To save a visit: they use turnstile, a captcha replacement. The checkbox with verify you are a human. I would call that a captcha, but it is debatable if a non-puzzle check is.
I think Larry Wall mentioned something like this regarding perl. Things can only be intuitive after learning them. I do not think it is syntax you are complaining about either. Some constructs in Haskell reference a certain model (monads, lenses) and no syntax is going to infuse any reader with that knowledge if they do not possess it already.
Uh, yeah, so keeping in mind that "haubert doublier" was supposed to be more protective than the baseline stuff, it's either chainmail (1) with heavier and larger rings, (2) with two rivets per link, (3) with two layers, e.g. one hauberk worn on top of another, possibly with a linen interlayer (4) with smaller and many thousands more rings, (5) with double the links in each pattern unit – effectively, two rings where normally there would be one.
There's some scholarly support for each interpretation. The Romans were known to wear a double layer of mail, as their shoulder yoke overlapped their torso armor, though this predates the French and English by ~1000 years. There's also a good example of #2 here, though it's quite recent and not European: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/35633
The most popular interpretation, among scholars, is #5. But there's no conclusive evidence. IIRC there was an effigy of a knight at the cathedral in York wearing double mail, but it was removed (and now thought lost) in the early 19th century.
This is the sort of ubiquitous historical question that can be solved by an amateur.
I think these kind of tasks where many people are asked to review but nobody owns it are the problem. One assumes others reviewed it and then they might review them superficially.
You could give $100 per typo found and I bet that first page would be caught.
The problem is that it isn't their job to review it. They have their own deadlines, and their effort reviewing your prototype won't show up on their performance review.
Unfortunately, superficial feedback like typos are the least valuable feedback possible when creating a new design. What you really want to know is whether the design is actually feasible, if it introduced new pain points, if it is better than what it is going to replace. That's the sort of thing people will notice internally but not necessarily give voice to when they spend three minutes glancing at a prototype or initial build.
reply