishing
So more or less: because there is also the real world with the 20% of people who are on the fraud/extreme religious/extreme political/other criminals/dumb side and there is real life social interaction and personal growth the following 30 years where once you write something it becomes stone
Fully agree. Before mass social media really took off, I used a site called Friends Reunited. When I read what I had written there only a few years later, it was kind of embarrassing.
No problem I thought, I'll just delete my account. They did not have a delete account function. So I overwrite everything I had written, replacing it with random characters (would not allow me to just put nothing when there was something already there either).
One of the main reasons I want to be better blogging than I am is because I want to see myself change, I want to change my opinions.
I want to have processes to review what I wrote, and review how strongly I felt about it at the time, and update my stances.
Personally I think the danger is far over-rated. We see the spectacular & loud exceptions to hundreds of millions of people actively posting & sharing & having fine undisturbed lives. Not everyone is going to have 15 minutes of being under attack in their life, but there's kind of a tacit assumption that having been online is all too likely to explode upon one's face at some point. And indeed, we do need to respect this possibility, make it a known idea, but this fear I think has way too much representation, & the opposing view, that it's very unlikely to ever be an issue I think is way undertold & undershared. As usual, subtle, nuance & complex gets sand-blasted away by something emotional & heart plucking & attention-grabbing.
And in the aftermath, we have humanity being silent. Humanity loses a shared heritidge it could have, for understanding itself better. Because it was, in my humble opinion, unreasonably afraid someone might attack their words. Personally, I strongly feel that values of onlineness & openness & democracy each should make us push back a lot harder.
That is an argument for not tying everything you write to your name in public. It is not inherently an argument for not writing it, or for not publishing it (it might - exercising some editorial instinct about what you publish is good).
As I noted elsewhere, the argument in the article basically boils down to leaving a record, and specifically leaving a record for your descendants, and then argues that archive.org will be reliable enough to ensure those records survives. By arguing for leaving it for your descendants it does argue for there being some way for your descendants to identify your writings, but that does not require them to be publicly linked to your name.
You can do both. Most of my writing is easily linked to my name either directly from usernames or profile links, or because I've left enough bread crumbs in things I've posted (HN is the trifecta; it's in my profile, my username isn't unique but the link is easy to guess, and I've given plenty of breadcrumbs). I take care about this, and think about it, because as far as I know my name is globally unique, and so I don't even have any hope of disappearing among others with my name in search engines etc.
Some of it would be embarrassing if some people dug it up in the "wrong" contexts today, but I have a good idea about the "worst bits" and none of it are things I am not willing to stand behind today even if I've changed my mind about them or now think they were dumb.
But not all my writing is possible to link to me at all, at least as far as I know. And that is also a conscious choice for some of the kind of reasons you gave.
Some I may not care to tell anyone about at all. Some there are plenty of notes about in my papers and digital records so it'll be easy for my descendants to find if they care.
It would be interesting to see what the numbers are for IT 4 IT systems , scripts, batches, integrations, countless programs in countless languages including programs where nobody who knows anything about the system or language is available and no help or documentation or vendor is present anymore.
Documentation should be atomic, not large pieces of text. And each atomic item has bidirectional dependencies to other atomic pieces or methods or classes or requirements or terms etc.
I used to run a lot at home. But i realized that "support" stops when i would die.
My family, who is a- technical, would have not even have a clue on where would be what (since they freak already out if an icon on their phone is move 1 millimeter). So from that nonfunctional requirement for my own home solutions, I decided that self-hosting would not be the best choice, since it would be too dependent on me.
My family's knowledge stops somewhere at the concept of that pressing the B makes a word bold in Microsoft Word. Trying to explain how to run a script on a certain OS via a certain connection would be abracadabra.
The only thing i can imagine is if there would be some kind of paid service that would mirror your own home solutions and provide support for the long run if you fall away and which offers, when there would be again someone more technical to again transfer it to a home environment. (they would take care of new versions, bugfixes, change requests, databackups and so on).
Something like that, but that does not exist (well... as far I know).
So therefore, i try to host every solution at the places which are the simplest to understand and document what needs to happen if I would fall away. I also try to minimize the number of services. So I use office365 and onenote to document everything. (This used to be on my own hosted wiki).
Based on the nonfunctional requirement of maintainability.
I think there is however a need for a service that offers something like the above, to provide long term support for selfhosted environments taking into account all kinds of standards. That would possibly enable the self-hosted direction again.
If I buy 25 old tablets, put them on a wall 5x5 and then open on my laptop 25 browser tabs each with different streaming data e.g. webcam views, messengers, news, can i use this software to achieve this?
Then again... could ofcourse then also anydesk to each of them to change whatever they are showing.
Rather than sending 25 video streams from single machine to all those tablets it will probably be easier and much more efficient to just open those webcam streams / websites directly on the tablets, they are able to render it directly.
For remote control just serve a simple iframe + javascript to poll for changes.
PS: Nice idea, seems like something you would see in a stereotypical hacker movie :)
It looks like this requires a physical display adapter (with a dummy plug in it to spoof EDID) to create the display "instance" which Deskreen then copies to the remote device. So no, you don't have 25 video ports to stuff dummy plugs into.
Depending on your host OS, there _may_ be a way to create more displays that don't require physical video ports, but that doesn't seem to be documented or supported here.
TCL has a 65" 8k TV for about $2k, 75" for about 500 more. That's enough for 16 1080p streams (4x4) or 36 720p streams (6x6) and you won't be spending days banging your head against limitations on bandwidth, number of outputs, issues, or failure points, power outlets/chargers, image quality, and so on. On the other hand if it's for the fun of it I'm sure you can figure something like that out.
If "whatever is cheap" is what you are after a couple <$300 4k TVs will probably be better quality, cheaper, and easier to set up than 25 tablets.
Never managed to get this to work on a laptop with an Intel 520 gpu and latest Linux Mint.
Deskreen isn't the problem. It's trying to create a virtual display.
You'll see my comments with my findings on on every github / stackoverflow discussion regarding the matter. There are a few.
Until there is a bullet proof way of creating virtual displays, Deskreen isn't of much use to someone with my use case. Which is a damn shame. I really wanted to use an iPad as 2nd screen.
wr to linq to sql: the difference is linq works by making objects to tables and dotnet primitives to sql types, often producing really poor queries as a result
The small vertical " things to do " booklets that you can buy in bulk at most shops also work very well for my own task management overview. Used these also for the past 20 years.
