Readable claims.
Reproducible checks.
A technical guide should tell you where its confidence ends.
Start with the problem
We read archived material to understand why people linked to a page, then write a new article from primary documentation. We do not copy the former author's prose, screenshots or identity.
Check the version
Every technical note states its review date and links to current upstream documentation. If a command depends on hardware, distribution or package release, we name the dependency. Untested combinations are labelled as such.
Show recovery
We explain what can break and what to record before changing a machine. High-risk procedures should be rehearsed in a disposable environment before production use.
Correct openly
When a factual error is reported and verified, we update the article and its modified date. Readers can contact [email protected] with a reproducible case.
Reading the earlier commentary
The earlier blog also published political and historical commentary. These new reading guides separate its source record from the current edition's claims. They are not new articles by THT.
- Holodomor: a guide to historical sources and famine maps
- Reading a 2024 political essay: claims, evidence and violence
Each reader includes dated sources, a worked exercise and a blank source ledger. Archived wording is not treated as verified history or an endorsement of violence.