After spending hours trying to debug a Critical Error on a client’s WordPress site, realized that I was debugging it in the wrong place. I had SSHed into the VM on GCP while I myself had transferred that site out of GCP to my own server when it was impacted by malware. Now, I was in the GCP server seeing woah, there’s malware here, trying to clean it up and then trying to debug, but nothing seemed to change anything, tried everything. Eventually decided I will move this backup stored in wp-content to my own server and then will set up a new site there and restore that backup, and it was after I had copied the backup to my own server, that I realized that site is being served from my server and not GCP’s. Meh

Turns out, it was a theme issue, which got fixed by replacing theme content manually.

Then spent some time streamlining my personal site publishing workflow. Firstly, I created a proper git rep on my local device and version stored the previous versions in git. Then, I added a mechanism to push the changes live on my server (not git) by just executing ./.deploy.sh

That took some time but not much. But then spent hours trying to figure out how to set up conf on my HestiaCP server which is running apache + nginx reverse proxy, to perform the following two seemingly simple functions:-

• Serve respective html document (domain.tld/essay.html) when user visits a non.html url (domain.tld/essay) if it exists
• When user visits url with .html appended (domain.tld/essay.html), redirect to clean version (domain.tld/essay)

What I essentially wanted was a single cleaned url for every piece of content. Because it doesn’t seem a good practice to have two urls serving the same content.

But it wasn’t as simple as it seems, primarily because of my messy HestiaCP apache + nginx setup. I really should move to pure nginx server but I’m being lazy about that. Anyways, when I figured out it should be done in nginx conf and not apache, the issue was I couldn’t edit the main conf rule because HestiaCP rebuilds it every time. So, I had to add to nginx.conf_custom, but somehow it wasn’t working. Realized, they should be added in nginx.ssl.conf_custom since my site has an https redirect.

But now, one rule was working but not the other. That was because we can’t add a new location tag in the custom conf which is being included from the main conf file. So, I had to use a different rule (Even though this took me much time, but thanks to LLMs, I could get the rules atleast, otherwise I would have to spend a whole day understanding rules, which I wouldn’t have spent on it) for that which wasn’t a / location tag.

This worked, but it broke the www to non-www redirect. Figured out that custom conf is included before the redirect conf and that is why, when a redirect rule is matched in custom conf, later rules aren’t applied. So, I added that part (which hestia has separated out) in my custom conf as well, and finally I had it working.

Still, a url such as http://www.tamseel.pk/internet-companions.html is redirecting 4 times before reaching out https://weblog.tamseel.pk/internet-companions which isn’t great and can obviously be fixed, but maybe that’s for another day.

—–

Also, I listened some more part of Henrik’s recent podcast and there was this part where he describes how the book by a mathematician, with title something like proofs and refutations, was helpful in his internalizing of this method of increasing the surface complexity of the problem – no, I guess that’s not a good description. But, I thought of it like as was talking with Talha on how there are no books on how to think. This seemed to be (according to Henrik’s description) a book that was indirectly about how to think.

So one of our professors assigned us some group presentations. And there was one topic or argument, and he asked a bunch of students to present or debate or give arguments in favor of it (whatever that was) and then to a bunch of other students ask to prepare presentation with arguments against that thing. Then, he explained how you have to consult sources, like research papers, news articles, and this and that in order to form basis of your arguments. Like you have to first review such material and then you use those sources to back your argument.

This pissed me off so much. I asked what if the topic that I have been asked to present in favor of, is something I am against, and same thing can apply vice versa. He didn’t understand my point and said that you have to use sources and blah blah. But I was so angry and I think I couldn’t control my frustration and that’s why I was unable to articulate my point clearly, and it came out something like, ‘it’s not the way it is. Something either is, or it isn’t. How can one pre-decide if it is or it isn’t.’ Yeah, I know it was very weirdly phrased. My voice this time was slightly loud and had some kind of argumentative tone in it. He replied the same blah blah but at the end he said something like, that’s what research is; to find things out. I knew it wasn’t any use. I said nothing.

Two of my friends later told me that sir didn’t understand the question. And on some level, I think that yes he didn’t understand my question, but not because I articulated it badly (my friends were smart enough to understand me, he wasn’t?), it’s because he had been trained and indoctrinated in that manner.

There is an enormous amount of people who don’t understand what research is. They think research or science or whatever the academia is supposed to do, is to find out things (which I think is correct). But their way of finding things out is so wrong. They think of it like finding the right source to quote, or finding the right data to analyze, or the right econometric model to apply, or finding some other right thing to do, and this kind of finding will result in production of some academic work. Yes, it will produce academic work but not valuable work.

What a true researcher simply needs to find is truth. Some overlooked, un-discovered piece of truth. That is the end. Rest are all means. Why don’t people such distinguished understand a matter that simple. You can’t give conclusions to people, and ask them to research arguments in favor of the conclusion because that exactly is the opposite of research. IT’S ANTI-RESEARCH!!

I don’t know to what extent this applies to academia at other places but atleast here, we are all producing an enormous amount of anti-research work.

Thank you for coming to my Rant-Talk.