I’d also be interested in this. Right now, I use Fastmail with a partner and we use the new “Notes” feature to track what’s been open/plan for response.
I’ve been running quarto [0] for a few months now and I’m happy with it. Posts are saved as .qmd, with a little bit of special front matter for formatting and tagging. `quarto render` converts the .qmd(s) according to a simple config file.
[0] https://quarto.org/
Do you have any details on your workflow for reports? I “think” in .mds and the. use a VScode extension that creates to PDF on .md save with a custom/header footer template- works 95% of the time but it’s more brittle than I’d like.
As promised, here is my config setup for all of my quarto scripts. In RStudio, you can simply click the "Render" button on source pane of the script to render a pdf. You can also call `rmarkdown::render("file_path.qmd", output_format = "pdf_document")` to render a PDF.
FWIW, when you click "Render", this is the output command that RStudio shows: `quarto preview FILE.qmd --to pdf --no-watch-inputs --no-browse`
Of course, you will have to remember to properly format tables, omit `&` where possible in tables, figure titles, etc. There are so many nuances, but once you've got them figured out, report generation is very smooth.
---
title: Title
author: Author Name
date: today
date-format: long
pdf-engine: xelatex
format:
pdf:
number-sections: true
toc: true
toc-depth: 3
mainfont: Roboto # available fonts are dependent on your machine/environment
sansfont: Roboto
include-in-header:
text: |
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{lastpage}
\usepackage{float}
\pagestyle{fancy}
\fancyhead[L]{\empty}
\fancyfoot[R]{[Company] Confidential}
\fancyfoot[C]{\thepage\ of \pageref*{LastPage}}
---
```{r setup, echo=FALSE, include=FALSE}
knitr::opts_chunk$set(fig.align = "center",
warning = FALSE,
echo = FALSE,
message = FALSE,
dev = "cairo_pdf")
```
{{< include 001_QC.qmd >}}
{{< include 002_ANALYSIS_FILE.qmd >}}
<!-- And so on. -->
I agree! Visualizing a workflow or a project this way seems to have a ton of potential. I already keep most of my knowledge in Obsidian or template folder structures, and this provides a really neat way to visualize it.
An immediate use case that comes to mind is when I’m sending multiple file “deliverables” to a client— i.e. a quote, a report package, some spec sheets, and a relevant CAD diagram)— I could quickly arrange them on as previews on canvas with arrows to visually communicate how they relate and their relative importance rather using multiple paragraphs to explain the seven attachments.
This is a good use-case, thanks!
I will be adding arrows quite soon too, but sharing and collaborating externally will take a while, hopefully you have joined waitlist :)
we had overhead vacuum suction on all the terminals in the training environment. On the sub, not so much, but if you’re soldering^ underway, it’s because shit has hit the fan so badly that a bit of lead inhalation is the least of your worries.
edit: if you’re ^soldering *Nuke* stuff underway, it’s because things have hit the fan, and that’s the whole point of ETMS. Other rates also solder underway and might also use (did use) lead, and perhaps none of our inhalation was warranted.
Since no other navy nukes have chimed in on this thread to speak about ETMS—eutectic point is a huge piece of the puzzle and there are tradeoffs for selecting between 60/40 and 63/37. Fillets suck, bifurcated terminals are worse.
For any other Navy nukes, I wanted to link to a good reference on what ETMS is (was?) but couldn’t readily find anything. If anyone has a reputable link to publicly available course material on their solder grading rubrics or the 7-step, I’d be interested.
I think the comment from cosmicradiance is more in the spirit of HN. I’m guessing I’m 10 years older than OP, and started devops when LAMP was king. It’s a lot less abstract when you actual install, configure and start the service, as opposed to occasionally opening MySQL Workbench to poke around when things don’t work.
If that sounds silly, while working in commercial construction in Los Angeles, we encountered pushback for placing UL-listed devices in a UL-listed enclosure. The city determined that to be a “new assembly” and required UL listing for the entire unit. UL has a category for this situation; the enclosure is “UL recognized” because all of the devices and the enclosure are UL-listed. Their proposed solution, which UL was happy to oblige, was to come and field-inspect the installed units and have them certified in situ, at our (significant) expense, of course.
I assume you know this, but depending on what the enclosure was made of, what frequencies the devices inside were broadcasting at, and where you placed them inside, you could very well have accidentally produced a resonating chamber, parabolic antenna emitter, or other type of structural frequency-specific gain-boosting mechanism.
They likely wanted to just make sure that you hadn't done that. (And to do that, they had to send some fellows whose time was very expensive, because it takes long experience to build up an intuition for these things to the point that you're confident enough in your answer to not have to bother with the "measure everything and plug-and-chug the dynamics in a simulator" step.)
In this particular case, it was a guest room control solution consisting of DIN rail mounted TRIAC dimmers 0-10V dimmers and other line-voltage & dry contact relays. Backbone was an RS485, 4-conductor bus. Yes, those components can produce various harmonica and frequencies, however they were tested extensively in a lab in various configurations. Each configuration varies slightly based on room layouts and number of zones, and obtaining UL-listing for every possible permutation becomes ridiculous (IMO).
TBH that doesn't sound ridiculous at all. "UL recognized" is not the same thing as "UL listed."
The former means that the assembly is assumed to meet UL specifications; the second means that it has been inspected by UL and confirmed that the assembly actually does meet specifications.
Making sure that things meet specifications is the entire point of the building department's inspections.
I acknowledged that in my comment. Part of my point here is that UL is not exactly a disinterested 3rd-party when it comes to endorsing additional layers of certification.
When I see situations like this, it's often because someone on the other side, or someone related, benefits from the arrangement. They would never admit so, but that's how things tend to turn out like that.
That’s what I remember. Someone got me “Chicken Soup for the Teenage Soul” (I was 8 or 9). It had a section called “Tough Stuff” and it had stories of abusive parents and family. I think my parents blindly let me read it because of the “Cristian Themed” association.
