Recent Posts

Attempting a Stottie

3 min read; 8 GFI

When I moved to Newcastle, as a student, back in 1986, I was introduced to many new things. So many new things. Different folk. Different accents. Different backgrounds. People from the south! But, as well as all the eye-opening things that student life had to throw at a working-class Yorkshire lad, there were also all the things that Tyneside had to offer too.

Without question, my absolute favourite discovery was the stottie. This became my go-to food, especially in my second and third years, when I was no longer in halls.

I left Newcastle in 1989 and never went back1, and sadly, have never had a stottie since. While I'm sure I could have found some niche place in the various places I've lived since, they're not a thing you find normally in Hampshire, Lincolnshire or Midlothian.

Meanwhile...

Earlier this week I was sat watching some TV and the cat was chilling on the sofa too. She's a ragdoll, a magnificent collection of floppy liquid floof. It occurred to me that she's not a cat that loafs, she stotties! Seriously, she sits there and just flows into a huge furry circle. I mentioned this to my partner, and then realised that I'd have to explain the concept, given that they're not familiar with the North East of England.

The ensuing conversation resulted in the idea that, to fix my wish to have a stottie again (after I'd done an Internet search for them around the Edinburgh area), I should just have a go at making them!

Which brings me to today. I attempted making a stottie and it actually wasn't a complete disaster.

The bits to make a stottie

While I've made plenty of bread in the past, I've never been too brilliant at it and, honestly, it's not something that really excites or interests me. For some reason though, making my own had never occurred to me. So, with some yeast, water, sugar and white pepper...

Sorting the yeast

Plus some flour...

The flour

Which I threw together, along with some salt...

Throwing the parts together

And then kneaded for about 10 minutes, then left to stand for an hour while I went for a walk.

The finished mixture

I don't think it managed to rise quite as much as it should have, but it also didn't seem like enough of a disaster to stop there. Besides, the lack of faffing is sort of the trademark of a stottie, so I also decided this might be fine. I then gave it a bit more of a mix before cutting into two halves and getting it ready for the oven.

Ready for the oven

I think this was a step where I went a little wrong. I wanted to try and get the size and thickness I remember (and which you see in plenty of photos online), but I was somewhat hesitant when it came to flattening it out. I was concerned I'd made it too thin at this point anyway and it wouldn't rise much. I was wrong. Next time2 I think I'll flatten it a lot more.

Anyway, I threw both proto-stotties into the oven and about 20 minutes later I had something that was passable!

Stottie number one

Stottie number two

Neither was really quite the nicely-round shape I was hoping for, and both were quite a bit thicker than I would have liked too. But both were baked well, and looked and felt fine inside too, with the texture having the chewy density that I remember.

Cut in half

As for the taste: they were actually good! They made for good sarnie bread for a slightly late lunch, and also got finished off along with dinner.

Overall I would say that things didn't work out as well as I'd hoped, but for a first attempt they came out okay and tasted just fine. Now I know how I'd do things differently in the future, and it's also given me the confidence to have another go at some point.

As for the cat that inspired this, it's only fair I pay the cat tax.

Cat tax

This is the Internet after all.


  1. I've travelled through plenty of times, but it's been 37 years, and counting, since I was last in toon. 

  2. There 100% will be a next time. 

BlogMore v2.41.0

2 min read; 12 GFI

It's probably bad news if I have a Saturday afternoon and evening spare, a fully-charged laptop and a comfy sofa. It seems that when that happens, something like BlogMore v2.41.0 happens. This is a release where I've added two features that could be generally useful, but which I'm unlikely to use in my own blogs.

The first, which to be fair is one I might use (I've used it in documentation plenty of times over the years), is optional Mermaid support. This is off by default, so has no overhead if you don't turn it on. It is turned on by setting with_mermaid to true. Even with this enabled, the Mermaid third-party scripts only get included on pages that include a Mermaid diagram, reducing the overhead.

To include a Mermaid diagram you use a fenced codeblock with mermaid as the language identifier. For example:

```mermaid
graph TD
    A[Start] --> B[Process]
    B --> C{Decision}
    C -->|Yes| D[Success]
    C -->|No| E[Fail]
```

If Mermaid is enabled the resulting page will show this:

Example Mermaid diagram

There are, of course, all sorts of diagrams that can be used and I'm not going to go into them here, or in the BlogMore docs; Mermaid is well known enough and well-documented enough that anyone turning this on is likely to know what they're doing, or where to go to find out what to do.

The second new feature, which I am almost certainly never going to need to use on my blog, is LaTeX-style maths support. As with Mermaid, this is off by default and has no overhead if not used. Even when turned on with the with_maths setting, the external scripts will only be pulled into pages that include maths markup.

Two providers of rendering engines are supported and this can be configured with the maths_provider setting. The available options are katex (which is also the default) and mathjax.

To use either, when turned on, you use the usual $ or $$ convention for LaTeX-maths-in-Markdown:

You can make some fun images using:

$$
z_{n+1} = z_n^2 + c
$$

We can say $z_{n+1} = z_n^2 + c$ inline too.

The result of the above will be something like:

Maths markup in action

Note that some care has been taken to ensure that ordinary use of a $, in currency values for example, is left unaffected. This can't be guaranteed in every possible case, so keep this in mind when turning on with_maths. From what I have read this is a common issue when using such markup.

Both these features were fun to add, with me planning out the implementation with Antigravity, and having a back and forth a couple of times to address issues and get it all working "just so". I'm especially pleased with the fact that it's done in a way where there is no overhead, even when either feature is enabled, if a page isn't showing a diagram or maths markup.

BlogMore v2.40.0

2 min read; 12 GFI

I've just released BlogMore v2.40.0. This version contains just one new feature: post series support.

It's hardly a novel feature, plenty of blog engines support this sort of thing; I felt it was high time I added it to BlogMore too. The idea is simple: while categories provide a method of having "sub-blogs" within a blog (they also provide their own feeds), and while tags let you group together posts that touch on related subjects, a series will let you stitch together a collection of posts as directly relating to each other.

Adding a post to a series is as simple as adding a series to the frontmatter of a post.

title: Five days with Copilot
category: AI
tags: Python, AI, LLM, Copilot, GitHub, BlogMore, coding
date: 2026-02-20 15:46:00 +0000
series: Agentic Afterthoughts

With this done, when a reader is viewing an individual post that is within a series, some new navigation appears at the top and bottom of the post that lets them know about the series, and also offers them easy navigation to the previous and next posts.

Series navigation

Also, if the reader were to click on the series title, it will take them to an archive page for that series, where the posts are presented in the usual pagination format, but where they're also presented in series order. To be clear: series order is always chronological order.

To help encourage further post discovery, if one or more series are available, a new Series link appears at the top of the blog. This links to an index of every series available.

My blog's series index

Sorted in alphabetical order, the list also shows how many posts are in each series and, if reading time is turned on, the total reading time will be shown.

Worth noting is the fact that a post doesn't have to be restricted to just one series. If you need a post to be in two or more series, you can provide the series as a list:

title: My post that crosses the streams
category: Testing
tags: BlogMore, Series, Test
date: 2022-02-22 22:22:22 +2200
series:
  - Experiments with blogging
  - Eating my own dog food
  - Testing thing

The post will then show navigation for every one of those series, and the post will be in each series' archive page.

Having added this, I've also updated the output of the dump command so that series (the series list as provided in the frontmatter), safe_series (the series list in their URL-friendly slug forms) and series_pair (a list of series title and slug pairs) properties are available.

As of the time of writing this, I have noticed one issue. The linter isn't currently aware of the URLs that are created as part of the series facility. So if you have a page or post that links to the index, or links to a particular series, there will be errors:

blogmore lint
Linting site in content...
ERROR: posts/2026/06/2026-06-06-blogmore-v2-40-0.md: Link points to non-existent internal path: /series/ (resolved to /series/)
ERROR: posts/2026/06/2026-06-06-blogmore-v2-40-0.md: Link points to non-existent internal path: /series/ (resolved to /series/)
ERROR: posts/2026/06/2026-06-06-blogmore-v2-40-0.md: Link points to non-existent internal path: /series/the-virgin-east-coast-saga/ (resolved to /series/the-virgin-east-coast-saga/)
Linting complete: 377 post(s), 4 page(s), 3 error(s), 0 warning(s) [0.45s].

This should be a straightforward fix which I'll make in a follow-up release.

blogmore.el v4.6.0

1 min read; 11 GFI

After adding floating and inline tables of contents in BlogMore the other day, it was time to update blogmore.el to include commands to toggle the related frontmatter.

So, with the release of blogmore.el v4.6.0, two new commands are now available:

  • blogmore-toggle-show-toc toggles the show_toc frontmatter property.
  • blogmore-toggle-show-toc-inline toggles the show_toc_inline frontmatter property.

Both have also been added to the transient menu so they're easy to discover and use.

BlogMore v2.39.0

1 min read; 13 GFI

BlogMore v2.39.0 has a couple of changes, one more or less cosmetic, the other a new feature that I probably should have added right near the start of the project.

First, the cosmetic: in pages and posts, when you use headings (#, ##, etc.), a is added to the end of each heading, along with some show-on-mouse-hover styling, to make it easy to grab the anchor of a particular section of a page1. A problem I'd noticed with this recently is that the shows up in the search text, and also in the content of all the feeds. While not a problem as such, it felt untidy.

So, with this release that particular character is stripped from the search index and from the feeds.

The second change is a facility that should be useful if you have legacy URLs that you really must have land on an actual page or post: redirection support.

This facility is provided by a new redirect_from frontmatter property. From now on, a page or a post can declare which URLs should be redirected to it. So, if you have a post that, given your current post location setup, would land at /2006/06/06/hello-world/, but in some other incarnation of your blog lived at /posts/2006-06-06-hello-world.html, you can now set this in the frontmatter:

redirect_from: /posts/2006-06-06-hello-world.html

and the old URL will be redirected to the new one. This is achieved by simply creating a very minimal HTML file at the old location, which contains a redirection. The content of the file will end up looking something like this:

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
  <head>
    <meta charset="utf-8">
    <title>Redirecting...</title>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://example.com/2006/06/06/hello-world/">
    <meta http-equiv="refresh" content="0; url=/2006/06/06/hello-world/">
  </head>
  <body>
    <p>Redirecting to <a href="/2006/06/06/hello-world/">/2006/06/06/hello-world/</a>...</p>
  </body>
</html>

If a blog has migrated between locations and/or generation tools over the years, and there are a number of different legacy URLs out there still pointing to a post you really want to keep readable to all, you can also redirect from multiple URLs:

redirect_from:
  - /posts/2006-06-06-hello-world.html
  - /posts/2006/06/06/hello-world.html
  - /my/really/old/blog/structure/hello-world-06-06-06.html

While all of this would have been possible anyway, by creating the appropriate file, with the appropriate content, in the extras directory, this approach helps automate the process and also means that the redirection information lives with the page or post being redirected to.


  1. The recently-added floating ToC is another way to do this now too. 

BlogMore v2.38.0

2 min read; 10 GFI

BlogMore has been bumped to v2.38.0. This release includes a small cosmetic change to the stats page, and also adds a fairly big cosmetic feature with some comprehensive control.

First, the change to the stats page: here I've changed the formatting of numbers a little so that numbers that are in the thousands or higher get better formatting. So rather than a count of something being 1234 it'll now display as 1,234. Hardly a groundbreaking change, but something I'd omitted some time ago and yesterday evening it came to mind. This should make the stats page just a little easier on the eye.

The second change is a reasonably big one, with some extra configuration file and frontmatter additions.

BlogMore has long supported auto-generation of a table of contents in the body of a post by including a [TOC] shortcut. Generally I'm not a fan of using this approach, but I can see the utility. Yesterday evening I added a new approach to showing a table of contents that means you don't need to have the list of links within the post.

Starting with this version, if a page or post has one or more headings in it, a table of contents will appear in the "dead space" on the right-hand side of the page, like this:

ToC to the right

This follows the same kind of style as is used for the year and month index in the archives page. However, whereas in the archives the index just disappears (by design) if you're on a smaller screen, this new table of contents will switch to being inline in the page or post, in a form that is collapsed:

Collapsed inline ToC

If the user clicks on it, it expands:

Expanded inline ToC

Given that this is a fairly big cosmetic change that could affect many pages and posts on a blog, I've built in as much control as makes sense. This new ToC approach is on by default, but can be turned off. First off, there is a show_toc configuration file setting which controls if the feature should be on or off, by default, site-wide. It is set to true by default.

Because there might be times where you want to control this at the page or post level, there is also a show_toc frontmatter property too. This always overrides the global setting in the configuration file.

On top of this, I can imagine that someone1 might also want to have the right-side floating ToC, but never have the inline ToC showing on smaller displays. With this in mind I've also added a show_toc_inline configuration option and frontmatter property. These just control if the inline version of the ToC will ever be shown. To be clear: if the ToC is disabled (either site-wide or via a specific page or post's frontmatter), this inline-specific setting is ignored -- the ToC will never show. But if show_toc is true then show_toc_inline controls if the inline ToC ever appears on smaller displays.

I fear I might have made it sound more complicated than it is. Apologies if that's the case. I'm confident that someone needing this level of control will make sense of it easily enough.

Also, just to be clear: the [TOC] shortcut is totally unaffected by any of this. If you have [TOC] in your post, that version of the table of contents will always be generated. I didn't think it made sense to override that explicit markup choice.


  1. Me, I'm thinking it might be me. 

BlogMore v2.37.0

1 min read; 9 GFI

I've just released BlogMore v2.37.0. This is a small update that fixes a bug and also improves the way that warnings and errors are emitted.

The bugfix comes from yesterday's post where I noticed that the stats page was misreporting the number of tags on the blog. The cause of the problem was that, within reason, a single tag can be represented in a number of different ways. In the tags frontmatter you could write any of Python Coding, Python coding, python coding, Python-Coding, etc and they would all be seen as the tag python-coding. This gives some useful flexibility and also ensures that the actual tag is URL-safe.

The problem was that the stats page was counting the list of unique tags, as they were typed into posts, rather than the unique list of "made safe" tags. So that is now fixed, along with categories too.

The other main change in this release is that warnings and errors that might get printed during post parsing and other operations are now printed to stderr. Until now everything was simply printed to stdout, which was fine until I introduced the links dump and main dump commands. With the addition of those commands, you're far more likely to want to redirect the output to a file. So if there's some sort of warning when parsing a post, that would get dropped into the middle of the JSON output (if using dump), resulting in a JSON file that can't be parsed.

Now all warnings and errors will go to stderr.

Recreating my blog stats

4 min read; 13 GFI

Introduction

Having recently added the dump command to BlogMore I've been thinking I should try and learn a little more about jq. It's one of those tools that's been on my radar for ages, which I've used on very rare occasions to get something done quickly, but which I've never really used in anger.

So I thought it might be fun to see about recreating some of the stats from the stats page using jq alone. Well, I say "alone", I mean "from the JSON data that is produced by the BlogMore dump command", and of course that makes it easier given it dumps some of the key calculated values. In other words I won't be using jq to calculate the word count, or reading time, or GFI, etc.

Post count

To start with, working out the number of posts in my blog is simple enough:

jq '. | length'
371

Category count

Getting the list of categories would be:

jq '[.[] .safe_category] | unique'
[
  "ai",
  "coding",
  "creative",
  "emacs",
  "gaming",
  "life",
  "meta",
  "music",
  "python",
  "tech",
  "til"
]

and so getting the count of them is simple enough:

jq '[.[] .safe_category] | unique | length'
11

Tags count

Getting the count of tags takes a little more work, as safe_tags is a list too, so I start out with a list of lists, which I need to flatten first.

jq '[.[] .safe_tags] | flatten | unique | length'
224

This, right away, is an interesting finding. In my stats page, as of the time of writing, the number of tags is reported as 243, but here I'm getting 224. Given I'm using the safe_tags property, which ensures all similar tags end up with the same value (so Hello World, hello world, and all variations, become hello-world), that would suggest the stats page isn't taking that into account. That's an issue to address.

A date/time interlude

Here's where things get a little interesting for a moment. In the output of the dump command from BlogMore, the dates of the posts are given in ISO 8601 format; specifically the date and time with offset format. From what I can tell, while jq does have some date/time parsing support, it can't handle that format specifically.

This means that if I try:

jq '.[0] .date | fromdate'

I just get:

jq: error (at <stdin>:27293): date "2015-06-18T14:53:00+01:00" does not match format "%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ"

After some searching around it seems the only approach I can really take is to drop the timezone offset and pretend every time is a Z time:

jq '.[0] .date[:19] + "Z" | fromdate'
1434639180

From here I can then get a fully-parsed list of date/time values using gmtime:

jq '.[0] .date[:19] + "Z" | fromdate | gmtime'
[
  2015,
  5,
  18,
  14,
  53,
  0,
  4,
  168
]

This isn't ideal for what I'd like to do, it's going to skew some of the values related to time, but it's close enough for experimenting.

Posts per year

Now that I have a way of breaking the posting time into a workable array of values, getting the number of posts per year becomes:

jq -r '[.[] .date[:19] + "Z" | fromdate | gmtime[0]] | group_by(.) | .[] | "\(.[0]): \(length)"'
2015: 32
2016: 26
2017: 7
2018: 1
2019: 15
2020: 23
2022: 11
2023: 49
2024: 19
2025: 11
2026: 177

Although, to be fair to jq, that's kind of long-winded when I could just pull the year itself out of the posting time:

jq -r '[.[] .date[:4]] | group_by(.) | .[] | "\(.[0]): \(length)"'

Posts by month

At this point getting the posts by month of year seems obvious too:

jq -r '[.[] .date[5:7]] | group_by(.) | .[] | "\(.[0]): \(length)"'
01: 14
02: 12
03: 53
04: 57
05: 76
06: 33
07: 25
08: 25
09: 13
10: 29
11: 19
12: 15

Posts by weekday

For this, I need to go back to the more involved version of the posting date handling query, where I use gmtime to break down the time. It turns out that the penultimate value is the day of the week as a number. So, while it's not quite as readable in that I don't have day names, I can get the values:

jq -r '[.[] .date[:19] + "Z" | fromdate | gmtime[-2]] | group_by(.) | .[] | "\(.[0]): \(length)"'
0: 48
1: 54
2: 51
3: 48
4: 56
5: 56
6: 58

In this case Sunday is the first day (the 0 day here).

Posts by hour

Getting the posts by the hour is really just a variation on the date-chopping query used for the posts by year and the posts by month; it's all there in the string version of the date.

jq -r '[.[] .date[11:13]] | group_by(.) | .[] | "\(.[0]): \(length)"'
00: 1
06: 1
07: 6
08: 51
09: 35
10: 32
11: 25
12: 14
13: 22
14: 24
15: 25
16: 24
17: 18
18: 9
19: 23
20: 33
21: 21
22: 6
23: 1

First and last posting dates

Getting the date of the first and latest post seems nice and easy:

jq -r '[.[] .date[0:10]] | {first: min, last: max}'
{
  "first": "2015-06-18",
  "last": "2026-06-01"
}

Although, from what I can tell, jq doesn't have anything that makes date arithmetic easy so working out the elapsed time between the two isn't so straightforward. It can be done, but it's not as easy as it might be with a bit of Python code, for example. The best I could come up with was:

jq '[ .[] | .date[:19] + "Z" | fromdate ] | ((max - min) / (365.25 * 24 * 60 * 60))'
10.95438841990519

For an approximate value of "year", of course.

Word counts

From here on in many of the stats that can be pulled out from the JSON, with jq, become easier to handle. Each post has a word_count property, so I only need to do this:

jq -r '[.[] .word_count] | {least: min, most: max, average: (add / length)}'
{
  "least": 24,
  "most": 2792,
  "average": 475.0700808625337
}

Reading times

A post's reading time can be accessed by reading_time, so it's as easy to handle as the word counts:

jq '[.[] .reading_time] | {least: min, most: max, average: (add / length)}'
{
  "least": 1,
  "most": 11,
  "average": 1.8921832884097034
}

Gunning fog index

The Gunning fog index is available as the gfi property so there's no work to do to figure it out. It is, however, a floating point value and I want counts in each integer "bucket". That can be done with round.

jq -r '[.[] .gfi | round] | group_by(.) | .[] | "\(.[0]): \(length)"'
3: 1
4: 2
5: 3
6: 7
7: 30
8: 46
9: 67
10: 70
11: 75
12: 35
13: 18
14: 11
15: 1
16: 3
17: 2

As for working out the mean, median and mode... while I worked out the above queries by reading the docs, experimenting, and using Gemini on occasion to either help me understand an error message or to explain why an approach works the way it did, I'm going to have to leave this one 100% to Gemini. Here's its approach to using jq to work out those averages:

jq '
  [ .[] | .gfi | select(. != null) ] as $raw_gfi
  | [ $raw_gfi[] | round ] as $rounded_gfi
  | ($raw_gfi | length) as $count

  # 1. Mean Calculation
  | (($raw_gfi | add) / $count) as $mean

  # 2. Median Calculation
  | ($raw_gfi | sort) as $sorted_gfi
  | (if $count % 2 == 1 then
       $sorted_gfi[($count - 1) / 2]
     else
       ($sorted_gfi[($count / 2) - 1] + $sorted_gfi[$count / 2]) / 2
     end) as $median

  # 3. Mode Calculation (using the rounded values)
  | [ $rounded_gfi
      | group_by(.)
      | map({gfi: .[0], frequency: length})
      | sort_by(.frequency)
      | reverse
      | .[]
    ] as $frequencies
  | [ $frequencies[] | select(.frequency == $frequencies[0].frequency) | .gfi ] as $modes

  # Final Object Assembly
  | {
      count: $count,
      mean: $mean,
      median: $median,
      mode: $modes
    }
'
{
  "count": 371,
  "mean": 9.908842231503396,
  "median": 9.979198312236287,
  "mode": [
    11
  ]
}

As of the time of writing: that's bang on what I get in the stats. Honestly though, by this point, I think I'd be reaching for Python or something similar to do this sort of work. For sure, I can't say if this is a good jq query, if it's in any way idiomatic, or even if it's error-free. The numbers match what BlogMore says though.

Conclusion

This has been a useful exercise in getting to know a little more about jq, and I can see myself reaching for it to do quick little jobs now that I've finally taken some time to dive into it. As it turns out, it's also been a useful little audit of the content of the stats page because I've even found a bug that needs addressing; so that's a bonus.

New GitHub Copilot billing is popular

1 min read; 8 GFI

So today is the day, today is when GitHub Copilot swaps to its new billing system. Watching the relevant subreddit suggests this might not be popular.

Some folk think it isn't the smartest move.

Not a good choice

Some don't feel too friendly towards it any more.

Friendship ended

It looks like some of those friendships have lasted a while.

2021-2026

Some saw the opportunity to create content out of the situation.

A cancellation video

Some have figured out that the thing that costs money, costs money.

It is too expensive

Someone used up half their monthly allowance on just 8 requests.

Half used after 8 requests

Although, of course, there's always someone who has to do it better.

Half after 1 request

To be fair though, at least one person loves the new system.

Love the new system

As for my subscription, which came about after I initially experimented with free access to the tool, I've not actually cancelled yet, but I can't see me making use of it much more. I might try a couple of prompts with it, along the lines of what I was doing while working on BlogMore, just to get a feel for how different the usage is now.

Meanwhile, though, I've found that I'm getting on a lot better with Antigravity and getting the bits done I want to do. I suspect this is how I'll keep tinkering with BlogMore, until Google come to their senses anyway.