there's also usage: https://usage.jdx.dev/spec/

the double questionmark `foo??` is sometimes also useful, since it'll show full source for the function/method/thing if you do it to a function.

"ratio of open/total issues" can definitely be gamed by autoclosing anything that isn't an easy fix.

"average time to resolution" is also susceptible.

Both of these are pretty common all over the place, including OSS e.g. https://isitmaintained.com/#metrics

I suspect this sort of thing is one of the major motivations for the (as a user/reporter) infuriating rise in automated "this bug hasn't been touched in NN days, autoclosing for staleness" bots on various issue trackers.

This whole “worrying about KPI’s for my free, open source, community project” thing seems weird to me. (Not to say I don’t believe you, but I don’t understand why people want to inject this annoying mini-game into their hobby).

I’m not sure what to think about the auto-close bots. Which do you think would be more annoying as the person who made the report: having a report that just sits there forever and you just have to hope somebody decided to pick it up, or having the issue auto-closed? (I’m truly and honestly not sure). At least in the case of the former you have a clear marker for when you should try again. But getting rejected by a bot can definitely be annoying.

After being annoyed by this (and a handful of persistent others) a few too many times, I ended up with the following ublock rules:

    www.youtube.com##ytd-rich-grid-media.ytd-rich-item-renderer:has(a[href='/@MrBeast'])
    www.youtube.com##ytd-rich-grid-media.ytd-rich-item-renderer:has(a[href='/@BeastReacts'])
    www.youtube.com##ytd-rich-grid-media.ytd-rich-item-renderer:has(a[href='/@BeastPhilanthropy'])

I've not really seen much actually using it in the wild, but I came across CriticMarkup[1] at some point in the past and had some idea of using it in some sort of copyediting workflows.

[1] https://github.com/CriticMarkup/CriticMarkup-toolkit

maybe I'm just doing it wrong, but having looked at these capabilities occasionally, they seem pretty weak.

- There's no equivalent of "git blame" that I can find to see who/when a particular line/paragraph/section changed.

- I can't see if there's a way to view my changes separate from other edits to the document, or isolate changes by single authors generally.

- "diffing" via the "compare documents" action seems to want to generate a new document with track-changes edits for changes from old/new, but mangles the histories to present all changes as by the invoker of the diff, at that time, which isn't all that useful.

It's definitely better than nothing at all, but a long way short of where I'd hoped we'd be regarding collaborative document authoring at this point.

I’m think your expectations are a bit unrealistic, in terms of complexity for an average office worker.

First of all, most developers can’t use git blame

Secondly, there hasn’t really been a good diffing / compare documents experience for complex documents, with images and tables. The experience we have with HTML occasionally breaks the document itself, it’s not suitable for an average office worker.

You have to keep in mind that the tools being complicated are a not just a training problem - every time I see a developer making a blog, they spend more time on the technology than on the content they want to write. That’s why I don’t host my blog, I need the tool to get out of the way so that I can think about the relevant issue - communication.

I don't think some sort of vaguely granular "last edited by XXX at YYY" annotations/tooltips/whatever would be too outrageous a feature to confuse everyone.

If necessary, could treat tables or other complicated compound entries as a single editable item, although given the mysterious passion everyone I've ever worked with seems to have for putting just about everything into a table regardless of need, I'd hope it could be granular to a cell-level, at least.

Trying to collaboratively write complicated documents with a bunch of inter-relations between sections, from different people (in my case, documentation & regulatory paperwork for medical devices) is a massive pain, and I feel like it's too obvious a problem to be confined to my particular niche.

I vaguely recall Word is widely used for preparing huge legal documents, where the content and stakes are probably similar, so maybe there are some solutions, unless they're just "throw interns at it".

I think you underestimate most developers.

Scratch Monkey may have some vague notions along those lines, if I remember rightly: https://www.antipope.org/charlie/fiction/monkey/index.html

and to squash a little further:

    perl -ne '/^(?=([abc].*){3})(?!.*([abc]).*\2).{8}k.$/&&print' /usr/share/dict/words

Bug: 11 words are missing.

  [me@fedora ~]$ time perl -ne '/^(?=([abc].*){3})(?!.*([abc]).*\2).{8}k.$/&&print' /usr/share/dict/words | wc -l
  6

  real 0m0,118s
  user 0m0,112s
  sys 0m0,007s

mitmproxy[1] in transparent mode, with a self-signed root cert added to whatever trust stores on devices/browsers/OSes you need to intercept, is where I'd start.

I'm not sure how well that copes with modern security features like cert pinning, but it's closest I can think of.

[1] https://docs.mitmproxy.org/stable/concepts-modes/#transparen...

mitm-proxy in WireGuard mode is friggin' amazing. I permanently host it to spy on traffic.

Now, I did have to set up a root CA on my iPhone before I'm allowed to spy on traffic.

But, like you said, cert pinning requires a hack. On Android I use Frida for it. On iOS, I use ... nothing, as I haven't found a good way around it.

Actually insane that I am not allowed to look at the traffic that goes over my internet connection...

Thank you very much, I'll be checking this out!