Dokuwiki user here. Your cons are true, but compared to the cons of other ones, they are all solvable. The concern with a plug-in being required to do something is silly. It’s open source and the plugin system is limitless. If it’s ugly, make a theme. I’ve never had a problem with article titles being mutilated, but then again, I treat the file name (e.g. the url of the page) separate from the root header as you’re supposed to.

Considering your comment about search being awful in another wiki, it’s pretty good in Dokuwiki.

Considering how much you care about plain text, you should probably discount the con about file names as I’m pretty sure that’s part of why Dokuwiki does what it does. It’s an actual text file sitting in a directory that matches the path.

For what it’s worth, I admire Obsidian. If it’s a personal project with no intent to share, that’s what I’d use. For business or public hosting, I’d use (and do use, at my company) Dokuwiki.

Might be worth mentioning how much money the company spent in stock buybacks, and how much the executives were compensated in previous years. It’s a shame.

Same happens every time I’ve tried to use it for search. Will be radioactive for this type of thing until someone figures that out. Quite frustrating, if they spent as much time on determining the difference between when a user wants objective information with citations as they do determining if the response breaks content guidelines, we might actually have something useful. Instead, we get AI slop.

Yeah, and King George III had all sorts of shit written down that people in governing roles agreed to. People under tyranny were pretty upset and tried diplomacy back then as well. Violence is what eventually solved it, and the people that went through that wanted to make sure violence was always an option, hence the 2nd amendment. Anyone, Republican or Democrat, that says otherwise is just wrong.

Same folks will be like, x issued more orders than any other president, but also excitedly talking about record revenue, turnout, etc. As if the stuff they agree with grows in a vacuum away from the stuff they disagree with.

It wouldn’t surprise me if it’s still competitive for a lot of markets, and if it’s not it’s because cable has been lowering prices to become competitive. Everyone I know 15 years ago was paying $300 once you added up TV, Internet, and cell phone bills. Accounting for inflation, that’s $450 today. I heard my grandma was being ripped for $350 a couple of years ago, and she just wanted a single channel. Hard to find anyone under an age that even has TV service, and those that do just want it for sports. At the original price of YT TV it was cheap enough to say why not, at the current price, even if it’s cheaper than cable, it’s now twice as much as I’d ever want to pay for it.

Fuck LG, not like they made good BR players. I’ve sworn to avoid buying their shit since they discontinued support for a BR player within a year of release, which back then meant you wouldn’t be able to watch any BR movie released after a certain date due to new DRM or whatever. They just up and decided to not release new firmware for units still under warranty.

For forests to be a meaningful part of a carbon capture discussion we’d need to be intentionally cutting down and regrowing some trees (which with current technology isn’t not something I’m actually suggesting). Once cut down, the tree matter would need to be stuck somewhere that wouldn’t return to the carbon lifecycle. All the oil we ever burned into the atmosphere over the last century had been firmly removed from the carbon cycle for hundreds of millions of years. Essentially all living plant matter draws carbon from the atmosphere/oceans, but most of that carbon goes back to the atmosphere eventually due to all the things that eat plants, the things that eat those things, the things that eat their waste, etc. Most of the chain after plants weren’t around when the organic deposits that eventually turned into oil were first laid. Heck, I’d bet none of the exact species that gorged on the carbon rich atmosphere are around now either, they’ve probably been outcompeted by organisms that adapted to lower carbon environments. Plants didn’t even decompose initially, because nothing had evolved to do that.

Basic carbon cycle science aside, in my opinion, bringing up forests when discussing carbon capture is exactly like talking about consumer recycling. It’s an easily digestible distraction away from the dozens of solutions that corporations don’t want you thinking about. Wikipedia says if we covered all available land in forests we’d sequester 20 years carbon at the current rate of consumption. Bear in mind, humans are using that land for food and housing, and we’re making every effort to grow the population even more.

Regardless of what the remote access test says about it being available, I had to manually port forward to fix this same issue.

Seriously, can’t get those 15 minutes back.