$ cd pranavchip.com
Frequently Asked Questions
The site is broken; I can see its code!
What you are seeing is NOT raw HTML/TXT. It's a deliberate aesthetic
choice to use plaintext as far as possible. It also wraps at 72
characters to honor RFC 2822 (IETF 2001) standards.
Interestingly, the reason old-school terminals had only 80 columns
was because punch cards were 80 columns wide! And this was way
back in the 1890s for the US Census. I find the lineage fascinating.
If you hit "Ctrl+U" on a desktop browser, you should be presented
with the raw HTML. You'll see that most of the text (including this
paragraph) is free of tags. Due to heavily resembling a text file,
it formats really well when printed as a PDF!
Isn't it a bad idea to create a map of your digital footprint?
As a general rule of thumb, yes, it is. But a determined OSINT
analyst can piece together my life just as well (if not better)
than I've done. So I don't mind presenting public information on
a platter that I designed myself.
And plus, hiding in fear of spam emails and identity theft isn't a
very fun way to live. If you're a super evil hax0r reading this,
well... good luck. Perhaps we'll both learn something out of the
endeavor :)
Where can I find the source code?
git.sr.ht/~chiploonkar/pranavchip.com
Please email me at mail@pranavchip.com if you spot any bugs or
have suggestions! You can also submit a patch and I'll try to
figure out how that works...
Why use SourceHut?
I wanted to work with a repository that was cleaner than GitHub and
truer to the FOSS ethos. SourceHut is highly minimal and works
well with my terminal-focused workflow. It's also forced me to
get better at git CLI and git send-email, which is what the Linux
Kernel Mailing List uses!
What is the color palette?
The colors used were inspired by Spotify's UI design.
(a) Background : #212121;
(b) Regular text : #B3B3B3;
(c) Hyperlinks : #1DB954;
(d) Hyperlinks (hover): #FFFFFF;
The CSS stylesheet can be found here:
assets/stylesheets/styles.css
Why doesn't the LICENSE file have a ".txt" extension?
This is mostly a matter of convention. You could use one and it'd
work just fine. But historically it's been presented as LICENSE.
Additionally, files do not actually require an extension to open.
Contrary to what Windows warns you when you change a file extension,
it doesn't actually change the contents of the file. It serves more
as a hint to the OS for how to open/interact with the file.
To demonstrate this, I've duplicated LICENSE twice into LICENSE.txt
and LICENSE.weird. When you run the "file" command on them:
$ file LICENSE
LICENSE: Unicode text, UTF-8 text
$ file LICENSE.txt
LICENSE.txt: Unicode text, UTF-8 text
$ file LICENSE.weird
LICENSE.weird: Unicode text, UTF-8 text
The file is unchanged! But LICENSE.weird would indeed be *weird*