whaack: diana_coman: EOD report : I fixed the crontab issue and setup apache/php on my toliet box + wrote a script that takes the the backup data and recreates my blog locally. I can confirm now with much more confidence that my blog is being backed up safely. I spent the rest of the day editing/finishing my Conrad post. That took much longer than the predicted 3hr - I spent closer to 6.5 hours. I will use extra time during my saltmine day
whaack: s to tackle the 2h journaling block I had scheduled for today.
diana_coman: whaack: the backup sounds finally fine; re writing heh, keep that in mind at next "estimate" of timing, you know?
diana_coman: whaack: do apply that mp-wp fix to keep trackbacks out of comments
diana_coman: whaack dorion_road you might want to increase the number of comments and posts shown in the sidebar, as 5 is rather little when there's quite the discussion going on; it's an easy change too.
whaack: diana_coman: mhm I thought 3h was generous because I thought my article was already completed - but on reread I saw it needed major restructuring. I will apply the mp-wp fix within the next two days, for now I increased the number of comments/posts (btw dorion_road that's just a setting on the dashboard under appearances->widgets)
whaack: diana_coman: I'm going to go surf for a bit, not an escape I swear, the waves look great and I hardly left the house once yesterday / could use some exercise.
diana_coman: whaack: enjoy!
diana_coman: jfw: is this keccak background the result of 1.5 hours + 0.5hrs planning?
jfw: diana_coman: closer to 4 hours :(
jfw: in part I ended up doing some digging despite having initially wanted to keep scope to what I could do right then without it
jfw: ...so I guess I can't really be said to have decided on scope after all
diana_coman: jfw: aha; it even read a bit like "he's not FULLY decided on which way to go and which way to not go"; hence my question; hmm.
diana_coman: what was that digging for/in/about?
jfw: footnotes i-iv mainly
diana_coman: ah, do you mean it was time consuming finding the exact references there? (ie you knew what you wanted /that they existed but just had to spend time to find them?)
jfw: yes, though I didn't know exactly what I was looking for
jfw: had vague recollections.
diana_coman: were the recollections enough to write the text though? ie could have written it first and then time the reference-digging separately; and yes, it's an ever growing pain to find refs around here though I expect in your cases here you had it even harder as it wasn't all that fresh in memory, hm.
jfw: I didn't remember the year or the context so couldn't have written that second sentence at least
jfw: I could have left it a 'todo' and then timed the rest separately
jfw: Which would have given me the choice of whether to then do it on this pass
diana_coman: jfw: yes; other than that, the added trouble you are having there is the silence-gap that you are effectively trying to bridge while writing but inevitably retro-actively and so you get both the split and the resulting tension between "I'm talking of my work that I did alone" vs "but I *was* reading the logs and informed by it"
jfw: I felt such tension indeed.
jfw: That and the lack of freshness of refs would be among the debts of not writing mentioned in yesterday's
diana_coman: eh, the debt there has also the lack of your own writings to rely on otherwise; but more to the point, why not simply write it as what it was aka "I worked on this on my own (but reading the logs/this/that)"?
diana_coman: you don't *have to* write it as if it was already part of the forum or anything; you are bringing it forwards now and people want to see it, yes, but the history is what it is, what.
jfw: gah sorry, phone call distraction.
diana_coman: k.
jfw: back.
jfw: Re debt also meaning lack of ready context - yep.
jfw: hm, I wanted to include the context from the forum since it was to some degree informing my actions, though I was not a part of it
diana_coman: jfw: yes, include it but precisely as what it was - a reference only.
diana_coman: ie focus on your actions ie tell it from your perspective since that's how it was developed anyway + simply add footnotes/references when/where you used the logs/blogs/whatevers since that's how they played in anyway, isn't it?
jfw: as in stating that more explicitly? yeah I guess that's what you said.
diana_coman: as in keeping to the one perspective that matches anyway; for one thing it helps by reducing (or getting rid of) that tension anyway.
jfw: the freshness problem would come up again in that I'm not certain when/where/how I read what things; I have some notes and chat but that'd be a dig as well
jfw: but I think I get it as far as keeping to the one perspective.
diana_coman: heh, you are there your own historian so you get the double pleasure of cursing those imbecilles who didn't document properly + being cursed :D
jfw: aha.
diana_coman: alternatively, you can of course just... admit and live with that, as "not worth recovering" or something, I suppose; your call, either way.
jfw: I'm rather prefering to recover what I reasonably can, as I go, but yes.
diana_coman: well then, if it helps, I'd rather read the recovered history than no history too, certainly.
jfw: thanks.
diana_coman: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2019-12-03#1011822 - ahem, did you do the re-read properly before this stage that was supposed to be just final review?
ossabot: Logged on 2019-12-03 10:36:59 whaack: diana_coman: mhm I thought 3h was generous because I thought my article was already completed - but on reread I saw it needed major restructuring. I will apply the mp-wp fix within the next two days, for now I increased the number of comments/posts (btw dorion_road that's just a setting on the dashboard under appearances->widgets)
whaack: diana_coman: Yes on Sunday I finished the rough draft, and then without having a time gap I reread and revised it. Then the next day I went for the final review. For this final review I had planned to make only word choice revisions / small edits. But I believed that the article needed a structural revision. So I did some major edits, and then I took a break and did another final revision.
diana_coman: whaack: for starters, it needs a time gap because otherwise you won't see as much as you could after a break.
diana_coman: for the other, if you end up with major revision, then yes, it will need another pass, it's a sort of back-to-step-2 indeed.
diana_coman: basically your "final review" was more like first revision really.
whaack: diana_coman: Yes I knew that it needed another "take break then revise" yesterday since I started with a major revision and not just some edits. My rough draft on Saturday was a completion of the steps up to '...obvious mistakes, mispellings, etc' http://ztkfg.com/2019/10/v-study-part-1-vpatches-and-vdiff/comment-page-1/#comment-47 (point 2) .
diana_coman: all right.
whaack: diana_coman: For now it may be best to assume I need to do two break + revisions as I build up my writing muscles. This was also not my first rough draft I first tossed out some completely different articles as well.
whaack: s/some completely different articles/a draft of a different article <--- sorry there was only one and it was not complete.
diana_coman: whaack: plan it like that then, with 2 passes and see how it goes, sure.
whaack: diana_coman: ^ Updated my plan for the week to take this into account for my next article.
diana_coman: good.
dorion_road: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2019-12-03#1011821 << thanks, I made articles 10 and comments 15.
ossabot: Logged on 2019-12-03 05:44:48 diana_coman: whaack dorion_road you might want to increase the number of comments and posts shown in the sidebar, as 5 is rather little when there's quite the discussion going on; it's an easy change too.
diana_coman: works.
dorion_road: diana_coman thanks for the nudge and also the trackback fix.
dorion_road: I'd appreciate an !!up in #t