WovenTales

The trick with that is that it also prevents wrapping except on new lines in the source. Looking at the potential values, I'd recommend pre-wrap instead, which at least allows avoiding horizontal scrolling, at the cost of requiring you to write the entire contents in a single line of markup. Annoyingly, it doesn't seem like there's a way to avoid multiple spaces being collapsed without also giving special meaning to keeping the source less than 120 characters (or whatever other measure) wide.

Seems good so far, but it's annoying that the author needlessly sniped at double-spaced sentences. He even admits that whitespace collapsing makes it a meaningless distinction, but rather than focus on the actual information of "if you really need them, here's the vaious Unicode spaces" he spends over half the section harping on something that winds up making no difference.

They were thinking that "scuttlebutt" means "gossip", and that the "butt" is just a water barrel. Basically, the ancient form of water cooler talk.

Not only would it be possible, it's being done in NewPipe without touching the API at all (except perhaps the device restrictions; not sure what the status is on that). I'm sure there's clauses somewhere for using the API that prevent you from doing dual purpose acting as a simple, if specialized, browser, and using the logo itself was just asking for trouble, but it's revealing how much Google hides away and just hopes you don't notice.

The most unsettling part is in Facebook's response: “We’ve heard that when accessing their information from our Download Your Information tool, some people are seeing their old videos that do not appear on their profile or Activity Log. We are investigating.” Who wants to bet against their investigation being “how to keep users from seeing it.” Anyone?

I find it amazing that Chollet even tries to argue "There’s only one company where the product is an opaque algorithmic newsfeed, that has been running large-scale mood/opinion manipulation experiments..." when Google's ranking algorithm is so infamously fickle, and especially when its per-user bubbling is an open secret and even obliquely touted as a feature.

It's still not getting completely away from Google, and they could probably still track you through IP, but I've been really happy with the NewPipe client for Android; it's attempting to provide all the features of browsing without falling back on any official API and certainly without needing an account. There are a few features that aren't out yet (most notably comments, notifications, and YT-user playlists, though it can play the latter if you get the link through another browser) but it gives you an offline subscription list and in my opinion is more comfortable to use than the official app.

Some, maybe. Others live perfectly happily without being alone in their heads. I know a story or two about people for whom just talking with the voices was the way they found themselves again. Sure there are people who can't deal with another constant presence or who have deeper issues to work out, but saying that everyone who's part of a plural system needs institutional help is part of the feedback loop that makes them reject their headmates and so need institutional help finding solitude. The key is finding a way to a stable life, not finding a way to a single life.

On the one hand, definitely worrisome when taking into account the alternative sites. On the other, it's in a paragraph about legal exceptions, so I'm wondering if the article's saying that Facebook and such get more people looking the other way, and that any smaller competitors would get jumped on disproportionally; just looking at music, YouTube doesn't seem to be suffering too greatly from everyone uploading recordings, while I can easily see a small upstart getting sued into oblivion for a fraction of the infringement. Maybe some of that is that they can point to their algorithms as mitigation, but, A, that gets into proprietary secrets that would be key to even existing clashing with anti-trust laws, and B, there's still plenty of eight-year-old music videos that they somehow haven't gotten around to checking.

Thanks for that, actually! You're the first to comment on the aesthetics rather than the "incorrect" usage. My thinking is that the dashes are part of the pragmatics of the primary, wrapping phrase, and don't actually interact with the inner one—they are therefore bound to the first and separate from the second. Whether or not it's a good look, the fact that doing so much better signposts the parenthetical makes it worth it, right? And that spacing rule is actually almost the same as with ellipses, though I'm definitely with you on that taking a while to look good to me as well.

Do you think it's just being unused to that layout, or is there some deeper issue to how it looks?

Ah, didn't know it was still viable. Thanks!

I love dashes. I do tend to avoid ems for parenthetical remarks – for those, I'll use spaced ens – but I do definitely use the longer for interjections and (roughly) semicolons, as the article describes. Where I break from convention is that, if they're marking an interjection or other interruption, I will put a space in on a single side of the dash— like so —to better demarcate the logical flow. Then again, I also put a thin space before exclamation points, etc. if I can (though unlike French, nothing if I just have full spaces), so I have other reasons to dismiss the complaints about style.

Something about LaTeX just doesn't click for me, and you'll never in regular use have any need for pure TeX. Luckily, there's ConTeXt which (unsearchable name and comparatively small support base aside) is a very enjoyable flavour and allows for some beautiful typesetting. Maybe not worth it to switch if you're already used to LaTeX, but if you've never used any of the family, I highly recommend giving one or the other a try.

There's an article I keep in my bookmarks for times like this: http://www.heracliteanriver.com/?p=324

In short, wider sentence spacing goes back to the first English standards of the eighteenth century – including the first nine editions of the Chicago Manual of Style, and even the tenth still had it as an en-space – and only really started falling out of favour in the twenties. Typewriters had limited effect, but the automated typesetters that suceeded them were actually what killed it off, to simplify the programming.

I typically do still type a single space, but I take full advantage of my preferred TeX flavour's (ConTeXt) automatic conversion to wider spaces. One successful, post-education convert here!

If that were all that could do it, sure. That's not the end of it, though. I was trying out anonymization methods a while back, and created an account for use through Tor + a VPN (yes, I know it's Google). I recently tried to get back into it, but since I wasn't "where I usually sign in" (and can't actually say what city they thought that was), I'm locked out. I have the correct password in my manager, and I can even answer that "when did you create this account" question because of that, but Google still won't give me any way in. Since there's nothing important in there, I'm fine leaving that particular address behind rather than escalating things, especially after reading the article, but there's a few really dangerous implications there if you do want to habitually decouple your IP from your physical location.

I want to add two things that aren't directly related to the article, but which might contribute to further discussion.

First, there's an anthropologist who's found that the stereotypical, combative voices are only universal (among a small sample) to the American/western participants in her study.[1] In cultures that offer alternate explanations for them ("spirits" or such), the voices are much more frequently friendly or even helpful.

Second, but less rigourous, that "new approach" mentioned in the Stanford article sounds remarkably like how someone one of my high school teachers knew handled his own voices: he did have trouble with them for a while and wound up needing to take a break from the handyman outfit he (if I recall correctly) ran with his brother. Eventually, though, his therapist recommended he stop trying to push the voices away completely, and the next time my teacher saw him, a few years later, he was back working again, and just telling people "if you hear me talking as I fix your porch, it's not to you."

It's not my own depiction, but I like the idea that part of why the voices here get so aggressive is that we're dead set on denying their reality -- if we try to ignore them, they just shout louder until we can't ignore them. And, as this article shows, the way we cast someone's voices as controling or, at the very least, setting the course of their life doesn't do anybody any favors when that leads so easily to feeling like they're subject to the voices' whims.

[1] https://news.stanford.edu/2014/07/16/voices-culture-luhrmann...

Isn't that a separate issue? The article was pointing out that [5, 4, 1, 5] was sorted as [4, 1, 5, 5], which is wrong no matter if you're sorting numbers or strings. The bug was the algorithm taking one step too few and the fix was reducing the end trigger by one, which has no effect on what sort order is used. I'm seeing an actual bug that was actually fixed, and any breaks from the spec -- real though they might be -- are better brought up to the maintainers themselves than posted on something only tangently related.

Definitely, though the Zork 3 message still sounds like such a better way of letting you know what's happening.

For the sake of argument, there's a difference between someone's IP and the wrapper it comes in. I'd be more than happy to pay for an audiobook through Amazon (or just get Audible), but until a recent hardware upgrade, I literally couldn't listen to them on the device I had access to during the period I had time to listen to them because Amazon decided I had to have their software to do so. So I found another place I could get the actual content in a different wrapper that did let me play it on my old Sansa+Rockbox (Downpour, if anyone's wondering). I'm more than happy to see an ad beside or before the main content, but whatever site I'm on did not make the ad and taking it off the page is no more changing their IP than taking a black marker to a physical newspaper.

I do block ads, though, despite actually wanting to see them to support the site. My problem is in the potential for viruses and tracking, and while that's a separate issue a few other threads are already talking about, there's been disappointingly little actual progress in making sure you can browse safely without resorting to nuking everything. I've been following the development on Brave because their proposed methods seem like one of the few ways to actually make it work.