[1] https://github.com/guardian/frontend/blob/master/docs/99-arc...
Either you use buckwheat floor and water, in which case you are making Galettes. Either you use plain white wheat floor, in which case it's crêpes you are doing.
Under no circumstances you can put sugar in it, it's only added at the end. And of course, it's missing the most important ingredient: butter. #notevenclose
Agreed about the butter, very important! That's why the recipe mentions "paint the crêpe with butter".
This is a family recipe carried over generations from the Pays du Léon. There are many sub regions in Brittany so I would not be surprised if your family's recipe differs.
The other part of my family comes from Rennes, where galettes (buckwheat crêpes) come from. There are also many recipes for the batter of galettes.
In other words: please try my family's recipe! My grandmother who just passed away would have loved to hear what you think :) (she must have made thousands of them along her life!)
These old recipes allow me to enjoy the taste of something across the years, I like it. I will enjoy the taste of your grandmother crêpes. And of course, I will open a bottle of cidre with them :)
I'm sorry for your loss, take care!
Since we're already being pedantic, I just want to point out that you should never add flooring to crêpes (nor anything you intend to eat for that matter) :p
And when it comes to salted crêpes made with buckwheat, there's two variants depending on the region you're in :
- Galettes, from eastern Brittany (Rennes) they are indeed made with just buckwheat floor, water and salt. They are around 1mm thick and have a soft texture. There's traditionally eaten with sausage, in kind of a wrap, and called «galette-saucisse».
- «Crêpes de blé noir», from western Brittany (Quimper), which are made with buckwheat floor, eggs, milk, butter and salt. It can also contains wheat floor. Those are really thin, and have a crispy texture, and are commonly eaten «complètes» with ham, cheese and an egg on top.
(The Scott Trust does not make much of a difference here. A business can have such a way to remain free of outside pressures but still be a straightforwardly commercial company.)
Open and transparent as possible is still not open or transparent.
There is no way to verify that what they published is actually what is running on their server... so publishing a repo means nothing in regards to "openness and transparency," for this or any other website. All of them are proprietary black boxes as far as the end user is concerned.
A recent, concrete example of this is all the breathless reporting about Chinese camps containing a "million" Muslims. The story was complete hogwash [1] that was breathlessly hyped by every American news organization. The Guardian provided the most restrained and actually facts-based reporting by far. There are plenty of other cases like this -- see similar examples involving Iraq and Iran.
I could imagine how not being fully committed to the pro-America hegemony might be confused with being left-wing though. It's the sort of thing where the problem is the problem, as they say.
[1] https://grayzoneproject.com/2018/08/23/un-did-not-report-chi...
This is not journalism. The whole article quotes a paper published by a neocon think tank with ties to lobby groups payed by wealthy corrupt under investigation by the (Romanian) DNA. The article even hilariously uses references to recentnews.ro, long proven a fake news site, part of a network of fake news sites that launched the infamous "Pope shocks the world endorsing Trump".
Another example: https://theintercept.com/2016/12/29/the-guardians-summary-of...
[1] https://github.com/guardian/frontend/blob/88cfa609c73545085c...
> All fonts are the property of Schwartzco, Inc., t/a Commercial Type (https://commercialtype.com/), and may not be reproduced without permission.
As a side tangent, it constantly surprises me how deep the creative industries manage to sink their claws into IP and licensing. I don't understand how artistic commissions manage to hold onto ownership. If I told my a prospective client that the websites they'd be paying me to build would forever more be —essentially— mine, they'd fire me pretty quickly. Same goes for most work product with employers.
The Guardian commissioned these faces. Why would they accept such a crappy license?
[0]: https://github.com/guardian/frontend/blob/master/LICENSE
So, the answer obviously is: the Guardian got the font far cheaper by allowing it to be sold to other customers, and (relevant here) not paying for a license that allows sub-licensing (which would be completely useless to them, anyway).
I wouldn't be surprised if it was actually a deal where no money changed hands, with the foundry getting the Guardian name for PR, and constant feedback during the design process.
As to web design: unless otherwise specified, web design is covered by the same copyright rules as fonts (or movies, or books,...). The correct analogy actually is a customer selling your design to some third party, something that probably would upset quite a few designers.
As for the customer changing a design: that's an infringement of the creator's so-called "moral rights". Its legality varies between jurisdictions, I believe.
I'd love to hear more about this and why it's such an undertaking. Is it the "Font family" aspect that takes so long, because the designers are expected to produce a never ending line of similar fonts and symbols? Do the font designers have to consider printing costs ("if we make that exclamation mark one degree thicker, it'll use fifteen incremental litres of black ink per year")?
However the license is non-exclusive and revocable, and restrictive to the point that only web seems to be allowed. The fonts are indeed available for purchase: https://commercialtype.com/catalog/guardian which from the point of view of protecting the look and feel of your brand that you just commissioned seems a bit weird.
So the real question is are you paying for the developers / artists service (ie paying for their time) or are you buying the product itself? That's a discussion that has to happen between the customer and the company selling their services.
For what it's worth, I've used photographers and other creative services before where they only charged one flat fee and you retained copyright ownership on anything produced. I have also worked at web shops where the company retained ownership of the code, however in that instance we also did the hosting, support, etc so we provided the service. Essentially SaaS but before SaaS really took off as a buzzword.
It's not what can happen (you can contract all sorts of conditions), it's that retaining ownership seems to be the standard for comissioned creative work.
This comment is a subjective personal view. If you like SBT, please say it out loud.
[1] https://github.com/guardian [2] https://github.com/guardian/grid
I don't always agree with their opinions or editorials, but I do respect the quality of the journalism and the fact that they are a non-profit [0]
I can't see more commercially-oriented paper/website open-sourcing any of their code, even if it's a (good imho) recruitment ploy.
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust/2015/jul/26/the-...
I really don't know why this always has to be pointed out when it comes to classic mass media. I would say: "Good thing" because if you'd always agree, they would be doing a lousy job. Newspapers shouldn't be worldview-repeaters, especially in the op-eds. Lots of people look for validation of their already existing worldviews instead of critically reflecting other opinions.
With the Telegraph it would be Tories/UKIP; and with The Independent (or whatever it's called now) it would be Russian Oligarchs Living In London.
In a possibly vain attempt to try and avoid being trapped inside an echo-chamber of my own views I try and make myself read both the Guardian and the Telegraph alongside the BBC. Similarly CNN and Fox News for US news. Just to try and be exposed to alternate views.
It's possible to find interesting (again, not necessarily ones that I agree with) articles from all of the above media outlets. Some days this is harder than others. Some days I find an article hilarious at first reading, only to think a little, and then feel slightly terrified that someone might actually hold the stated opinions.
(And I realise that the above aren't all encompassing by any means, just more than I might otherwise look at).
So, its essentially an apology for being an open minded conservative... Sounds pretty much like a premature capitulation to the bigots. But at least I know where its coming from. I've been questioned: "What? you are reading FAZ?!?!?"[0] (with undertones of "how dare you" and "what kind of leftist are you?"). Its a shitty state of affairs, when you are judged based on the sources you read.
I think it is very important for everyone to be confronted with opinions that don't fit into ones already established narratives. And nobody should ever issue an apology for that. The alternative would be to renounce your intellectual curiosity and feed of a self-reinforcing feedback loop...
[0]: The leading conservative newspaper in Germany.
It’s a shame that it’s viewed largely as a means to an end. Yet the very same companies used to work with printers to produce innovations. Digital media seems to be viewed much more as a commodity to many in the industry, unfortunately—in spite of it being the most effective and paradigm-shifting medium for mass communication since the television, radio, or platen press.
Or rather because: digital media is now so easy to produce and distribute, that its intrinsic value has now dropped to zero.
But many media groups see it as a means to an end, like I’ve noted. Throw up WordPress with a CDN for images and host every brand you own on one to five instances and that’s it. They understand those words: WordPress, CMS, CDN, enterprise-grade. They don’t know anything else about them, and don’t care. They, probably out of sincere financial need, prioritize analytics over all else in the tech space.
I think the split off from what you’ve noted is this:
Where they might have paid attention to improvements in colour mixing in print tech, etc, for the effects it would have on published photography they cannot see the benefits to investing in a more refined digital publishing platform or output. Just put a skin on whatever’s free and out there already—then have your engineers spend countless hours just putting out fires and patching holes with proverbial PHP bubblegum. Don’t get me started on data hygiene...
To wit: I’ve always worked outside of those teams looking in. Except for the data side—nightmare-inducing stuff.
https://github.com/nytimes
https://github.com/BostonGlobe
https://github.com/npr & https://github.com/nprapps
https://github.com/theatlantic
https://github.com/wsj
...
Plus, of course, it's just impossible to make informed decisions in a democracy when all trust in the media has been eroded by this hysteria.
It's lower for some of the others. But it still seems to me that these publishers default to publishing their code.
BUT: most publishers probably do not run an entirely home-grown system. Indeed, you will find many Wordpress plugins or rails gems among those published projects. And for the homespun solutions, it's likely that they are too specific to a publisher to be usefully open-sourced without a major investment of resources, like the Guardian's undertaking.
There's very little cost to opening it up, and a huge benefit (recruitment as you say, openness, community engagement, maybe even bug fixes..). Why not open up the code?
https://github.com/guardian/thrashers/commit/dd4b41d48e71cb8...