I've been enjoying each of your posts you share here regarding this set up. I have two questions if you please?
1. Have you considered adding a small wind turbine (DIY of course) to supplement?
2. Although the costs are certainly coming down and within the realm of possibility for many, they are still too prohibitive for those that would benefit the most. Do you see any way that you could recreate your project on a shoe-string budget?
I have seen some desire and works expressed towards using Bun with Electron or Electron alternatives; this interests me greatly. Do you have any plans or aspirations to make any strong push in this direction?
I really enjoy the articles put out on this website, as well as the points the author raises in each. I always enjoy seeing it appear on HN.
A query though - Is it possible to have some verification of the "top 100" personal sites claim? For example, years ago if you searched for "Sumerian gods" - you would get all manner of results, but nowadays you will always get Wikipedia as the top link, junk mixed in, and then other factual sources if you keep digging.
Wikipedia having top spot is not always necessarily a bad thing because ultimately most people searching likely want a factual source - or at least a source they trust. However, as a result of the two algorithms (and no doubt many more) we have a bunch of "junk" links in between the top link and the other interesting links. Even Britannica ranks lower than the junk links.
What I mean by "junk" links is the "Top 10 Best Sumerian Gods", etc. These frequently contain content lifted from other sources - including each other, spam-like advertising, and simply prey on the search engine's algorithms to get on to the front page beating the interesting content down into pages 3,4,5 and beyond. There's entire sites devoted to "how to" game the search engines, as is to be expected with any automated system.
Yes, the algorithms could be better - Britannica and other factual sources shouldn't be below "Top 10" lists, but so could the ethics of those who run sites purely for advertising revenue.
Conversely, better results are shown on page 1 for "Elizabeth I".
I remember learning from a historian that the use of animal excrement was used for all kinds of things; for example "curing" warts. The effectiveness was of course questionable, but that didn't stop people buying in to the hype of the day.
Someone else recently posted about the Templar diet[1], and I thought that was actually quite ahead of it's time. What I find most interesting is how they could have been so ahead of the times in terms of diet and hygiene compared to the "average Joe".
I see a lot of comments on HN and other sites which could be summarized as whatabout-ism or defending the changes on the premise that "I know someone|people that will welcome this change."
The problem is that I can't help shaking the feeling that those comments are either written by people who do not consider privacy to be a right, or fail to understand GDPR, or are Google paid shills / fanatics.
Ultimately the changes represent dark patterns and I fear the worst is yet to come for the darling browser of the web. Someone somewhere at Google made the decision to turn Google Chrome in to AOL v2.
I take solace in the fact that AOL's walled garden approach ultimately failed.
1. Have you considered adding a small wind turbine (DIY of course) to supplement?
2. Although the costs are certainly coming down and within the realm of possibility for many, they are still too prohibitive for those that would benefit the most. Do you see any way that you could recreate your project on a shoe-string budget?