The complaint about Standard Markdown was that it appeared to be hijacking the existing "brand" in order to present itself as the definitive version.
One definition of "Common" means prevalent and it seems to me that this word was picked not to solve the above problem but to get around it by making Gruber look like a dick for objecting again to the same problem.
Ironically, a second definition of "common" is "showing a lack of taste."
> One definition of "Common" means prevalent and it seems to
> me that this word was picked not to solve the above problem
> but to get around it by making Gruber look like a dick for
> objecting again to the same problem.
Or, alternatively, the largest sites that all use Markdown wanted to figure out how to build a Common Markdown format that they could all agree on (or Standardize on), since the original hadn't been touched in a decade.
Yes, the License does say that derivative works shouldn't use the Markdown name. And yes, I'll even agree that it's a somewhat classless move, assuming you ignore years of context. "Github Flavored Markdown" is a thing, has been for a very long time. Not a peep from Gruber about it. It is highly reasonable to expect that "Common Markdown" (or even "Standard Markdown") might not raise any hackles.
C'mon, you really think folks are sitting around, plotting the best way to steal John Gruber's one serious project?
That's why they don't even need to call it Markdown. It can be a markdown derivative with a different name and it would still be as successful because they have the mindshare and the beginnings of a collaborative community.
You're right -- I very much doubt that even a tiny percentage of reddit's users know that they're using Markdown (it's mentioned as an aside in the "formatting help" section). Plus, of course, it's only a limited subset of Markdown allowed there.
Nonetheless, a tiny percentage of reddit users who know how to use the formatting still likely represents a majority of the set of people who know about Markdown formatting.
I find it infuriating on reddit. The fact it follows markdown indentation rules is completely unintuitive to someone who hasn't read the markdown specification. Given how little people actually want to do complicated formatting I think markdown is actually the wrong choice for reddit.
Yep, summer 2001 was the "Summer of the Shark Attacks" because of a couple of high-profile incidences. The news media played it up as some sort of epidemic although there was no significant difference in the numbers. This went on until September when a bigger story came long.
Not without a testable, falsifiable explanation. Observations (i.e. descriptions) can't be falsified, that's reserved for explanations. If I say, "the night sky is filled with little points of light", that's hardly falsifiable. But if I say, "those points of light are actually thermonuclear furnaces like our sun, but at greater distances", that claim is open to meaningful test and possible falsification.
Here's why a testable, falsifiable theory is required for science. Let's say I'm a doctor and I've created a revolutionary cure for the common cold. My cure is to shake a dried gourd over the cold sufferer until he gets better. The cure might take a week, but it always works. My method is repeatable and perfectly reliable, and I've published my cure in a refereed scientific journal (there are now any number of phony refereed scientific journals). And, because (in this thought experiment) science can get along without defining, falsifiable theories, I'm under no obligation to try to explain my cure, or consider alternative explanations for my breakthrough — I only have to describe it, just as the linked article describes the correlation between lead in gasoline and the crime rate.
Because I've cured the common cold, and because I've met all the requirements that social psychology recognizes for science, I deserve a Nobel Prize. Yes or no?
I think there's 2 reasons:
Often times the services are contracted out and those contracts are often subject to "lowest bid wins" rules. It is very difficult to judge a quality like competence especially when there's differing interpretations of purchasing legislation involved.
The other reason is that it is often difficult to fire people in the public sector. I believe it to be due to the impact of unions, which will protect even the most egregious offender out of principle. This builds a culture around being hard to get rid of people, even if it is a non-union position the HR process of dismissal is often the same. For example public bodies often have a lot of employee supports (Employee Assistance programs,etc) and before you dismiss anyone you must allow them to avail of these supports.
I don't think Americans get how distrustful other nations are of American-based cloud providers. It is not a matter of Google's or any other providers' behaviour but of the US Government (warrant-less searches and the like). This lack of trust predates the current NSA-Snowden affair and goes back to the Patriot Act (IMHO).
Of course I can't speak for all nations or industries (or even companies) but in my part of the Canadian Health care sector it is simply unthinkable to use a US-based cloud provider for anything to do with patient data.
As an American, I'll be a little surprised if that mistrust runs deeply in Britain, given how closely the Snowden disclosures revealed GCHQ and the NSA to be working. If the NSA had a vested interest in getting health records on a British citizen, I doubt it'd be difficult to get the British government to send them over. You know, to fight terrorism.
Of course, people aren't strictly rational actors, so I suppose one could hold the cognitive dissonance that one's private data is safer from the NSA physically stored in Europe than it is in the US.
As an American, I'll be a little surprised if that mistrust runs deeply in Britain
Why? I don't approve of the NSA behaviour, and I don't approve of the GCHQ behaviour in conducting mass surveillance either. The fact that the latter is theoretically done by my government for my country's benefit doesn't make me think any better of the spy agencies or those in government whose laws and tax money allow it.
I would rather take my chances with the terrorists than put up with all the nonsense done in the name of fighting them today. Not only do I think that as a practical matter the nonsense is far more likely to harm me or those I care about, and not only do I strongly disapprove of all the time, money, media attention and other resources I consider wasted on most so-called anti-terror measures when much more deserving causes could have used those resources better, I also think the current culture of rampant paranoia and fear-mongering is helping the terrorists to win anyway.
I've listened to this audiobook and I was hooked very early in the story. Jon Ronson is a very good story teller and he narrates his book. He's quite funny and engaging. "A Journey Through the Madness Industry" is the subtitle, and "journey" is indeed a very adequate description of what you'll experience with this book. Jon wanders from place to place where he'll meet psychopaths and people who work in the "madness industry" and relates his experiences and thinking.
It's not a definitive treatise on psychopathy, just the adventures of the author as he dives into this fascinating world. Definitely worth getting it at this price.