transitioned some articles, improved breadcrumb generation

content/changelog.mkd

@@ -16,15 +16,13 @@ All major changes on the site
 =============================
 
 {:#changelog}
-- 2011/12/17: Wrote an [Antinatalism Overview][]. Covers many arguments for and
-  against bringing life into existence. It's hopefully more approachable than
-  scattered philosophy, but also less scientifically illiterate than your
-  typical writing about ethics. I tried to refrain from pushing my own view too
-  much, but I'm not treating silly arguments as respectable either.
+- 2011/12/17: Wrote an [Antinatalism Overview][]. Covers many arguments for and against bringing life into existence. It's hopefully more approachable than the scattered philosophy material on the topic. Contrary to mainstream philosophy, I also included some common transhumanist replies to the arguments. I tried to refrain from pushing my own view too much, but I'm not treating silly arguments as respectable either.
 
-  Also improved the site's design somewhat. Larger articles have tables of
-  contents, navigation is more visible, contact features are more prominent and
-  comments were added for easier feedback.
+  I've moved some stuff from the [Blog][] into proper articles. Content didn't change in case you read them already. Articles: [Why I'm Not a Vegetarian][], [Three Sides][]. 
+
+  Also improved the site's design somewhat. Larger articles now have a table of contents and general navigation is more visible. The main column moved to the left to accomodate for the new navigation bar. To make feedback easier, I've added a link to the contact page to the navigation and added a comment box. (Web 2.0!) Generally speaking, I also accept [anonymous feedback][whatiswrongwith.me] about anything. (Yes, anything.)
+
+  More overviews are coming. Soon-ish. If I don't get bored, that is. Basicall, the languages articles isn't happening, Great Filter was delayed until I figure out identity and probabilities, an informal introduction to Solomonoff Induction and Kolmogorov Complexity is coming, and I've begun writing an overview about New Testament scholarship.
   
 - 2011/09/04: Converted whole site to [nanoc][]. Most of the content got
   re-organized, but not widely changed. A few things have disappeared, but will

content/experiments/concentration.mkd

@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
 title: Fixing Concentration
 date: 2010-07-13
 techne: :incomplete
+toc: true
 episteme: :believed
 ---
 

content/experiments/speedreading.mkd

@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
 title: Speed Reading
 date: 2010-06-23
 techne: :rough
+toc: true
 episteme: :broken
 ---
 

content/index.mkd

@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ Articles are sorted by latest major modification. You can see the [Changelog]
 for any recent changes or subscribe to the [RSS Feed][RSS]. You can also read
 the [Twitter][] feed or my [Blog][] for raw thought in smaller chunks.
 
-<%= category :experiments %>
 <%= category :reflections %>
 <%= category :religion %>
+<%= category :experiments %>
 <%= category :software %>

content/references.mkd

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ is_hidden: true
 [Source]: http://github.com/muflax/muflax.com
 [Twitter]: http://twitter.com/muflax
 [Config]: http://github.com/muflax/config
-[whatiswrongwith.me]: htpp://whatiswrongwith.me/muflax
+[whatiswrongwith.me]: http://whatiswrongwith.me/muflax
 
 <!-- external links -->
 [Animal Rights]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights#Main_philosophical_approaches
@@ -55,8 +55,24 @@ is_hidden: true
 [puredoxyk]: http://www.puredoxyk.com
 [tripzine]: http://www.tripzine.com/listing.php?smlid=268 
 [Nose Snail]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk_eljpPGMM
+[Alan Dawrst]: http://www.utilitarian-essays.com/suffering-nature.html
+[suffering per kg]: http://www.utilitarian-essays.com/suffering-per-kg.html
+[Moldbug Left Right]: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2008/06/olxi-truth-about-left-and-right.html
+[Carrier Vegetarianism]: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/87
+[Eduardo Sousa]: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_barber_s_surprising_foie_gras_parable.html
+[Dawrst Wildlife]: http://www.utilitarian-essays.com/suffering-nature.html
+[LW bipolar]: http://lesswrong.com/lw/6nb/ego_syntonic_thoughts_and_values/4igy
+[Ching Chong]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zulEMWj3sVA
+[Buddhism for Vampires]: http://buddhism-for-vampires.com
+[LW protect]: http://lesswrong.com/lw/nb/something_to_protect/
 
 <!-- Wikipedia articles (and similar) -->
+[Sensates]: http://mimir.net/psmush/sensates.shtml
+[Sisyphus]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Sisyphus
+[Frankl]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man%27s_Search_for_Meaning
+[Evil Trope]: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilTropes
+[Kai Lexx]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kai_(Lexx)
+[Paperclipper]: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer
 [A-theory]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-series_and_B-series
 [Adolf Hitler]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
 [Anatta]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta
@@ -101,6 +117,10 @@ is_hidden: true
 [Wireheading]: http://www.wireheading.com/
 [al-Ghazali]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali
 [quark]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_(cheese)
+[Mirror Test]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test
+[Implied Consent]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_consent
+[Hypothetical Consent]: http://simonamey.com/Philosophy/Entry.php?entryid=314
+[schächten]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shechita
 
 <!-- internal links -->
 [RSS]: /rss.xml

content/reflections/antinatalism.mkd

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
 title: Antinatalism Overview
 alt_titles: [Antinatalism]
-date: 2011-11-16
+date: 2011-12-24
 techne: :incomplete
 episteme: :believed
 toc: true

content/reflections/con_exp.mkd

@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
 title: Consciousness Explained
 date: 2010-05-13
 techne: :done
+toc: true
 episteme: :discredited
 ---
 

content/reflections/letting_go_of_music.mkd

@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
 title: Letting Go of Music
 date: 2010-05-03
 techne: :done
+toc: true
 episteme: :discredited
 ---
 

content/reflections/stances.mkd

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+---
+title: Three Sides
+date: 2011-07-18
+techne: :done
+episteme: :broken
+---
+
+I destabilized again, but this time I see a different direction to stabilize in, something I've never done before.
+
+I'm used to not having stable preferences or personalities. Typically, every 1.5-3 months, I have a breakdown event, lose all my motivation and enjoyment of whatever I've been doing and am stuck with reassembling the pieces into something new. Over the last few years, I've tried [many things][LW bipolar] to fix this, but never got anywhere.
+
+Shortly after I wrote down all the ways I have failed, I had a little [epiphany][Ching Chong]. I have no clue if this is a good idea. But it's a <em>new</em> idea and I'm tired of the old ways, so let's see where this leads.
+
+Basically, when dealing with your emotions, there are 3 different attitudes one can take. I call them **Light Stance**, **Dark Stance** and **No Stance**. Light Stance is the most common, No Stance is relatively new, Dark Stance is virtually unknown.
+
+Taking the **Light Stance**, one wants emotions to be *nice*. For example, hedonism is a Light Stance, as are virtually any form of meditation or psychotherapy. A core concept of the Light Stance is **transformation**, i.e. the idea of turning bad feelings into harmless or pleasant ones. Almost all philosophies and religions take the Light Stance (if they take any stance at all, that is). However, "nice" doesn't just mean "socially acceptable", but simply anything that feels nice. A power-hungry narcissist is still taking the Light Stance, as is a masochist.
+
+__No Stance__ is characterized by being indifferent or free from all emotions whatsoever. [Kai the undead assassin][Kai Lexx] or a [paperclip maximizer][Paperclipper] are great examples, but essentially anyone running on calculations takes No Stance. It is important to differentiate No Stance from equanimity, which it superficially resembles. Equanimity is harmless, in the sense that nothing bad is happening. It is a pleasant state to be in and sought *for* its pleasantness. If one wants to not be bothered by negative feelings anymore, then that's the Light Stance. No Stance, however, is fundamentally **indifferent**. Some forms of utilitarianism take No Stance, as does proper nihilism. If vipassana is done for the purpose of transformation (e.g. to overcome suffering), it's Light Stance. If it's done entirely detached from what comes up, focusing purely on the correct application, it's No Stance. Most advanced vipassana practitioners stumble on No Stance; barely anyone stays there.
+
+You'll notice that I've covered pretty much all religions, philosophies, self-help and just general attitudes to life with those two. (This is somewhat deceptive - Light Stance is tremendously vast.) Up until recently, I thought that's pretty much all there is.
+
+Then I found [Buddhism for Vampires][], an attempt to move Buddhism away from its current politically correct and nice ghetto, and to bring back tantra. (I applaud the effort.) Ultimately, Buddhism for Vampires, or tantra in general, is still a Light Stance. It directly engages (and even encourages) bad emotions, but only for the purpose of transformation, of getting rid of them or turning them into something pleasant. It improves on Romantic Buddhism by acknowledging that negative emotions <em>exist</em> and should be noticed, so they can be dealt with.
+
+But.
+
+And here comes the idea.
+
+Do they *have* to be dealt with? What if you *didn't* do that?
+
+What if, when you felt disgust, you didn't push it away, but *embraced* it? Or when you felt pain, you dived into it, not to make it pleasant or non-existent, but to fully experience it, in all its awfulness? In fact, what if you took great care to *retain* this awfulness?
+
+Now you're taking the **Dark Stance**. Say hello to misery, disgust, hatred, boredom, sorrow and pain.
+
+I want to be extra clear on this. In the Dark Stance, you *don't* embrace hatred because it makes you do good things, or gives you a rush, or so you can see through it and overcome it, nor do you *endure* it. That still assumes that hatred is only instrumental or an unfortunate necessity. Dark Stance embraces hatred *for hatred's sake*. Also, the Dark Stance is not an [Evil Trope][]. The Good and the Bad Guys both don't want to suffer, they merely use different ways to overcome their own suffering. Evil might be willing to cause suffering for others, but it will never cause it's *own* suffering. The only fictional example of someone taking the Dark Stance I can think of are Planescape's [Sensates][].
+
+And the weird thing is, for the few days now that I've been learning this, for the few hours I've been able to hold the Dark Stance, I felt *satisfied*.
+
+I have not felt truly satisfied for at least a *decade*. I realized my deep boredom some months ago, but I thought the answer lies in getting excited again. I wrestled with the idea of failing, of impossibility. I thought that one ought to *overcome* failure or live *in spite* of it. That's what [Sisyphus][] does and he is happy, they say.
+
+I thought that satisfaction was *something*, that it was a specific emotion, something to be cultivated and achieved. That I had a hole in my life, maybe not a god-shaped, but a [purpose-shaped one][Frankl], and somehow I was supposed to figure out what this purpose was, that I really needed [something to protect][LW protect].
+
+And then I just took my pain and said to it, "I'm ok with you. This is not a trap. I'm not trying to accept you out of existence. Please stay for as long as you please. It hurts and I'm ok with this. I *want* you to hurt and to continue to do so.", and I felt something going to rest, for only a moment, some part of me that was so desperately trying to protect me from this pain. It was not needed anymore and it could finally let go. I was satisfied. I couldn't believe it, I thought I must've confused the fucker by asking it to hurt me. I tried it again with hatred and disgust; it still worked. It wasn't making me feel any *better* - this is not a Light Stance in disguise, after all - but the dissatisfaction that had become so prevalent was gone, if only for a bit.
+
+I do not know where this path will lead, only that it will be interesting.
+
+*run on hatred // run on pain // transform nothing // seek no gain*
+
+
+
+

content/reflections/vegetarian.mkd

@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+---
+title: Why I'm Not a Vegetarian
+date: 2011-12-20
+techne: :done
+episteme: :believed
+---
+
+This post isn't so much an actual argument per se, but a belief dump of the core arguments why I'm not a vegetarian. I'm currently rethinking the issue (thanks to [Alan Dawrst][]) and might change my mind over the next few months. I always find it hard to reconstruct what I believed in the past and why, so I'm writing it down. To counter some bias, I'm also trying to state what kind of evidence would be necessary to convince me of vegetarianism. I'll revisit this within a few months once I've resolved a few moral confusions.
+
+# Animals are not morally relevant agents.
+
+Morality, as I understand it, requires certain features to act upon. The state a rock is in is not morally relevant *per se*. I don't have my metaethics worked out yet, but there are at least three features I'm pretty sure are necessary to be morally relevant: a self, consent and the ability to obey laws. I don't think animals have any of these, so whatever we do with them is not a moral concern. (Also note that there are *humans* who don't have all three. There might be game-theoretic reasons to treat them *as if* they had them, but no moral ones.)
+
+I'd give this argument maybe 60% certainty, so I'm in no way confident and this alone would not be enough to justify ignoring animals as moral agents. The potential harm is too great, and while I wouldn't make preventing it a top priority, I would still act to minimize the suffering I might cause. If only this argument remained, I would avoid [most animal products][suffering per kg]. But let's take a look at the three features.
+
+## A Self
+
+Basically, there are three levels. Pure phenomenal consciousness (feeling pain), a subjective experience that makes these things happen *to* someone (*I* am feeling pain) and abstract thought to reflect on this (thinking: "I am feeling pain"). To be morally relevant, you need to have at least the subjective experience. No farm animal does. So they aren't relevant.
+
+A counterargument wouldn't need to convince me that animals certainly have a self, but merely that they *might* have one. A sufficiently large risk (say, >20%) is enough for me. One way to do this is the simple ["recognize yourself in the mirror" test][Mirror Test]. No farm animal passes it. (Some animals do, and I consider them likely enough to fulfill this requirement of moral relevance.) Of course, any animal that has language and can refer to itself also passes, and I'd give it at least 20% confidence that some non-human animal can do so, so this might also be a possible path. None of these seem to be farm animals, though.
+
+## Consent
+
+The ability to agree to (or reject) a  proposed deal. The main problem is that I'm not sure that consent is actually *real*. It might well be a general confusion. But I still think it's more likely than not that something-not-too-unlike consent can be naturalized and exists in humans. But what do you need? Language is certainly sufficient, but it seems a dog can also accept or reject food, so is it *consenting*?
+
+I'm really hesitant to accept [hypothetical][Hypothetical Consent] or [implied][Implied Consent] consent. I would strongly prefer any consent to be explicit and (ideally) formalized. I currently don't see how explicit consent can work without the abilities of thought and language. So animals can't consent and are not morally relevant.
+
+There are two ways to negate this argument. Either show that animals *can* meaningfully consent (this is also relevant for [Antinatalism][] - if non-existent humans can consent, then it seems much more likely that animals can too, and vice versa), or show that humans *can't* consent, i.e. that consent is a confused concept. This is probably the weakest of the three features and I expect to change my mind about it, but I don't know in which direction yet.
+
+## The Rule of Law
+
+To slightly paraphrase [Moldbug][Moldbug Left Right]:
+
+>[Anyone] should be free to make any promise. In return, he or she can expect to be held responsible for that promise: there is no freedom to break it. All promises are voluntary until they are made, and involuntary afterward. A pair of reciprocal promises [...] is an *agreement*.
+
+Any organization of agents that allows and enforces such agreements establishes the Rule of Law. Basically, it's the "lawful" component in the D&D moral system. It's what makes Divine Command Theory moral (and why I'm very sympathetic to it, despite its untenable foundation in non-existent gods). Ideal Confucian government embodies it.
+
+Without arguing for a specific implementation, it seems clear that animals can't obey (or even understand) laws or act as citizens of a lawful state. Therefore, they aren't morally relevant.
+
+Evidence to the contrary would be, for example, a demonstration that animals can form states (or reasonably similar organizations). Or show that the concept is confused, for example because we really want some *consequence* of lawful states, but don't actually want the laws themselves.
+
+# Farm animals under typical Western conditions do not suffer significantly.
+
+See [Richard Carrier's][Carrier Vegetarianism] post for the actual argument. Basically, animals in modern farms don't experience a significant amount of pain or suffering. It ain't heaven, but it's not so bad that we should prevent it at all costs. The benefits in increased reproduction (for the animals) and better nutrition (for the humans) easily make up for whatever suffering remains. (This might no be true in non-Western countries or when you [ritually slaughter][schächten] them, but the proper response to that is urbanization and secularization, not vegetarianism.)
+
+There are two ways this could be wrong. First, you could try to show that there is some fundamental desire that animals in modern farms can't fulfill. Obviously, I don't see such a desire, but it might exist. The best case for this so far is [Eduardo Sousa][]'s farm. However, animals don't seem to reject modern farms or suffer tremendous stress. But we might've missed something.
+
+The second way this could be wrong is to show that categorical [Antinatalism][] is correct (and that animals are morally relevant). Basically, if it is always wrong to bring a life into existence, then we shouldn't breed animals, ever. (And we should seek the extinction of all wildlife.) I'm currently working through the various antinatalist arguments, but so far, I'm not convinced of the most categorical form, but I already accept basic antinatalism (it is *often* wrong to create life), and some of the arguments still look promising to me once I'm done repairing them.
+
+# Even if they suffer, I morally discount against them (and I'm justified to do so).
+
+It's true that I strongly discount anything that doesn't directly affect me or those close to me. The question is, am I justified in doing so, or is it a bug in my judgment? I have not seen a good argument for universalism (if you don't already have it as a preference) except that it would be simple.
+
+However, this is inherently the weakest argument. If we accept that animals immorally suffer, then discounting just changes the level of importance we should assign to it. But given the [huge amount of animals][Dawrst Wildlife] (10^10 and more!), even strong discounting can be overcome. If we accept that breeding animals violates their rights or consent, then no amount of discounting is relevant. Consent can't be morally overridden.
+
+But as it stands now, animals probably don't have rights, so we can discount. They don't suffer much, if at all, so even their large numbers aren't sufficient, especially because human benefits outweigh it. Therefore, eating animals is acceptable.

content/style.scss

@@ -21,45 +21,13 @@ body {
 }
 
 div#main {
-  margin-top: 3.5em;
-  margin-bottom: 3.5em;
-  /* margin-left: auto; */
-  margin-right: auto;
-  max-width: 45em;
   padding: 0;
-}
-
-div#disqus_thread {
-  margin-left: auto;
-  margin-right: auto;
-  max-width: 45em;
-  padding: 0;
-}
-
-/* toc */
-div#toc {
-  border-top: 10px solid $h1;
-  border-bottom: 10px solid $h1;
-}
-
-div#crumb {
-  background: $crumb-bg;
-  color: $crumb-fg;
-  left: 0;
-  line-height: 2em;
-  position: fixed;
-  text-align: center;
-  bottom: 0;
-  width: 100%;
+  width: 45em;
 }
 
 div#title {
   background: $crumb-bg;
   color: $crumb-fg;
-  width: 100%;
-  position: absolute;
-  top: 0;
-  left: 0;
   line-height: 1.3;
   text-align: center;
 }
@@ -70,6 +38,31 @@ div#episteme {
   line-height: 2em;
 }
 
+div#disqus {
+  border-top: 10px solid $h1;
+  text-align: center;
+}
+
+div#nav {
+  float: right;
+  position: absolute;
+  right: 0;
+  top: 0;
+}
+
+/* toc */
+div#toc {
+}
+
+div#crumb {
+  background: $crumb-bg;
+  color: $crumb-fg;
+  line-height: 2em;
+  text-align: center;
+  // width: 100%;
+  float: right;
+}
+
 
 a:link.title, a:hover.title, a:visited.title, a:active.title {
   font-size: 1.7em;

layouts/default.erb

@@ -3,8 +3,8 @@
   <head>
     <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
     <title><%= @item[:title] %></title>
-    <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/style.css">
-    <meta name="generator" content="nanoc">
+    <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/style.css" />
+    <meta name="generator" content="nanoc" />
     <link rel="alternate" href="/rss.xml" type="application/rss+xml"
           title="lies and wonderland" />
     <!-- google analytics -->
@@ -21,12 +21,13 @@
     </script>
   </head>
   <body>
+    <!-- main part -->
     <div id="main">
       <!-- page title -->
       <% if @item[:title] %>
-      <div id="title"><a class="title" href="/"><%= @item[:title] %></a></div>
+        <div id="title"><a class="title" href="/"><%= @item[:title] %></a></div>
       <% end %>
-      
+
       <!-- epistemic and technical state -->
       <div id="episteme">
       <% if @item[:episteme] %>
@@ -46,39 +47,62 @@
       </div>
 
       <!-- actual content (not indented to protect markdown) -->
+      <div id="content">
 
 <%= yield %>
 
+      </div>
+      
+      <!-- comments -->
+      <% unless @item[:no_comments] or @item[:is_category] %>
+        <div id="disqus">
+          <div id="disqus_thread"></div>
+          <script type="text/javascript">
+            var disqus_shortname = 'muflax';
+            var disqus_identifier = '<%= @item.identifier %>';
+            var disqus_url = 'http://muflax.com<%= @item.identifier %>';
+
+            (function() {
+            var dsq = document.createElement('script')
+            dsq.type = 'text/javascript'
+            dsq.async = true;
+            dsq.src = 'http://' + disqus_shortname + '.disqus.com/embed.js';
+            (document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0] || document.getElementsByTagName('body')[0]).appendChild(dsq);
+            })();
+          </script>
+          <noscript>Please enable JavaScript to view the
+            <a href="http://disqus.com/?ref_noscript">comments powered by Disqus.</a>
+          </noscript>
+          <a href="http://disqus.com" class="dsq-brlink">
+            blog comments powered by <span class="logo-disqus">Disqus</span>
+          </a>
+        </div>
+      <% end %>
     </div>
 
-    <!-- table of contents -->
-    <% if @item[:toc] %>
-      <%= toc %>
-    <% end %>
+    <!-- navigation sidebar -->
+    <div id="nav">
+      <!-- table of contents -->
+      <% if @item[:toc] %>
+        <div id="toc">
+          <%= toc %>
+        </div>
+      <% end %>
     
-    <!-- comments -->
-    <% unless @item[:no_comments] or @item[:is_category] %>
-      <div id="disqus_thread"></div>
-      <script type="text/javascript">
-        var disqus_shortname = 'muflax';
-        var disqus_developer = 1;
-        
-        (function() {
-        var dsq = document.createElement('script'); dsq.type = 'text/javascript'; dsq.async = true;
-        dsq.src = 'http://' + disqus_shortname + '.disqus.com/embed.js';
-        (document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0] || document.getElementsByTagName('body')[0]).appendChild(dsq);
-        })();
-      </script>
-      <noscript>Please enable JavaScript to view the <a href="http://disqus.com/?ref_noscript">comments powered by Disqus.</a></noscript>
-      <a href="http://disqus.com" class="dsq-brlink">blog comments powered by <span class="logo-disqus">Disqus</span></a>
-    <% end %>
-    
-    <!-- breadcrumb navigation -->
-    <div id="crumb">
-      <%= breadcrumbs_trail.map do |crumb|
-            target = crumb[:short_title] || crumb[:title] || crumb.name
-            "<a class='crumb' href='#{crumb.identifier}'>#{target}</a>"
-          end.join(" » ") %>
+      <!-- breadcrumb navigation -->
+      <div id="crumb">
+        <ul id="crumb">
+          <% breadcrumbs.each do |crumb| %>
+            <li class="crumb">
+              <a class="crumb" href="<%= crumb[:link] %>"><%= crumb[:title] %></a>
+            </li>
+          <% end %>
+        </ul>
+      </div>
+
+      <!-- contact -->
+      <!-- TODO -->
     </div>
+    
   </body>
 </html>

lib/crumb.rb

@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+# breadcrumb navigation
+include Nanoc3::Helpers::Breadcrumbs
+
+def breadcrumbs
+  breadcrumbs_for_identifier(@item.identifier).map do |crumb|
+    {
+      link: crumb.identifier,
+      title: crumb[:short_title] || crumb[:title] || crumb.name,
+    }
+  end
+end

lib/default.rb

@@ -1,6 +1,5 @@
 # Helper functions for site-building.
 
-include Nanoc3::Helpers::Breadcrumbs
 include Nanoc3::Helpers::Rendering
 
 class Nanoc3::Item

lib/toc.rb

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ def toc
   max_levels = 3
 
   # begin toc
-  res = '<div id="toc"><h1>Content</h1>'
+  res = '<h1>Content</h1>'
 
   # iterate through the body, find headers and build toc as we go along
   level = 0
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ def toc
   end
 
   # end toc
-  res << '</ol></div>'
+  res << '</ol>'
   res 
 end