I built myself a SSG for React based on Vite as a build plugin. It is very simple, fits in one file, and the dev experience is almost exactly like having React Router but with SSG built in. Once a user configures the build plugin there's nothing left to worry about besides building a classic React website.
It absolutely cracks me up that this could've been easily avoided by choosing a unique name. Seems it is impossible for us to name a software after anything but an already-taken word! I am certainly guilty ha
I wonder how many centuries it will take before humans widely understand second-order effects. Mark my words, like the GDPR before it this will make the web worse for everyone.
Why? Are they insufferable otherwise? Or is it more that you find it unbearable to tolerate a different opinion? I'm so curious, about both of you. What part does he think was a hoax?
In my experience that's usually just the tip of the iceberg. You've heard the expression "All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way"? It's like a link broke in a chain, and usually it's many links correlated. Maybe they just distrust expertise, well I have a phd and I assure you it'll come up later. Maybe he's an immigrant from Russia and he just distrusts everything to do with the news, well that's not really fixable except maybe with many years of therapy. And yes it will come up later too. I'm not a professional, I didn't want to ask the specifics or get into the weeds, I just have a developed nose for these things. My brother is into conspiracy theories.
> I have a phd and I assure you it'll come up later.
Will it? One would have to dig pretty deep into one's personal life to learn about that. Someone who thinks COVID was a hoax isn't going to be one to dig deep. And, well, if he really did somehow dig deep enough to find that information, you can just laugh it off as a hoax.
> Someone who thinks COVID was a hoax isn't going to be one to dig deep.
This is kind of a side point, but people with fringe beliefs tend to dig a lot deeper to validate those opinions than those with a mainstream view.
You can bet that someone who thinks that the moon landing was a hoax to the point that they would tell someone about it will know more about the moon landing than a random person who believes it was real.
It often takes an expert in something to shoot down the arguments.
> but people with fringe beliefs tend to dig a lot deeper
Do they actually, though? Or do they just look for endless superficial surface claims?
I mean, if they actually dug deep they're going to encounter all kinds of information that would indicate that the moon landing was real. Which, then, if they still maintain that it was a hoax in light of that then they have to believe that the deep information is also a hoax. So if someone really was digging deep into personal details of your life, then what they read about you must also be a hoax, naturally.
Which, given the concern, one may as well solidify by putting fake information out there about themself. No sane person is going to be searching high and low for details about your personal life anyway. A moon landing hoax believer isn't going to buy into a published academic paper or whatever breadcrumb you accidentally left as a source of truth to prove that you have a PhD when a random website with a Geocities-style design says that you never went to college!
There is an infinite supply of people spouting bullshit and validation of that bullshit on the internet. You can spend a lifetime reading through that bullshit, and certainly feel like you're "doing research".
I am utterly fascinated by the flat earth movement, not because I believe in a flat earth, but because it's so plainly idiotic and yet people will claim they've done experiments and research and dug deep, primarily because they either don't know how to read a paper or how to interpret an experiment or simply don't know how lenses work. It's incredible.
> You can spend a lifetime reading through that bullshit, and certainly feel like you're "doing research".
I'm not sure broad and deep are the same thing, but maybe we're just getting caught up in semantics?
> It's incredible.
Does anyone truly believe in a flat earth, though, or is it just an entertaining ruse? I hate to say it, but it can actually be pretty funny watching people nonsensically fall over themselves to try and prove you wrong. I get why someone would pretend.
> I'm not sure broad and deep are the same thing, but maybe we're just getting caught up in semantics?
They’re not the same thing but I think they’re still going “deep” in that they will focus very heavily on one subject in their conspiracy rabbit hole.
> Does anyone truly believe in a flat earth, though, or is it just an entertaining ruse?
I think that a lot of people are faking, but I am pretty convinced that at least some people believe it. There was that dude a few years ago who was trying to build a rocket to “see if he could see the curve”, for example.
I have seen some fairly convincing vlogs where the people at least seem to really believe it.
> I think they’re still going “deep” in that they will focus very heavily on one subject in their conspiracy rabbit hole.*
Which is totally fair, but may not be what I imagined when I said "deep".
> There was that dude a few years ago who was trying to build a rocket to “see if he could see the curve”, for example.
Building a rocket sounds like fun, to be honest. If you are also of the proclivity that you are entertained by claiming to believe in a flat earth, combining your hobbies seems like a pretty good idea.
> I have seen some fairly convincing vlogs where the people at least seem to really believe it.
At the same time people don't normally talk about the things they (feel they) truly understand. It is why we don't sit around talking about 1+1=2 all day, every day. Humans crave novelty. It is agonizing having to listen to what you already know. As such, one needs to be heavily skeptical of someone speaking about a subject they claim to understand well without financial incentive to overcome the boredom of having to talk about something they know well. And where there is financial incentive, you still need to be skeptical that someone isn't just making shit up for profit.
When someone is speaking causally about something, you can be certain that either: 1) They recognize that they don't have a solid understanding and are looking to learn more through conversation. 2) Are making shit up for attention.
There is no good way to know how many flat earthers never speak of it, I suppose, but as far as the vocal ones go I don't suppose they are really looking to learn more...
Linkedin is editable, no? Maybe he could still find it in a cache if he digs deep enough, but I mean, really, it is highly unlikely that anyone is going to put in that much effort unless they are on a mission. Nobody casually cares.
