Colby Russell

@colby@kosmos.social
102 Followers
0 Following
1.2K Posts
The time for smart documentation is now.
LocationUSA (Austin, TX)

@paco simplifying:

(a - d) * r = t

a is your income

d is the cash/FMV of your donations

r is your tax rate

There is no a, d where 0 < d < a for which t = 0.

@judell @noplasticshower

@paco @judell that's not how tax-deductible donations work.

cc @noplasticshower @judell

Not sure how it is that substantial portions of my Zotero library disappeared, but I'm not thrilled about it, and I'm not looking forward to importing from backup and then manually deduping 1000+ items.

Total items as of 2024-06-12: 1496
Total items as of 2025-07-05: 1424

@TodePond I just came across your subsequent PDF rants by way of <https://www.todepond.com/code/>.

cc @allenwb

Todepond dot com

@arks_org @maphouse dogfooding ARKs within the arks org would be beneficial.
@arks_org @maphouse: can confirm—it's a 404.

A publishing setup that doesn't let you keep existing references online isn't doing its job.

Suppose your family ran a corner shop and you needed someone to ring up items at the register, take payment, etc. Or maybe it's a pizza parlor and you need someone to work with you to make the pizzas. Would you hire someone to do these things and keep employing them if they showed up and refused to take payments at the register or make pizza?

nit #2: resources identified by URLs with slashes in the "path" don't actually have to be organized into folders that confront you with undesired "clutter" as you navigate through them; please keep your references alive NO MATTER WHERE THE STUFF ACTUALLY LIVES OR HOW IT'S REPRESENTED LOCALLY. THAT'S IRRELEVANT. At least, it should be. If it isn't, then that's a failure of the infrastructure for managing/presenting the media involved—case in point.

It's way too common for complaints about unresolvable references to get brushed off because e.g. the page has been "edited".

nit: it hasn't—it's been replaced with a *different* page that, granted, may be substantially similar to an earlier one, but is nonetheless distinct—and therefore should have its own distinct identity (read: URL).

Or the tech stack (CMS/blogging setup) has changed.

Or someone decided to reorganize the folder structure in some uncool attempt to tidy up…

This is a problem that has been, well, *a problem* since before recent politically motivated changes.

The Web is almost 35 years old. It's time to stop behaving like volatility should be the norm. It certainly doesn't *need* to be this way, despite whatever strange notions people get into their heads (and how they tend to adopt a totally unrelated posture about a subject) when computers are suddenly involved.