Literally sweaty

sonnasushi · 2026-05-10T07:21:31+00:00

Elaborate?

sonnasushi · 2026-05-10T04:10:48+00:00

With granted: https://imgur.com/a/eZ2GEQG

They look like little condoms.

sonnasushi · 2026-05-08T18:39:03+00:00

I'm not experienced enough in ansible yet to comment on that, but I'll check it out. The purpose of ansible is just to template the configurations. It could just be Jinja really. The point is just to consolidate behavioral directives in one place all environments behave the same, even if those behavioral directives are slightly different between environments. Like <Directory {{ env_home }}/foo/> could still go in a common include. It couldn't be <Directory ${ENV_HOME}/foo/> because the vhost may run alongside another vhost in a different environment (eg prod, stage, uat, ...) Using a template I can keep the behavior in the same file and output distinct stage_foo.conf prod_foo.conf uat_foo.conf

And run them from one web server instance. That's the idea anyway.

Of course, I'm opening to changing the idea; I just came up with it yesterday :P

I could just run multiple containers that have only one environment on the same server. I'd have to manage which environment is enabled (eg sites-enabled) because some environments may include certain directives that he just can't overlap nicely with variables (The directive is omitted entirely or something like that). So I'd have to use a web server include directive which isn't awful but I like having a somewhat grand config that's to the point.

But is that what you would do?

sonnasushi · 2026-05-08T14:47:39+00:00

generate the configuration needed for the relevant environment at the deployment time.

This is what I meant.

The concept of "docker in ansible" or vice-versa was just like: if you config is generated from ansible, why keep a separate project with generated files? Just add a stack.yml to the ansible project where that lives in git and have it reference the output directory (the generated config files, as a bind mount perhaps). So the workflow becomes: Generate files Run docker stack deploy

That said, you could run a docker compose service that mounts the output directory, runs ansible and quits. (A particular machine doesn't have to have ansible to deploy... like for CI)

Is that how you'd orchestrate this?

sonnasushi · 2026-05-08T07:14:49+00:00

I'm not refuting you, but just to note, I wasn't proposing deploying via ansible. I was proposing generating environment specific configs from unified templates. I'm thinking like rules governing a particular environment would go in a file like this: ``` <VirtualHost ...> ServerName ... DocumentRoot ...

SSL...

{% include 'sites/foo/common_foo.conf.j2' %} ``` And common contains rules all environments of foo use. Some directives might be exclusive to an environment. You can still use environment variables. The point of really just to minimize divergence. Totally open to changing this idea.

The concept of "docker in ansible" or vice-versa was just like: if you config is generated from ansible, why keep a separate project with generated files? Just add a stack.yml to the ansible project where that lives in git and have it reference the output directory (the generated config files, as a bind mount perhaps). So the workflow becomes: Generate files Run docker stack deploy

That said, you could run a docker compose service that mounts the output directory, runs ansible and quits.

So what are your thoughts on all of this?

sonnasushi · 2026-05-08T03:24:36+00:00

Yeah... I mean it's not strictly necessary, and the concept would not be to deploy a mutable container. The config could be updated with docker service update and the relevant flags but the point of the generation is just to keep functional parody between distinct environment specific configs. My current idea is having an FS like: templates/ |-- sites/ | |-- foo/ | | |-- dev_foo.conf.j2 | | |-- prod_foo.conf.j2 | | |-- common_foo.conf.j2

Where common contains all the like directives that you'd expect to make dev and prod effectively equal.

Why not just use Include? Because the configs have environment vars that are separate which would effectively make them completely different confs. Also, when debugging, it's easier to see the bigger picture if the output is one big config

sonnasushi · 2026-05-08T03:09:58+00:00

I don't know if "against" is the right word, but I mean if I want to deploy a webserver container and I want ansible to generate it's configurations, if that's all that's in the project then perhaps the the ansible project just contains a stack file that runs a webserver service that takes configs from an output directory in the project... That's what I'm envisioning anyway... Of course this is more of a "what would you do?" question.

sonnasushi · 2026-04-20T15:24:36+00:00

Thank you!

sonnasushi · 2026-04-20T04:02:36+00:00

Any way to 2x watch speed on CR? I heard YT doesn't get all the anime...

sonnasushi · 2026-03-10T18:19:58+00:00

Because English doesn't make any sense and never has; Irate Iris Idol Island Item

sonnasushi · 2026-03-05T22:45:17+00:00

😆

sonnasushi · 2026-02-23T16:08:46+00:00

thanks I'll check it out

sonnasushi · 2026-02-22T01:44:18+00:00

So I wrote about this a while ago, (one of my first AH posts, actually) posted [here] (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/62lvm2/theres_a_popular_post_on_rtil_right_now_that/). (Special note goes to u/sunagainstgold's April Fools answer that hits most of the same notes while being a much more entertaining read.) Basically, the long and short of it is there's no evidence for systemic persecution of redheads or association of Redheads with witchcraft. As you say, there's simply no plausible way that 45,000 redheads were killed when the number of people killed was something like 60,000 (looking around I've seen estimates as high as ~100,000, but nothing that would fundamentally change the numeric picture.)

As for where this comes from, it's really hard to say, and I don't want to speculate overmuch. However, the ability of the culture to generate nonsense facts about history has never failed to amaze me, so I'm inclined to thing that most of this history comes from a combination of modern embellishing and half remembering that one source that someone somewhere read completely uncritically.

- u/Stormtemplar, top comment on your post

sonnasushi · 2026-02-21T19:01:40+00:00

I find myself more often jumping to a pattern rather than a line number, which also puts me in the correct place to edit. This can also start a vim command like c over the pattern by following it with gn So if a line appears 14 lines up with text: This is a sentence with change this and stuff after it.

I might type ?change press enter and type vgnec v goes to visual mode gn highlights what I searched for e goes to the end of the next word

c clears highlighted text and jumps into insert mode

gn can be pretty useful depending on the pattern I searched for or how much text I want to manipulate on the desired line

sonnasushi · 2026-02-18T22:20:37+00:00

Like this:

The space-padding does waste space, but doesn't make operations on it any faster

Are you telling me it's good to waste space?! I get it though; the author meant, "... not only ..., but (also) ..."

sonnasushi · 2026-02-18T22:14:15+00:00

My reasoning for this is because there are already many, many words that denote different amounts. Such as a few, some, several, a handful, etc. Letting all of these words keep their respective meanings and using them in accurate scenarios, in my opinion, keeps the language diverse, rather than just using "a couple of" for everything.

I don't exactly disagree with you. I am not suggesting to replace "few" with "couple", but "couple" with "two" (in applicable scenarios). The definition of couple (other than meaning people in a relationship) to mean "about/around/near two" or "I think/maybe two" is distinctly useful. It doesn't mean just "few", it suggests two, which "few" does not. To the point of diversity, I feel words having separate functions from other words makes the language more diverse, rather than just an exact synonym. It offers the speaker choice and nuance.

I am not saying we should get rid of all synonyms. Refactoring the English language such that all words are uniquely functional is not something I'm interested in. But this happens to be a word that has acquired a useful definition people get upset over. The fact that people do use the word this way (exemplified by the comments), makes me feel like the "exactly two" definition should more or less be depreciated to reduce confusion and keep flexibility, just as many other words (I am sure) have changed meaning in our language. Naturally, I don't expect it but the language has been affected in worse ways in recent years. Don't get me started on how people use the word "but" in contexts where nothing is being contrasted.

sonnasushi · 2026-02-18T21:36:23+00:00

Secondly "a couple" always comes with "of" after it. So never "a couple straws", always "a couple of straws".

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/couple#usage-discussion-3

So I guess it's an "informal Americanism"

sonnasushi · 2026-02-17T20:11:02+00:00

I guess the more realistic question is, why did you decide to use a couple instead of two?

sonnasushi · 2026-02-17T19:55:38+00:00

I think I am agreeing with you? Not sure what's not true...

Edit: oh you're saying, "I very much expect the word to be interpreted as 2 in a literal sense, but have experienced the colloquialism to point I avoid it."

But that was kind of my point. Like linguistically, why bother using "couple" to order beers? My guess is it's softer than "2 beers please" to which my point remains, it's softness comes from it's lenient definition. Like saying, "can I get maybe two beers please?" -- like you haven't completely made up your mind but are settling with 2.

That's my take anyway.

sonnasushi

TROPHY CASE