Ir al contenido principal

Ralsina.Me — El sitio web de Roberto Alsina

Sometimes More is More

Y sí, eso es 90% cier­to. Ex­cep­to cuan­do es fal­so, por ejem­plo cuan­do me com­pré una cam­pe­ra.

Es una lin­da cam­pe­ra, y si la mi­rás así no­más no vas a ver un fea­tu­re im­por­tan­te: dos bol­si­llos de ca­da la­do.

Pen­se­mos en por­qué que­re­mos bol­si­llos en los cos­ta­dos de las cam­pe­ra­s:

  1. Pa­­ra me­­ter las ma­­nos cuan­­do ha­­ce frío. Co­­­mo es una ca­m­­pe­­ra grue­s­a, eso es im­­po­r­­tan­­te. En cli­­mas mo­­­de­­ra­­dos co­­­mo es­­te, los guan­­tes no va­­len la pe­­na, y me­­ter las ma­­nos en el bo­l­­si­­llo al­­can­­za.

  2. Pa­­ra me­­ter co­­sas que no son ma­­no­­s: lla­­ve­s, te­­lé­­fo­­­no, pla­­ta, ca­­ra­­me­­lo­­s, etc.

Pa­ra el pri­mer ca­so de uso, que­re­mos bol­si­llos en un án­gu­lo ba­jo, pa­ra que la ma­no en­tre na­tu­ral­men­te, ca­si ho­ri­zon­ta­le­s. Ade­más que­re­mos un ac­ce­so sin obs­tá­cu­lo­s, asi que sin cie­rres, que ade­más ras­pan.

Pa­ra el se­gun­do ca­so, que­re­mos que las co­sas no se cai­gan. O sea que pue­de ser un bol­si­llo ver­ti­cal (tal vez con ta­pa) o con un cie­rre. Los cie­rres tie­nen el pro­ble­ma adi­cio­nal de que te po­dés ol­vi­dar de ce­rrar­lo­s, y las co­sas se caen. Los bol­si­llos ver­ti­ca­les son ho­rri­bles pa­ra me­ter las ma­no­s.

Así que mi cam­pe­ra tie­ne dos bol­si­llos de ca­da la­do, uno con cie­rre, uno sin cie­rre. Uno pa­ra las ma­no­s, el otro pa­ra las co­sas. Co­mo es grue­sa, no se ve, a me­nos que se­pas lo que es­tás bus­can­do, y el mo­do de uso es tri­via­l: to­do va en el bol­si­llo ce­rra­do me­nos la ma­no. Has­ta pue­do pal­par el con­te­ni­do de un bol­si­llo des­de el otro, sin sa­car las ma­nos de sus bol­si­llo­s.

Es­te es un ca­so don­de más es má­s, com­ple­jo es me­jo­r, las op­cio­nes es­tán bue­na­s, y los de­faul­ts no im­por­tan. Aho­ra, si en­con­trás un lu­gar en el so­ftwa­re en que pa­se lo mis­mo, ahí te­nés una opor­tu­ni­da­d.

Nikola: Filters & Bundles

Two up­com­ing fea­tures for the next re­lease of Niko­la, my stat­ic site gen­er­a­tor, due some­time in Au­gust.


Fil­ters let you post­pro­cess your out­put. Think of it like in­sta­gram for web­sites, but use­ful. You can con­fig­ure per file ex­ten­sion a se­ries of python func­tions or shell com­mand­s, which will be ap­plied in place to the out­put file.

For ex­am­ple, sup­pose you want to ap­ply yui-­com­pres­sor to your CSS and JS files:

    ".css": [filters.yui_compressor],
    ".js": [filters.yui_compressor],

There, filters.yui_compressor is a simple wrapper around the command so that it applies in-place to the output files.

If you use strings there (untest­ed), they are tak­en as com­mand­s. The "%s" will be re­placed by the file­name, the usu­al crazy shell quot­ing rules ap­ply:

    ".jpg": ["jpegoptim '%s'"],
    ".png": ["pngoptim '%s'"],

Keep in mind that the fil­ters mod­i­fy the out­put of Niko­la, not the in­put, so your im­ages, CSS, and JS files will not be touched in any way. And of course chang­ing the fil­ters ap­plied to a file will force a re­build, so you can ex­per­i­ment freely.


Hav­ing many sep­a­rate CSS or JS files is usu­al­ly a nono for per­for­mance rea­sons be­cause each one may in­volve a sep­a­rate HTTP trans­ac­tion. The so­lu­tion is to "bundle" those files in a sin­gle, larg­er file.

The rea­son not to do that is that usu­al­ly it means hav­ing a huge, un­com­fort­able thing to han­dle. So Niko­la tries to give you the best of both world­s, by let­ting you have sep­a­rate files, and bundling them (or not) on build.

There is a new option, USE_BUNDLES that defaults to False, and there are some changes in the theme templates so that it uses the bundled version when needed.

This was on­ly pos­si­ble thanks to We­bas­sets. How­ev­er, if you don't have We­bas­sets in­stalled, or you don't en­able USE_BUNDLES, this should cause no changes in the out­put.


These new fea­tures will al­low Niko­la users to im­prove their site's per­for­mance with min­i­mal tweak­ing, which is al­ways a good thing.

El Server Mínimo

En­ton­ces hoy en la ho­ra del al­muer­zo me pu­se a lim­piar la ba­su­ra. Es­te post des­cri­be con qué ter­mi­né, que es el ser­ver mí­ni­mo que me sir­ve pa­ra al­go.


Es un VPS ba­ra­to pro­vis­to por los ami­gos de burs­t.­net que no me pa­gan pa­ra de­cir co­sas bue­nas de su ser­vi­cio. Sin em­bar­go, las di­go igua­l:

  • Muy ba­­ra­­to (U$S 5.50 pe­­ro ten­­go 20% de des­­cuen­­to pa­­ra sie­m­­pre)

  • Ba­s­­tan­­te tran­s­­fe­­ren­­cia ca­­da mes

  • Mu­­cho es­­pa­­cio

  • Buen up­­ti­­me

  • Red rá­­pi­­da

  • Muy ba­­ra­­to

  • Pe­r­­fo­r­­man­­ce de­­cen­­te

  • Ba­­ra­­to


Ya te­nía Cen­tOS 5, y si­gue ahí. Si burst al­gu­na vez ofre­ce Ubun­tu Pre­ci­se, ca­paz que cam­bio. O, ya que es­to an­da, ca­paz que no.

Lo bue­no de Cen­tO­S: es­ta­ble y abu­rri­do.

Lo ma­lo de Cen­tO­S: es un po­co de­ma­sia­do abu­rri­do. Mon­to­nes de co­sas sim­ple­men­te no es­tán em­pa­que­ta­da­s.

Web Server

Ten­go que ser­vir una canti­dad de do­mi­nio­s, pe­ro con una pe­cu­lia­ri­da­d: son to­dos si­tios es­tá­ti­co­s. Lo que quie­ro es:

  • Ba­­jo uso de re­­cu­r­­sos

  • Pe­r­­fo­r­­man­­ce de­­cen­­te (con ran­­gos y ne­­go­­­cia­­ción de co­n­­te­­ni­­do­­s)

  • Es­­ta­­ble

  • Con ín­­di­­ces de di­­re­c­­to­­­rio

  • Fá­­cil de co­n­­fi­­gu­­rar

  • Do­­­mi­­nios vi­r­­tua­­les por no­m­­bre

Ca­si cual­quier ser­vi­dor an­da pa­ra es­to. Has­ta Apa­che, ex­cep­to por eso de la con­fi­gu­ra­ción sen­ci­lla. Ter­mi­né con ga­tling por­que cum­ple esos cri­te­rios bas­tan­te bien.

  • Usa al­­re­­de­­dor de 1.4MB de RAM que es­­tá bue­­no en un VP­S.

  • Es ba­s­­tan­­te rá­­pi­­do

  • Lle­­va ho­­­ras sin caer­­se

  • Ge­­ne­­ra ín­­di­­ces

  • Es­­ta es la co­n­­fi­­gu­­ra­­ció­­n: "-c /s­r­­v/www -P 2M -d -v -p 80 -F -S" (no, no hay ar­­chi­­vo de co­n­­fi­­gu­­ra­­ció­­n)

  • Los do­­­mi­­nios vi­r­­tua­­les son ca­r­­pe­­tas y sy­­m­­li­nks aden­­tro de /s­r­­v/www que es lo más fá­­cil po­­­si­­ble.

  • So­­­po­r­­ta pro­­­xy in­­ve­r­­so pa­­ra cuan­­do quie­­ro pro­­­bar una we­­ba­­pp py­­thon en la que es­­toy tra­­ba­­jan­­do.

Mail Server

No quie­ro un mail ser­ve­r. Ten­go gmail y un ser­ver de ver­dad pa­ra eso. Lo que quie­ro son los mails de cro­n. Pa­ra eso usé ss­m­tp y una cuen­ta ex­tra de gmai­l. Fun­cio­na, y es­ta es to­da la con­fi­gu­ra­ció­n:

Lo me­jor que pue­do de­cir es que fun­cio­na, y no in­vo­lu­cra co­rrer un ser­ve­r.


Pa­ra cuan­do ten­go que es­tar en dos lu­ga­res al mis­mo tiem­po: Open­VPN es lo má­s, y no se acep­tan dis­cu­sio­nes. Ten­go un squid co­rrien­do a ve­ce­s, y hay un Qua­ssel co­re pa­ra IR­C. Ins­ta­lé mosh pa­ra que el ssh sea me­nos do­lo­ro­so, rs­ync ha­ce de­plo­y­men­ts y guar­da ba­ckup­s, cron eje­cu­ta co­sas, y na­da má­s.


Mon­to­nes de RAM y CPU li­bres (sí, esa es la lis­ta com­ple­ta de pro­ce­so­s):

[root@burst1 ~]# ps aux
root         1  0.0  0.1   2156   664 ?        Ss   22:01   0:00 init [3]
root      1135  0.0  0.1   2260   576 ?        S<s  22:01   0:00 /sbin/udevd -d
root      1518  0.0  0.1   1812   572 ?        Ss   22:01   0:00 syslogd -m 0
root      1594  0.0  0.1   7240  1032 ?        Ss   22:01   0:00 /usr/sbin/sshd
root      1602  0.0  0.2   4492  1112 ?        Ss   22:01   0:00 crond
root      1630  0.0  0.1   5684   716 ?        Ss   22:01   0:00 /usr/sbin/saslauthd -m /var/run/saslauthd -a pam -n 2
root      1631  0.0  0.0   5684   444 ?        S    22:01   0:00 /usr/sbin/saslauthd -m /var/run/saslauthd -a pam -n 2
root      1636  0.0  0.2   3852  1372 ?        S    22:01   0:01 /opt/diet/bin/gatling -c /srv/www -P 2M -d -v -p 80 -F -S
root      1677  0.0  0.2   4284  1232 ?        Ss   22:02   0:00 SCREEN /root/quasselcore-static-0.7.1
root      1678  0.0  2.1  36688 11148 pts/0    Ssl+ 22:02   0:03 /root/quasselcore-static-0.7.1
root      3228  1.0  0.7  12916  4196 ?        Ss   23:28   0:13 mosh-server new -s -c 8
root      3229  0.0  0.3   3848  1588 pts/2    Ss   23:28   0:00 -bash
root      3275  0.0  0.1   2532   908 pts/2    R+   23:48   0:00 ps aux
[root@burst1 ~]# w
 23:49:03 up  1:47,  1 user,  load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00
USER     TTY      FROM              LOGIN@   IDLE   JCPU   PCPU WHAT
root     pts/2   23:28    0.00s  0.01s  0.00s w
[root@burst1 ~]# free
             total       used       free     shared    buffers     cached
Mem:        524800      49100     475700          0          0          0
-/+ buffers/cache:      49100     475700
Swap:            0          0          0

Te­nien­do en cuen­ta to­do, bas­tan­te con­ten­to con el re­sul­ta­do.

Wild Cards (Wild Cards, #1)

Cover for Wild Cards (Wild Cards, #1)


I liked this book enough, but the idea of it be­ing part of a 20+ book se­ries is daunt­ing enough that I may not con­tin­ue it.

Christians say the funniest things!

This is a res­pon­se to a res­pon­se to this we­b­co­mic ti­tled "How to su­ck at your re­li­gio­n". Whi­le Oat­mea­l's co­mic is cra­ss and pain­ts things in broad ter­ms, it's a freaking we­b­co­mic. So it's su­ppo­sed to do tha­t. Bu­tthe res­pon­se is so fu­ll of pha­lla­cies (and la­cking in we­b­co­mi­c-­ness) that it may de­ser­ve a res­pon­se.

I ha­ve pro­mi­s­ed not to be a tro­ll (an­y­mo­re) so I wi­ll try to an­swer in a sen­si­ble man­ne­r.

He­re's the arti­cle I am re­pl­ying to go read it if you wan­t. I wi­ll not re­ply to all of it, but wi­ll ins­tead che­rr­y­pi­ck a cou­ple of pa­ra­gra­phs.

In res­pon­se to the "for­cing dog­ma" pa­ne­l:

So­... re­li­gion is fi­ne, un­le­ss you ac­tua­lly be­lie­ve in it? Should pa­ren­ts not pa­ss their po­li­ti­ca­l, ethi­cal or mo­ral views on to their chil­dren as we­ll? What par­ts of pa­ren­ting would be le­ft if pa­ren­ts we­re to avoid pa­s­sing their views on to their ki­d­s? The irony he­re is that si­len­ce is itself a sta­te­men­t. Avoi­ding any men­tion of God to your ki­ds sen­ds as clear a me­ss­age as ta­lking about Go­d: spe­ci­fi­ca­ll­y, it te­lls your ki­ds that Go­d's exis­ten­ce is ei­ther un­true, unk­no­wn, or unim­por­tan­t. Be­cau­se if you knew Him to exis­t, su­re­ly you'd sha­re that kno­w­le­dge, ri­gh­t?

Le­t's start from the to­p: you do­n't know god exis­ts. You ha­ve fai­th that he exis­ts, but you do­n't know it for a fac­t. If you knew for a fact that he exis­ts, you could not po­s­si­bly ha­ve fai­th be­cau­se fai­th ex­clu­des cer­tain­ty. As your bi­ble sa­ys, fai­th is "the subs­tan­ce of things ho­ped fo­r, the evi­den­ce of things not seen."

So, do I te­ll my son god does­n't exis­t? No­pe. I te­ll him I thi­nk he does­n't exis­t, and that I ha­ve ne­ver seen r heard of any re­lia­ble evi­den­ce or da­tum that poin­ts to­war­ds his exis­ten­ce, but al­so that so­me peo­ple do be­lie­ve he does exis­t. I told him that be­cau­se I feel tha­t's a ho­nest an­swe­r. If your ho­nest an­swer is "god exis­ts", then bu­lly for you, but from the point of view of a no­n-­be­lie­ver you are te­lling your son a lie, or at best a hal­f-­tru­th. And if you rea­lly do­n't know he exis­ts for a fact then you are just lyin­g.

No­w, are you sa­yin that you know god exis­ts fac­tua­ll­y? Ba­sed on wha­t? Tha­t's the usual sli­ppe­ry slo­pe for this ar­gu­men­t. The re­li­gious are the ones making sta­te­men­ts of fact ba­sed on tra­di­tio­n. To the rest of us, they just seem to be pla­ying loose wi­th what "fac­t" mean­s, or what "go­d" means or what "k­no­w" mean­s.

So, no, do­n't avoid men­tions of go­d, just avoid lying to your ki­ds if you can.

This next sec­tion is pro­ba­bly the wors­t, be­cau­se it's just an in­co­he­rent ar­gu­men­t. A kid asks, “Da­d, what ha­ppens to us after we die?” The au­thor com­pa­res pro­vi­ding the Ch­ris­tian an­swer to this ques­tion wi­th co­rrec­ting your kid for ha­ving green as a fa­vo­ri­te co­lo­r. Wha­t?? That just is­n’t a co­he­rent ar­gu­men­t. In what world are tho­se two ideas pa­ra­lle­l, or even com­pa­ra­ble?

Ac­cor­ding to the we­b­co­mi­c, good pa­ren­ting is to pre­tend to be ag­nos­ti­c, and say that “no one rea­lly kno­ws for su­re.” Of cour­se, if the Re­su­rrec­tion is true, that claim is fal­se. So to be a good pa­ren­t, you appa­ren­tly ha­ve to deny the Re­su­rrec­tion and em­bra­ce ag­nos­ti­cis­m, trea­ting be­lie­fs about the after­li­fe as me­re ma­tters of per­so­nal pre­fe­ren­ce like ha­ving a fa­vo­ri­te co­lo­r. This is jus­t… stu­pi­d. The­re’s just no other way of des­cri­bing it. Ima­gi­ne if we treated eve­r­y­thing that wa­y. “Da­d, wha­t’s 3 x 3?” “No one rea­lly kno­ws for su­re. What do YOU thi­nk 3 x 3 is?”

So, com­pa­ring li­fe after dea­th wi­th co­lor pre­fe­ren­ce is stu­pid and in­co­he­ren­t, but com­pa­ring it the ch­ris­tian be­lief of re­su­rrec­tion wi­th ba­sic ari­th­me­thi­cs is a-o­k? That must ha­ve taken so­me effort to wri­te wi­th a strai­ght fa­ce, I'm su­re.

So, le­t's go slo­w­ly on this one. Be­lie­fs about the after­li­fe are, like most other be­lie­fs, pro­ba­bly not a per­so­nal pre­fe­ren­ce, but just so­me­thing you ha­ve, be­cau­se of, in most ca­ses, in­doc­tri­na­tion ear­ly in li­fe, peer pres­su­re, and just be­cau­se you li­ve in a so­cie­ty whe­re that be­lief is nor­mal and appro­ved of.

But what is it your be­lief in the after­li­fe is not?

  • It's not inhe­­rent to "you". If you we­­re born in ano­­­ther pla­­ce or ti­­me, you would pro­­­ba­­bly be­­­lie­­ve so­­­me­­thing el­­se.

  • It's not un­­dis­­pu­te­­d. Be­­­cau­­se the­­re exis­­ts a ma­­jo­­­ri­­ty of peo­­­ple who do­­n't be­­­lie­­ve the sa­­me thi­n­­g, ei­­­ther by de­­tails or en­­ti­­re­­l­­y.

  • It's not uni­­que. Be­­­cau­­se other re­­li­­gions ha­­ve had si­­mi­­lar re­­su­­rre­c­­tion be­­­lie­­fs.

  • It's not re­­lia­­ble. Even if we we­­re to ac­­cept eve­­r­­y­­thing the bi­­ble sa­­ys as true that would not mean we know what wi­­ll ha­­ppen to you or to me after we die. We would ha­­ve a tes­­ti­­mony about what ha­­ppe­­ned in a few da­­ys in the afte­r­­li­­fe of a spe­­ci­­fic pe­r­­so­­n, at a point in the pa­s­­t, as told to so­­­meo­­­ne by so­­­meo­­­ne. Is that the sa­­me as kno­­wing what wi­­ll ha­­ppen? No it's no­­­t.

Le­t's com­pa­re that to 3x3 as the au­thor attemp­te­d:

  • If I was a chi­­ne­­se in the 12­­th cen­­tu­­r­­y: 3x3 is 9.

  • The­­re is no group of peo­­­ple that be­­­lie­­ves 3x3 is 8 or 10.

  • The­­re has not been in the past any real di­s­a­­gree­­ment about the va­­lue of 3x3. We ha­­ve not achie­­ved that re­­sult via a gra­­dual im­­pro­­­ve­­men­­t.

  • We re­­ly on 3x3 being 9 eve­­ry day in our li­­ve­s. If you dri­­ve a ca­­r, use a pho­­­ne, or zip your pan­­ts, you are agreeing 3x3 is 9.

  • We do­­n't ex­­pect 3x3 not to be 9 in the fu­­tu­­re.

No­ti­ce any di­ffe­ren­ce­s? Ye­s, me too.

Per­so­na­ll­y, I con­si­der your fai­th in god mo­re akin my liking Queen (the ban­d, not the ru­le­r). I was ex­po­sed to Queen at the ri­ght ti­me, it was appro­ved by my peer­s, and I like it. On the other han­d, I un­ders­tand that Queen is not eve­r­yo­ne's cup of tea, and I do­n't claim Queen to be the "ri­gh­t" ban­d.

The who­le "if the Re­su­rrec­tion is true, that claim is fal­se" li­ne of thou­ght is not lo­gi­ca­l. If my cat had wings, then the claim that win­ged ca­ts are awe­so­me is fal­se. But my cat does­n't ha­ve wings. Does it make the win­ged ca­ts le­ss or mo­re awe­so­me that he does­n'­t? It's not that it's not ri­gh­t, it's that it's not even wron­g.

Al­so, Oat­mea­l, sha­me on you about Ga­li­leo, rea­ll­y, look it up ;-)

Contents © 2000-2024 Roberto Alsina