Well, he still has a month I guess

This is an utterly fatuous statement

The majority of the article is describing how it is different from “try to” in its usage. In short it acts more like a single phrase than as a literal future infinitive.

There's no usage of try and where try to wouldn't fit perfectly well and mean exactly the same thing. It's a weird construct with weird restrictions on how it can be applied grammatically, but it's not different in usage.

I'm American and use the phrase that way literally all the time. Also "Go ahead and..."

Actually, this is the same way it's used in America. Maybe there's a subtle distinction in rare cases, but it's been more or less deflated.

There might be some boomer grammar prescriptivists who are saying otherwise, but they aren't doing linguistics.

Try and find out.

> You can’t change the order.

You are confusing semantics with grammatical correctness. In both your examples, they would still be grammatically correct with reversed order.

(I would actually suggest they are still semantically reasonable too, but that's besides the point).

I think you are the one who doesn't know what they are on about.

First, the header must be added to the response, not the request.

Second, in many environments (managed hosting etc.) there is not an easy way (or indeed a way at all) of adding headers to responses.

> Second, in many environments (managed hosting etc.) there is not an easy way (or indeed a way at all) of adding headers to responses.

It's getting better. Most serverless hosts (including Cloudflare, which this site uses) follow the (req: Request) => Response pattern, which by definition allows sending headers.

What are you talking about. Any non-static hosting will let you specify headers with a plain php function. Any baseline shared hosting offers that kind of control and has done so for the past 20+ years.

is that something that could have be done in the dot file for server override? what was it, .htaccess or something?

Sure, if you wanted to deal with configuring Apache. Or getting your hosting provider to do that. If you knew to ask, and didn't mind waiting, and your hosting provider knew how...and was willing to do it, a condition I forgot to add in my last comment here, but which applies equally there. (User-provided .htaccess files were the source of a number of relatively high-profile early CVEs, as I recall. Apache grew a number of options for trusting their content, and I want to say before very long you could not rely on anything working past simple HTTP-Basic credential management.)

Oldschool shared web hosting was a shockingly deprived environment by modern standards, which is why my Linode account turned old enough a few months ago to buy a drink in a bar: $20 a month in 2004 was amply worth gaining a degree of control over web server configuration which is broadly the default assumption now.

Since I was also administering some shared web hosting in my own right at the time - partially overlapping with my web design work targeting shared hosting, since some customers preferred to BYO - I don't blame admins for being difficult to work with; we all had good reason to be, with the afterthought security typically was everywhere in those days. But you begin perhaps to see why bypassing the whole rigamarole with a hint to the client was attractive.

but that was the point of the dot file to allow vhosts to change the default server settings without needing access to the root config. maybe they weren't designed specifically for vhosts, but that was my main use of them.

Yes. If the main Apache config was set up to allow it to read a dotfile, and if configured not to ignore the options you wanted to use, that is what the dotfile did. That's why, if you wanted an option easily portable across hosting providers, you used the meta tag instead. Which is my point, and my only point, and not really up for debate by some pettifogging rando with nothing better to fill a Saturday night.

Wtf, seriously. I was just asking. Sorry if that resulted in me pissing in your cheerios. Just because a question was asked doesn’t mean it was challenging your knowledge. I was just asking to clarify based on personal experience. If you don’t have time for questions or feel personally slighted that someone would have the gall to question the written word of the almighty throwanem, then posting on the internet is probably something you stop doing

It isn't a question of "challenging [my] knowledge," it's a question of you acting like kind of a jerk. I realize you don't see yourself as the one starting an argument here, and I have observed your manners likewise lacking on many occasions on this website before. Your opinion of the matter is not well qualified. You're being an ass. Knock it off.

I realize you're probably not accustomed to being called on your lousy behavior. I doubt you will need to become so. But just for once, here we are. You don't bother to find out what you're talking about before you speak and then you want your hand held on points that were already clarified, had you but bothered to catch up. I don't tolerate that in candidates, I won't tolerate it in colleagues, and I see no very pressing reason to tolerate it here.

You're like the caricature of what other social media platforms represent HN users to be.

Wait, I'm confused. Do you mean that I correspond with the caricature by which you're accustomed to see HN users represented, presumably not by themselves, on other social media platforms? Or do you mean instead that I correspond with a caricature of the caricatured representation that etc.? Your comment is ambiguous. Please clarify.

Not really, that's more like N-Gate (pbuh, rip) [1].

[1] http://n-gate.com/hackernews/

Ever tried doing it in nginx? You'll find `add_header` doesn't work at all the way you think it does.

And it doesn't allow overrides in dotfiles since that's not performant or secure.

> okay, maybe not sessions

Okay, but sessions are one of the best things about tmux.

Sessions aside, in my opinion tmux's flow is just better than terminal emulators I've tried. It slots into my brain in a way no terminal emulator's tabbing support ever has, and I have never found a terminal emulator who supported keybindings in such a sophisticated and seamless manner as tmux does.

I also concur with other commenters, who mention that having uniform multiplexing of shell windows between local and remote environments is super useful for muscle memory.

  > Okay, but sessions are one of the best things about tmux.

Locally or remotely? Remotely I fully agree. But remotely I can't open a new window and my machine doesn't have different workspaces.

  > Sessions aside

I'm curious about this actually. The opposite has been true in my experience. What keybindings are you missing? I can keybind essentially any script I want or any set of keystrokes.

  > uniform multiplexing of shell windows between local and remote environments is super useful for muscle memory.

I actually have the opposite experience. I mean I can bind ghostty splits to be identical to my tmux bindings, that's not an issue and trivial to merge. But I keep them separate because it contextualizes if I'm "here" or "there". Similarly I ensure that remote sessions have a different PS1 line so there are visual indications of where I am other than one small icon. Without this I find that it is easy to forget which machine I'm in. Had too many problems where I was running commands on one machine thinking I was in another.

> having uniform multiplexing of shell windows between local and remote environments is super useful for muscle memory.

Yep, this is why I use the same .tmux.conf on my servers and my local machines. I don't have to care about my terminal emulator - I might be using a fully featured Windows Terminal or iTerm, or I might be using xterm or st on some spartan system. My navigation works the same everywhere.

  > My navigation works the same everywhere.

Is this really a requirement of tmux though? I have essentially this. Essentially, because I purposefully change my prefix for my emulator to remind me if I'm local or remote (tmux), but other than that it is fairly uniform.

Keybindings and uniform experience across machines is what does it for me.

What is a "growth tree"?

((Old growth) tree), not (old (growth tree)).

Old growth trees are trees or forests that are centuries old and not recently cultures.

That should have been hyphenated then. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old-growth_forest

It does not have to be. The English language has a process where phrases become hyphenated compounds which then become single words. It's permissible to be partway along that path, and for people to disagree where something is on that path.

Pick any point in the past few centuries, and there's going to be something, possibly nowadays always a single word, but not necessarily so even now, that was in a state of flux at the time. The same goes for today.

“Old growth forest” is incorrect in any formulation of English grammar that I'm familiar with. It's not about fixed phrases. It's about using an adjective+noun pair (in this case, old+growth) as an adjective modifying another noun (in this case, forest). This is a general rule that applies across the board, not an isolated phrase example.

The poster was correct in asking what a “growth forest” is, because without the hyphen, the phrase parses as an adjective (old) modifying a compound noun.

And "nowadays" is an example of that process https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=nowadays,%20no...

Have a nice week-end! I fondly recall the days of my youth as a teen-ager.

Though I still lament the loss of the subjunctive form. And diaeresis.

Hyphenation is useful in phrasal adjectives, like "heavy-metal shield" (to distinguish it from a shield that is of metal and is heavy, but is not or a for example Pb) or in something like "four-day trips" (the trips last four days; they are not necessarily four in number).

I like it too, and you're talking to someone who has been trying, mostly in vain, to teach his kids the difference between "I wish I was there" and "I wish I were there", or how you can get eggs from a coop or a coöp, and they're different things, but eventually the hyphenation dies out and the phrase remains.

Tangential, how do you hyphenate (((very old) growth) tree)?

In English, we're making a compound adjective so it would be very-old-growth tree.

It's one step short of the German compound noun, and we make it easier to find the fragments...

English is the only language I know of that allows spaces in compound words at all. It's a very peculiar feature of English orthography.

Mandarin written in pinyin comes to mind as another example. Do you discount that because pinyin is not the primary writing system used for that language?

Nah I just didn't know anything about Mandarin really

This sort of thing comes up often for me. I use extended hyphenation to declare precedence: very-old--growth tree.

ancient-growth tree

Not "growth tree" but an "old growth" tree. It just means a tree that was left to mature, and never cut down.

It means a mature tree in an old-growth forest. Trees that grow in the dense shade of other trees grow slower, and their growth rings are much closer together. The result is that a tree takes a lot longer to grow but it's stronger and harder than the same species grown in the sunlight.

The reason for the distinction is that most of the old growth forests have been clear-cut and the lumber available today is fast-growth farmed lumber. If you compare a 2x4 at Lowe's with a 2x4 out of a 150-year-old house, you'll see that the wood itself is very different even though the species might be the same. The tree the new 2x4 came from was fairly young, while the tree the 150-year-old 2x4 came from was probably centuries old.

Typically it also means one left to grow naturally, without forcing the rate by various methods (as is done in many modern tree farms).

is there any difference to just saying "old tree"?

Old trees are not necessarily old-growth trees. A fallow tree farm left to age has zero old-growth trees, regardless of how old they are.

You have the real answer, but I suppose it is contrasted with a "value tree."

Fundamentally the issue is that companies are just not investing enough in engineering and IT. When you farm out this work to offshore workers on a shoestring budget, the result is utterly predictable.

This isn't an offshore situation though.

I've worked with Allianz's cybersecurity personas previously on EBRs/QBRs, and the issue is they (like a lot of European companies) are basically a confederation of subsidiaries with various independent IT assets and teams, so shadow IT abounds.

They have subsidiaries numbering in the dozens, so there is no way to unify IT norms and standards.

There is an added skills issue as well (most DACH companies I've dealt with have only just started working on building hybrid security posture management - easily a decade behind their American peers), but it is a side effect of the organizational issues.

> They have subsidiaries numbering in the dozens, so there is no way to unify IT norms and standards.

That is their choice though - they could setup a technology services subsidiary, and then provide IT services to the other subsidiaries, transparently to the end users in those subsidiaries.