I am not at all familiar with the US system. How come there is a $3500 donation limit to politicians, but the tech billionaires have donated hundreds of millions to the inauguration fund?
Is the useSkin parameter something you manually added? I am not logged in and when I navigate to another page the parameter (and with it the skin preference) disappears.
Oh sorry, yes I have a browser extension that always adds that parameter to any wikipedia page. I usually strip it when posting a link, but I forgot (and since it's a long link, it doesn't display in its entirety so I didn't catch it).
I just discovered that feature due to your mistake, so thank you!
For similarly newly enlightened people it's a feature of MediaWiki (which Wikipedia runs on) and there are five (plus two) themes selectable with ?useskin= values:
IIRC that requires having an account and being logged in, or maybe it just required a persistent cookie to remember the preference. Either way, my browser still aggressively clears cookies on exit so this solution was more permanent for me than the official solution.
It leaves a lot unsaid. Advertising has a lot of connotations and cultural significance. It can evoke strong feelings for one and be a livelihood for another. Simply stating that an advertisement is 'a public notice' doesn't do it justice.
I understand that dictionaries are not encyclopedias, but a little more is warranted IMO.
I disagree. This article is typical embellishment from the university that produced the research. The reality is that they're likely pre-trial stage. Even if they make it through all stages of clinical trials (historically, chances of a drug candidate doing that are 2-5%), that usually takes the better part of a decade. So the answer is "no, we're very far from curing it".
I'm sure there is a historical reason we have "half" and "quarter" and no others but it's not my area of expertise but still, not using them when they're appropriate just seems...odd.
Why does there need to be something else? That’s a powerful reason.
Markdown is subpar and has an awful steward—as evidenced by all the different “flavours” and degrees of support in existence—but we somehow made it work in a jumble of hacks and that’s what we have now. It’s crummy but gets the job done.
Even if AsciiDoc is technically superior, which it probably is, is it superior enough to justify the big players implementing and pushing for in more in places regular users have access too?
Opposing goals, the purpose of markdown is to have a nice looking plain text document that can be automatically typeset and asciidoc is to have a well structured plain text document that can be automaticly typeset.
Note that markdown's whole value proposition is that it is a nice looking plaintext format, it stinks at adding any sort of semantic value to a document. realistically if you care about your documentation you will use something better than markdown. The problem is adding better structure always makes the plain text ugly and hard to read, violating the whole point of markdown. that is to say, the many efforts to add better semantics to markdown don't appear to understand the point of markdown.
ASCII, by way of that character encoding standard, implies that dark age before writing and transmitting 'café' or 'Warschauer Straße' or '€10' or '¡olé!' just worked. Not a great marketing point.
So the first thing you are wondering when you read 'AsciiDoc' is, “Wait, does this mean it doesn't support anything but ASCII characters?”, regardless of whether or not that is true.
I think preventing. I don't think Ruby is a bad language, but I've never worked anywhere it was a first or even second class language. I like AsciiDoc, but it's a hard sell to convince people to manage an entire other language toolchain used for nothing but AsciiDoc. I don't think the distro packaged it, or maybe not a recent enough version, but I could be wrong.
It's already hard enough to get people to switch documentation formats, needing to manage another language for it is just a bridge too far everywhere I've worked. It would be an easier sell if it were statically compiled, or at least in an interpreted language we already used (Python or JS most places).
I think it’s both funny and fitting that a video game library opens in ‘early access’. Apart from adding more games over time, I don’t see the distinction between early access and an actual release.
The website is operational and usable, and will have more content added to it over time. Much like early access games. I wonder what the actual distinction is.
I would assume that they plan to throttle or otherwise keep a limit on number of users. In case things turn out to be harder on the backend than they were expecting. Could also be a fencepost in case they decide to shard users in a different way in the future and need to wipe people's save data?
I guess, if the analogy is tight, further content would just be "DLC" while moving from early access to a release would involve functional differences.
