FrenchyJiby

I enjoy:

- seamless container logs (journalctl), no weird separate logger

- service start/stop/enable-at-boot no weird separate command

- integration with system/user slices, triggers, cronjobs (timers), exposing containers as first class commands overall!

Basically it's worth seeing container services work with non-container services.

If you don't like systemd, or have no stake in it, sure, have fun without it, but it's definitely added value when you're running services, and want to start containerizing some of them without abandoning all the good tools you are using in favour of docker logs docker run etc.

Yes-anding this to say:

For per-user gitignore, one can set the following config in ~/.gitconfig:

    # System-wide gitignore file
    # To avoid in-repo repetition for system-specifc garbage files
    [core]
        excludesfile = ~/.config/git/gitignore

Then your file at ~/.config/git/gitignore can be a normal format, and not need to be stored in repo. Perfect for system files (.DS_Store...) or editor swap files etc.

Yeah I'm confused why none of the solutions presented deploy the same TF across the environments: Surely if you have dev vs prod, 90% of dev infra is also needed in prod?

Then sure sprinkle a few per-env-toggles `count: 1 if env == dev else 0` (or whatever the latest nicest way to do that is today), but it feels weird to have to set up an artificial TF module around our entire codebase to be able to share the bulk of the code?

Note that the specific naming of hurl.dev is not random: hurl is a wrapper for curl, where the requests are stored in a plaintext file.

So hurl.dev didn't roll dice and got hurl, but consciously got a close sounding word.

In that sense, that makes one claim over the other a little more valid, in my mind, though you're right that clashes will have to occur.

I did get confused extra hard by the url = hurl.wtf, when hurl.dev is so close yet about different topic.

Rome ... Virginia, USA.

I'll note that France has a slight variant on that, where it's assumed that any identifiable marker of the ballot could reveal a voter's identity, bad in case of blackmail like "vote for X, and show it by having a stripe at at the top, or I [do bad things to family], I'll be checking the ballots").

To avoid this, no markers, but all possible votes are pieces of paper with printed text, grab N>2, go in the booth, put in one in an envelope.

This way your vote and any other vote look identical, and vote is voided in case of any identifying mark (even weirdly bent paper etc). No stamp needed, just number of votes/envelopes.