I had hope at one point to set up a Kindle with large fonts on a treadmill, but that was just totally hopeless. I tried again with a music stand next to the treadmill, but it was too far away, badly angled, and touching the device to flip pages could still turn it off.
And it's not just the accidental power-off, it's also the accidental power-on. I slip the Kindle into a tight pocket in my backpack, and it sometimes turns on by itself. Further, inserting it into the pocket can sometimes reproduce the swipe motion, so it can be on and active (and sometimes randomly page-flipping) inside my backpack.
_Thank you_. I read this story probably around 1980 (I think in a magazine that was subsequently trashed or garage-saled), and I have spent my adult life remembering the bones of the story, but not the author or the title.
They can absolutely be checked out to the same commit. They cannot be checked out to the same local branch. But checking out to the same SHA, or even the same remote branch (which, really, is just another name for a given SHA) is just fine.
I have two workflows heavily benefitting from worktrees. The first is simple enough...code archeology. I want to do it without disturbing my working tree. Yes, this could have also been done with a separate clone, but I'd have to fetch in that clone, and that's just extra keystrokes.
The second is that I like to have a "synthesis" worktree...one that includes PRs I'm reviewing and ones I'm creating. Both benefit from my regularly building and using them (e.g., I might incidentally find bugs through usage I otherwise missed through testing or code-reading, or I might spot pending integration
problems). I don't want multiple build locations...I want to run everything
in one build.
But when I've finished developing a PR, need to create a clean version of it from the master branch. In my secondary worktree, I can just cherry-pick commits from my synthesis worktree to produce a clean branch to push.
I could do this in the synthesis worktree, too, but at the cost of
almost certainly forcing a complete rebuild. In a second clone, I'd have
to create patch files because the clone wouldn't have access to the commit
objects for cherry-picking.
This can come up even with application software (which is my area). If it worked before and it's broken now, or if your application appears to be the only thing that is broken for the user, from most user perspectives, it doesn't matter that the problem may have been technically created by an OS bug, errant virus scanner, or whatever. As I tell colleagues, "It may not be our fault, but it's still our problem."
Correct. Customers are paying for a working solution. If what they get doesn't work, they couldn't care less (and shouldn't have to care) about who or what is to blame. They just want it to work.
A reborn version of PLATO is available at https://www.irata.online/ (JS client if you hit the Login button at the top, various other clients enumerated below). I haven't played with it much, but I did find "Bugs and Drugs" from the article in the Irata games list, and was able to successfully launch it.
Surrogate pairs were new to Unicode 2.0. Unicode 1.0 didn't anticipate the need for more than 65,536 code points (who would ever need more?); the main perceived threat to that limit having been resolved by Han unification.
* Coding ligatures often display as a single glyph (maybe occupying a single-width character space, or maybe spread out over multiple spaces), but are composed of multiple glyphs. The ligature may "look" like a single character for purposes of selection and cursoring, but it can act like multiple characters when subject to backspacing.
* Similarly, I've seen keyboard interfaces for various languages (e.g., Hindi) where standard grapheme cluster rules bind together a group of code points, but the grapheme cluster was composed from multiple key presses (which typically add one code point each to the cluster). And in some such interfaces I've seen, the cluster can be decomposed by an equal number of backspace presses. I don't have a good sense of how much a monospaced Hindi font makes sense, but it's definitely a case where a "character" doesn't always act "character-like".
I've always felt ligatures that condense two or more glyphs into something that takes up the space of only one in a monospace font are going beyond what a font should handle and into the realm of what an editor should do. I have several such visual substitutions set up in my .emacs but I don't use fonts that do them on their own.
Last month, my wife and I visited the Musée d'Orsay (as visiting American tourists). As it happens, we were in line when the museum opened and I had the bright idea to go straight to the top floor...partly because I was interested to see the van Gogh room, and partly because the large body of people entering the museum were still milling around on the first couple of floors.
And so it was that, as we wandered the relatively empty top floor, I walked through the entryway to the van Gogh exhibit room, looked left...and I just stopped, absolutely stunned as I looked upon Starry Night Over the Rhône. It completely took my breath away. I've never had that reaction (or much of any reaction) to a work of art before. My wife ended up wandering a different direction, and I had the pleasure of taking her back into the van Gogh room and watching her have the same reaction.
So, yeah...definitely nothing like looking at it on a screen or in a book.
Yes, there's a lot of messiness in how fonts work. Doing cross-platform desktop GUI development, I feel that pain firsthand (and not just for fonts, but for all kinds of rendered constructs...controls, lines/curves/polys, bitmaps, windows). But working with pixels is no solution. On macOS, Retina pixels are 1/2 the dimensions of non-Retina pixels (in principle, on Apple hardware...actual dot pitches will vary). "Standard" vs. 2k vs. 4k vs. 8k monitors (not to mention all the things in between). And multiple monitors on the same system might not agree with one another. This is especially common with laptops, where there's really no particular correlation between the laptop's built-in display and the external monitor the user happens to have available.
I can't understand why anybody would consider pixel measurements a viable solution at all. My best attempt to understand what the blog author is wanting to achieve is maybe he wants to fine-tune appearances on his system in a way that doesn't need to be portable. He talks about customizing editor appearances, and I suppose that editors generally don't have the problem of having to do something sensible across multiple systems. But even there, at least some people are still going to have the disagreeing-multiple-monitors problem.
Other vendors fail to understand that sometimes the reason people use their product is because it's not Apple. Most of the regressions I've seen in the Windows 11 UI/UX are from them trying to imitate Apple.
I had hope at one point to set up a Kindle with large fonts on a treadmill, but that was just totally hopeless. I tried again with a music stand next to the treadmill, but it was too far away, badly angled, and touching the device to flip pages could still turn it off.
And it's not just the accidental power-off, it's also the accidental power-on. I slip the Kindle into a tight pocket in my backpack, and it sometimes turns on by itself. Further, inserting it into the pocket can sometimes reproduce the swipe motion, so it can be on and active (and sometimes randomly page-flipping) inside my backpack.