Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

🧘‍♂️
practicing mindfulness

David Ernst dsernst

🧘‍♂️
practicing mindfulness
View GitHub Profile
View cacheGoogleSheetNotesAndFormulas.js
// requires ?id=<GOOGLE_SHEET_ID>
// you must have authorized access to the spreadsheet
function doGet(request) {
if (!request.parameter.id) {
return ContentService.createTextOutput(JSON.stringify(new Error('no Google Sheet id set')))
.setMimeType(ContentService.MimeType.JSON);
}
var cache = getNotesAndFormulas(request.parameter.id);
View cacheGoogleSheetNotesAndFormulas.js
// ?id=<GOOGLE_SHEET_ID>
function doGet(request) {
if (!request.parameter.id) {
return ContentService.createTextOutput(JSON.stringify(new Error('no Google Sheet id set')))
.setMimeType(ContentService.MimeType.JSON);
}
var cache = cacheNotesAndFormulas(request.parameter.id);
// Return cache as JSON
View how-to-set-up-stress-free-ssl-on-os-x.md

How to set up stress-free SSL on an OS X development machine

One of the best ways to reduce complexity (read: stress) in web development is to minimize the differences between your development and production environments. After being frustrated by attempts to unify the approach to SSL on my local machine and in production, I searched for a workflow that would make the protocol invisible to me between all environments.

Most workflows make the following compromises:

  • Use HTTPS in production but HTTP locally. This is annoying because it makes the environments inconsistent, and the protocol choices leak up into the stack. For example, your web application needs to understand the underlying protocol when using the secure flag for cookies. If you don't get this right, your HTTP development server won't be able to read the cookies it writes, or worse, your HTTPS production server could pass sensitive cookies over an insecure connection.

  • Use production SSL certificates locally. This is annoying

View Equity.md

This is a post by Joel Spolsky. The original post is linked at the bottom.

This is such a common question here and elsewhere that I will attempt to write the world's most canonical answer to this question. Hopefully in the future when someone on answers.onstartups asks how to split up the ownership of their new company, you can simply point to this answer.

The most important principle: Fairness, and the perception of fairness, is much more valuable than owning a large stake. Almost everything that can go wrong in a startup will go wrong, and one of the biggest things that can go wrong is huge, angry, shouting matches between the founders as to who worked harder, who owns more, whose idea was it anyway, etc. That is why I would always rather split a new company 50-50 with a friend than insist on owning 60% because "it was my idea," or because "I was more experienced" or anything else. Why? Because if I split the company 60-40, the company is going to fail when we argue ourselves to death. And if you ju

You can’t perform that action at this time.