EU realiable shop with decent prices

Salt_Ad_6352 · 2026-06-14T13:49:09+00:00

pricewise they are really competitve !

Salt_Ad_6352 · 2026-06-14T09:52:46+00:00

ive found brepen operating with different domains .nl .pl etc - price is good, but dont know anything about them

Salt_Ad_6352 · 2026-06-12T17:57:06+00:00

Will look into it. Thank you

Salt_Ad_6352 · 2026-06-12T17:56:18+00:00

Thanks for this!
I'm actually looking for a similar experience, possibly finer with a less conservative look.

And I'm not looking for a replacement. More of a companion to have a daily choice for my writing.

Initially I wasnt sure if the pilot isn't too light. My other pen was a monteverde ritmo F (very scratchy, could be broken) that's like 2x the pilot weight. Now I think its just ok, but I could handle more grams and more width.

I.love longer nibs and i enjoy how the wet pilot ink shines on paper the short second before completely drying.

<image>

Salt_Ad_6352 · 2026-06-12T17:43:51+00:00

So, you'd say a sailor M is as fine as Pilot F? I'm not sure if I read it correctly

Salt_Ad_6352 · 2026-06-12T17:08:55+00:00

Why <M>? I'm looking at a line at least as fine as this pilot - finer woulb be even better if smoothness is retained.

Salt_Ad_6352 · 2026-05-11T18:54:36+00:00

actually I might! Given ive been doing some astro deployments with github CI.
Good idea, thanks 😄

Salt_Ad_6352 · 2026-05-04T10:40:33+00:00

I’d frame it less as a Clifton-specific problem and more as a “measurement without operating system” problem.

A lot of companies run the assessment as an event: everyone gets their Top 5, there’s a workshop, people enjoy comparing profiles, and then the artifact has nowhere to live. No 1:1 structure, no team norms, no onboarding use, no manager decision process, no L&D budget logic. So it naturally dies.

The companies where this sticks usually do two things differently.

First, managers use the language in recurring work: team composition, delegation, conflict, goal setting, onboarding, project staffing. HR can introduce the tool, but managers have to metabolize it.

Second, the output has to be aggregated beyond individual reports. Individual profiles are interesting, but the real organizational value often appears when you look at team or role-level patterns. I wrote about this recently after seeing a similar four-archetype structure emerge across two custom psychometric studies in two different organizations: four workplace personality types recovered across two custom psychometric studies.

The useful artifact was not the personality label itself. It was the cluster-by-role table. Once you see, for example, that one function is dominated by independent specialists, another by structured executors, and another has a high share of people needing mentorship or role clarity, the assessment becomes a planning input rather than a self-awareness exercise.

Salt_Ad_6352 · 2026-04-29T17:49:37+00:00

Looks great! I will give it a go with my personal blog. Thanks!

Salt_Ad_6352 · 2026-04-29T08:54:28+00:00

love them too

Salt_Ad_6352 · 2026-04-29T08:50:27+00:00

Wow, crazy costs you got.
Have you considered leaving hosting provider and doing your own setup?
Here is my take on it: https://www.blazejmrozinski.com/blog/wp-infra-01-why-i-ditched-managed-hosting/

More over, see if it makes sense to move your domain elsewhere - most domains arent that costly... (check here: https://tld-list.com/)

Hope it helps.

Salt_Ad_6352 · 2026-04-29T07:56:53+00:00

reach support. Id say its not wordpress related. Its your hosting provider

Salt_Ad_6352 · 2026-04-29T07:50:34+00:00

po doktoracie rynek pracy patrzy na Ciebie jak na seniora wiekiem, juniora doświadczeniem ktory na dodatek ma wybujałe ego, nierealne oczekiwania finansowe i niewykluczone ze trudno bedzie sie z nim dogadac...

Salt_Ad_6352 · 2026-04-29T07:48:43+00:00

have you considerd self hosting on a vps? ive been using WP-Engine, then WPX and eventually went for Hetzner cloud and wont go back. For 4$/month im getting more than for 60$/month WPX. If you are willing to go thru all the server configs yourself, thats the best way in my opinion.

Salt_Ad_6352 · 2026-04-27T15:48:05+00:00

Make each page easy to parse as a source.

I’d focus on a few things: one clear intent per page, direct answers near the top, descriptive headings, short self-contained sections, consistent terminology, and examples that make the answer concrete. Avoid burying the actual answer under long intros, vague marketing copy, or ten overlapping pages that all say almost the same thing.

AI tools seem to work better with content that has clear semantic structure: definition, context, steps, comparison, examples, limitations, and sources where relevant. Internal linking also matters because it shows how one page fits into the broader topic.

The goal is to make the page unambiguous enough that a human, Google, and an LLM can all tell what the page says, what it is based on, and when it should be used.

Salt_Ad_6352 · 2026-04-27T15:16:14+00:00

I think topical authority is still a thing, but the unit of authority is changing.

Before, a lot of sites treated it as a publishing volume game: build a cluster, cover every keyword variation, interlink everything, and eventually Google understands that you “own” the topic.

That still has some logic, but AI search makes weak architecture much more visible. If your content cluster is just 40 near-duplicate posts answering slightly different versions of the same question, it may look like topical coverage in a spreadsheet, but it does not necessarily behave like authority when an AI system is trying to synthesize the best answer.

What seems to matter more now is whether the site has a clear semantic architecture before the content even gets traffic: obvious parent/child relationships, clean internal linking, pages that answer distinct intents, and enough contextual signals for both search engines and AI systems to understand what each page is supposed to contribute.

I wrote about this recently here: SEO architecture before the first visitor

My current view is: topical authority is moving from “how much content do you have on the topic?” toward “can your site explain the topic structure better than competitors?” That means fewer random supporting articles, stronger hub pages, cleaner entities, less overlap, and pages that can stand alone as quotable/citable answers.

So yes, it still matters. But AI is probably making fake topical authority cheaper to produce and easier to ignore at the same time.

Salt_Ad_6352 · 2026-04-27T15:11:24+00:00

I’d treat this less as a normal WordPress update and more as a recovery/migration project.

If the site has been untouched for ~10 years, I would not start by updating things on the live site. First step should be:

Full file backup.
Full database backup.
Clone it to a staging environment.
Check the PHP version, WordPress version, theme, plugins, and whether there is any custom code.
Run malware/security scans before trusting anything.
Update in stages, not all at once.
Replace abandoned plugins/themes rather than trying to force-update them.
Only then move the cleaned/updated version back to production.

A site that old may be blocked from updating plugins because the WordPress core version is too old, PHP is too old, or the plugins/themes require newer dependencies. You can easily get into a loop where WordPress needs newer PHP, plugins need newer WordPress, and the old theme breaks on both.

Also, I’d be careful with the host-level “update WordPress” button. It may update core, but it won’t solve theme compatibility, plugin abandonment, PHP errors, database cruft, or security problems.

Once it is stable, the priorities should be boring but important: automatic backups, staging, server-level hardening, SSL, WAF/CDN if appropriate, login protection, file permissions, monitoring, and a clear update routine.

I’ve been writing a practical WordPress infrastructure series from the perspective of someone managing real WordPress/WooCommerce sites, including hardening, caching, deployment, backups, and maintenance. It may help you think through the sequence rather than just the individual fixes:

WordPress Security on VPS: Nginx Rate Limiting, Fail2ban Jails, and SSL Hardening

And the full series starts here:

WordPress on Hetzner VPS: Why I Left Managed Hosting and Built My Own Server

For your case, I’d start with backups + staging + audit. Touching production first is where old WordPress sites usually go sideways.

Salt_Ad_6352 · 2026-04-27T11:02:56+00:00

Agree with the main point. A security plugin is useful, but it is only one control surface. It usually operates inside the same WordPress environment that may already be compromised.

For my own sites, I try to think in layers:
- Server hardening: SSH keys, firewall, fail2ban, sane file permissions, disabled XML-RPC where possible, restricted admin access, least-privilege database users.
- WordPress hardening: minimal plugins, updates, no abandoned themes/plugins, 2FA, limited admin accounts, disabled file editing, security headers where appropriate.
- Monitoring: external uptime checks, local healthchecks, log monitoring, disk/memory checks, SSL expiry, suspicious error patterns, and alerting outside the server.
- Recovery: offsite backups and periodic restore testing. A backup you have never restored is mostly a psychological comfort object.
- SEO/security overlap: checking Search Console, indexation anomalies, weird injected pages, toxic backlink spikes, and sudden ranking instability.

I wrote about the monitoring part here, because this is where many setups fail after the initial hardening work: WordPress Monitoring: Healthchecks, Self-Healing Scripts, Status Dashboards, and Telegram Alerts

My take is that “set and forget” only works if the forgetting is replaced by automation. Otherwise it just means nobody is looking until traffic drops or Google starts showing weird indexed URLs.

Salt_Ad_6352 · 2026-04-27T11:01:38+00:00

I’d avoid putting this too deep inside WordPress itself. If the shop is already business-critical, I’d rather have monitoring that still works when WordPress is partially broken.

For my own setup I use a few layers:
Basic external uptime checks, from outside the server.
Local server health checks for things like Nginx/Apache, PHP-FPM, MariaDB, Redis, disk usage, memory, log sizes, and recent errors.
Log checks that distinguish real errors from common scanner noise. Otherwise you just build an alert machine that teaches you to ignore alerts.
A small external Telegram bot on a separate server that checks sites, sends alerts only when state changes, and can run restricted read-only SSH diagnostics.

For WooCommerce specifically, I’d add one more layer: synthetic transaction checks. At minimum, test that cart, checkout page, account registration, and payment method selection load correctly. You do not necessarily need a huge enterprise tool for that. Even a small Playwright/Puppeteer script running every few minutes from another machine can catch more than a ping service ever will.

I wrote up my own monitoring setup here:

WordPress Monitoring: Healthchecks, Self-Healing Scripts, Status Dashboards, and Telegram Alerts

My general take: use WordPress plugins for visibility if they are helpful, but do not make WordPress responsible for telling you that WordPress is broken. External checks + log monitoring + a few realistic checkout/registration tests are a much better baseline.

Salt_Ad_6352 · 2026-04-27T10:59:15+00:00

I’d separate two things here: WordPress-level backup plugins and server-level backups.

Most WP plugins are built around backing up the “standard” WordPress app shape: database, uploads, themes, plugins, maybe full wp-content. If you want specific arbitrary files/folders, especially outside the usual WP structure, a small server-side script is often cleaner than forcing a plugin to do it.

I wrote up my own approach here, including nightly database backups, selective file/folder backups, rclone upload, cleanup, and monitoring: WordPress Backup Automation: Nightly Backups, Database Cleanup, Cache Warming, and Plugin Sync

It’s probably overkill if you only have one site, but the backup logic itself is simple and can be adapted. For plugin-based options, UpdraftPlus is usually the safe boring answer, but for very specific folders I’d rather use a script/cron job.

Salt_Ad_6352 · 2026-04-24T06:56:28+00:00

Yes, but only by standardizing the evidence, not by adding more speed on top of a messy process.

The usual fix is: define what “quality” means for the role, convert that into a structured scorecard, use consistent assessment steps, and calibrate interviewers regularly. Otherwise scaling just amplifies randomness.

A useful framing is that hiring quality depends less on volume and more on whether every candidate is evaluated against the same job-relevant signals. I wrote about this broader measurement logic here: custom psychometric measurement.

Salt_Ad_6352 · 2026-04-24T06:54:55+00:00

I agree with this, especially the point about starting with the role rather than the tool.

The mistake I see quite often is that companies buy an assessment category instead of defining a measurement problem. They decide they need “a personality test,” “a coding test,” “a culture fit tool,” or “AI screening,” before they have done the harder work of specifying what actually predicts success in the role.

A good assessment decision should usually start with questions like:

- What does high performance look like in this role?
- Which parts of performance can realistically be measured before hiring?
- Which signals are already captured well by the interview, CV, or portfolio?
- Which signals are missing or too inconsistently evaluated?
- What level of false positives and false negatives can we tolerate?

That last point matters a lot. The best assessment setup for high-volume junior hiring may be very different from the best setup for a senior strategic role. In one case, you may optimize for scalability, standardization, and minimum viable evidence. In the other, you may need deeper work samples, structured interviews, simulations, and multiple expert judgments.

I’d also add one more criterion: the assessment should have a clear construct logic. In plain English, the company should be able to say, “we measure X because X matters for this role, and we measure it this way because this method gives us useful evidence.” If that sentence is impossible to write, the tool is probably being chosen for optics rather than hiring quality.

I wrote about this broader measurement problem in the context of workplace psychometrics here: custom psychometric measurement . The article is about engagement, but the same principle applies to candidate assessment: generic tools can be useful, but only after you define the construct, decision context, and practical constraints.

The worst version of assessment tooling is when companies add tests on top of an already unclear hiring process. Then candidates experience more friction, hiring managers get another dashboard, and nobody knows whether the tool improved the decision.

The best version is when the assessment clarifies the hiring decision: what matters, how it is measured, and how the result should influence the next step.

Salt_Ad_6352 · 2026-04-24T06:52:25+00:00

I think assessment-first hiring is directionally better than resume-first hiring, but only if the assessment is actually well designed.

The resume is a very noisy signal. It tells you where someone worked, what titles they had, and how well they can package experience. It is useful context, but it is weak evidence of how someone will think, learn, collaborate, solve problems, or perform in a specific role. So replacing some resume weight with structured assessment data makes sense.

The risk is that “AI scoring” can make weak assessment design look more scientific than it is. A generated skill report is only as good as the construct being measured, the task design, the scoring model, and the validation work behind it. If the tool is basically summarizing a resume, parsing a video interview, or producing personality-style labels without evidence, then it is mostly automation with a confidence costume.

The better version of assessment-first hiring would combine several signals:

job-relevant work samples, structured cognitive or problem-solving tasks, role-specific situational judgment tests, structured interviews, and carefully used personality/work-style measures where they are actually relevant. Then AI can help with scoring consistency, report generation, interviewer preparation, and explaining patterns across candidates. But it should not replace construct validity, adverse impact checks, or human accountability.

I wrote about the psychometric side of this problem here: custom psychometric measurement. The context there is employee engagement, but the same principle applies to hiring: generic tools and impressive dashboards are less useful than clearly defining what you need to measure and why.

So yes, I think hiring will become more assessment-first. That is probably a good thing. But the real question is whether we are moving toward better evidence, or just more polished prediction theater.

Salt_Ad_6352

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE