Doesn't ctrl+/ select all in either GTK key theme?
278 karma · joined December 2, 2015
I use a variant of the emacs key theme, so I'd be happy if there were a workaround...
Video conferences are as if everybody were potentially constantly staring at you, but you couldn't tell if or when this was the case, and despite everybody looking at you, you couldn't even make eye-contact with anybody, share a smile etc.
If anything, video conferences are dehumanising.
Apple would continue offering a relatively privacy-friendly alternative — but would require you to switch OS to use it; Microsoft might fork Chromium, but I fear that they'd only pay lip-service to privacy.
Obviously these analyses are complicated by the fact that in both cases the forces that helped create Wikipedia/Firefox wouldn't disappear. If Wikimedia died, then people would put up their Wikipedia dumps online in their own MediaWiki instances. If Mozilla died, then people would either try to keep Firefox alive or try to maintain a set of privacy patches on Chromium. How successful they'd be is another matter...
They wouldn't start charging for Chrome, as that's not their business model, but they might move part of their development out of (open source) Chromium and into (closed source) Chrome or further curtail extensions (e.g. adblockers) etc.
Admittedly:
1. Wikipedia has more "users" than Firefox.
2. Despite this, the donations Wikimedia receives are only about a fifth of Mozilla's budget.
However, people use their browser far more than they use any single website and hence might be more willing to donate more to Mozilla. (For example, I love Wikipedia, but I've gotten even more value from Firefox.)
Overall, this would be unlikely to cover all of Mozilla's expenses, but I'd also be surprised if donations (after such a campaign) would be less than 10% of current revenue; in any case it'd be a valuable source of diversification.
It's possible that the legal relation between the Foundation and the Corporation doesn't make this possible.
I'm probably not the intended "you", but one idea would be a "testimonials"/thanks section in GitHub/GitLab/Gitea, in addition to the standard Issues and Pull/Merge requests.
It'd allow users of the tool/library to express gratitude, give the developer feedback about their creation and possibly even provide inspiration to other users. People could set their own notification preferences, and the UI could make it clear to those thanking that they shouldn't necessarily expect a reply.
The "testimonials/thanks template" could include a suggestion to donate if you've made a commercial product using the software or if you're just a happy end-user.
GitHub is trying out "discussions", but that's far less targeted.
From a personal point of view, I just try to express thanks whenever I otherwise have a substantive point to make (bug report, comment on an issue, but as you point out that doesn't allow for situations where you don't have anything else to say.
What scroll-preserve-screen-position determines, is whether the point/cursor stays at the same visual position in the screen — i.e. if for instance your cursor was in the middle of the screen, it will stay in the middle when you scroll.
OP needs the currently non-existent scroll-preserve-buffer-position.
To add to this, there's a set of Winetricks recipes for running SM on Linux.[0] (Disclaimer: I haven't tried them, though I've been planning to, for a while.)
Getting the "normal" fullscreen is just two keyboard shortcuts away ("fullscreen" the program and assign its window the entire screen), rather than one. From an intuitiveness point of view, being able to hide a program's UI and change its window size separately is arguably more intuitive — according to the separation of concerns, the former is managed by the program itself and the latter by the WM.
PiP is really nice, but videos aren't the content for which getting a distraction-free experience is most important...
[0] I'm sure that it's also possible with other tiling WMs such as ratpoison, stumpwm, awesome etc.
That's great! It's a shame that it's (apparently) no longer open source, though obviously given the MIT license you're allowed to stop disclosing the source.
(Obviously vlc and mpv will only work for DRM-free videos, e.g. from youtube or a DVD.)
If you were asking specifically about Netflix subtitles, there used to be an open source NflxMultiSubs extension[1] for both Firefox and Chromium, but it was broken by Netflix introducing changes to its video player and discontinued. There is an active, open-source dual-captions[2] extension, but it's for Chrome only. (However, since it's open source adapting it it for Firefox should be straightforward.) Finally, as an alternative approach, you could try a Firefox addon which allows loading arbitrary subtitles in the SRT format to netflix,[3] and which might perhaps allow you to have both netflix's subtitles and your own SRT ones at the same time.
[0] https://github.com/videolan/vlc/blob/master/NEWS#L30
[1] https://github.com/dannvix/NflxMultiSubs/
[2] https://github.com/mikesteele/dual-captions
[3] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/netflix-srt-s...
I have no idea whether Carpalx's or Halmak's keyboard layout (efficiency|effort) evaluator is more accurate (indicative of real (efficiency|effort)), but the huge disparity between the two is troubling.
(Obviously, Carpalx and Halmak use different optimisation methods — Monte Carlo simulated annealing versus an "evolution algorithm based AI" — and these could well give different results, even with the same scoring method, due to getting stuck in different local maxima etc., but the issue is that the scoring methods themselves give different rankings of fixed keyboard layouts.)
Edit: quickly reading through all of the halmak author's blog posts, it seems that they're aware of the Carpalx project. They describe their (current?) effort model here[6]. It seems heavily data-based, but it's still difficult to determine whether it's "better" than Carpalx's.
[0] https://gist.github.com/tdegrunt/80e63f464c9a1c336e0f1d4e6aa...
[1] https://github.com/MadRabbit/halmak/issues/4#issuecomment-44...
[2] I haven't done the analysis myself and can't be sure that it was done correctly
[3] http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/?interpreting_optimization
[4] http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/carpalx/?keyboard_layouts
I'm extremely excited by Igalia's work on MathML and glad that the Google Chrome team had given it their preliminary approval, but in the context of criticising Google for working on the "application web" and ignoring the "document web" (for scientists and others), it doesn't change anything[0]. Google is neither doing the work, nor funding it[1], and their contribution until now has mostly (solely?) been to be open about merging it.
[0] not that you explicitly said that it did...
[1] It's funded by the NISO and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
With torrent or IPFS, perhaps? (Given the CC BY-SA license, this would be completely legal.)
Also, GitHub's behaviour wrt to LFS is really disappointing — the epub file could have been stored normally with git (its size of ~ 3 MB is far less than the hard limit of 100 MB), in which case there would have been no issues of exceeding a data quota...
For comparison, the linked PDF is normally indexed with git, despite weighing at 7.7 MB.
Since LFS is supposed to reduce total bandwidth use for the hoster, GitHub is, in effect, punishing people for reducing GitHub's bandwidth usage...
Actually, the linked PDF is originally[0] by the same author as the EPUB version you linked. However, in the original repository[0] the PDF is managed with LFS, so it's inaccessible...
If, in about:config, you set ui.key.accelKey to 91, then Super-W will close a single tab (and Super-T will open a single tab etc.). This obviously won't work in Chromium, though.
Edit: For this purpose, I think that this "Chrome Experiment"[2], might be better.
Also see "Gaia Sky"[3] which I haven't tried, but which looks really interesting and may well do what you want.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestia
[2] https://experiments.withgoogle.com/100000-stars
[3] http://sci.esa.int/gaia/60036-gaia-data-release-2-virtual-re...
Depending on what you mean by "in some future update" and "pretty much guaranteed" (given an infinite timespan everything will disappear) I don't think that's true. I've kept my Firefox user.js (my manual about:config changes) under git over the past 3 years[0], and of the 44 options that I customised, 36 are still present and (seem[1] to be) active.
6 of the about:config user_prefs customised add-ons, so they no longer work due to the shift to Webextensions (but I can still make 5 of the customisations via another interface).
1 customised the GCLI, which was removed, and 1 customised Panorama, which was also removed. (However, most of what GCLI did, can be done some other way, and there are a couple of Webextensions faithfully emulating Panorama.)
[0] The file is older, but I added it to git only three years ago. Hence, many of the about:config changes have been "alive" for longer, but I have no record of those that were removed earlier than 3 years ago.
[1] Cursorily glancing through my comments above each entry to make sure that it still does what it was supposed to.
Much of the reason people are in favour of providing MathML output is that if nobody did, then the likelihood of Chrome getting MathML support would have been near zero (and the risk of Firefox removing its existing (if imperfect) implementation, high). (A chicken and egg problem.) Since MathML is likely (you may disagree — but you must agree that it's plausible that if a JavaScript solution can do it, a native one can probably do it better) to lead to better equation typesetting on the web, once it's properly implemented, people advocating MathML today can very much care about better communicating maths to humans, in the long run. Also, MathML is not incompatible with MathJax — in fact, since MathJax's internal representation of equations is similar to MathML's, converting from MathML (to SVG/HTML+CSS/whatever) is faster than converting from TeX — so it's not as if providing MathML in the document dooms your readers you to its "ugly" output. (And yes, MathML can be both an input and an output for MathJax...)
> [...] (which for some reason is given on the page in low-resolution images rather than high-dpi images or SVG) [...]
That's because the page was made several years ago, when such images were the norm (look at a Wikipedia page on the Archive from even 2016), and hasn't seen significant updates since, because MathML was feared dead (due to Chrome, at the time, explicitly rejecting support) and volunteer effort dried up. Somebody™ should update this...
> Looking at the MathML sample page in Firefox [...], there are many that are worse and none that is better that TeX's output
For the little that it's worth, IMO five are worse, two are slightly better and the rest just as good as the TeX.
> And personally I've seen very little by Firefox/MathML people on their layout decisions (if they decided to do things differently from TeX, why?), while with MathJax I've seen that if their output is found not to match TeX's it is treated as a bug report and a fix attempted.
Far more people work on MathJax than on MathML — MathJax has a two-member team, plus support from AMS, plus volunteers, while MathML has only had occasional volunteers (see above; not that it was much better previously), so it's not a fair comparison. Also the page comparing TeX with MathML was made by the people in favour of MathML precisely because they care about trying to achieve parity with TeX.
> What are the some respects in which you say Firefox's output is visually superior to MathJax's?
For instance the speed with which the output is rendered. Several second latency for better final appearance might be a bargain you want to take, but it's still a visual trade-off. (You can use server-side MathJax, but then you lose some end-user customisability.)
> the tag soup of MathML, though shorter, has still all the XML ugliness so it's not as if it will ever be readable.
How else would you expose the structure of an equation, to the DOM, than with XML ugliness? It's just important that the XML ugliness makes sense (and MathML's does).
> (though the original MathML proponents perhaps did not)
FWIW I'm pretty sure that they did. Arguments to authority are pretty terrible, but if you look at the authors of the MathML 1.0 (earliest) or 3.0 (latest) specs[0][1], and google them, you can see that many of them have backgrounds in science or math and have been active in the LaTeX ecosystem.
> but this [quality of the typesetting] has been mostly underestimated/ignored by those advocating MathML.
I don't see any evidence for this, not among its designers, implementers or even general proponents.
Firefox's output (implemented almost(?) entirely by individual volunteers), for instance, is acknowledged to be still considerably worse than LaTeX output in a pdf, though it is competitive with its web alternatives (superior in some respects, worse in others) — do be sure to install MathML fonts[2] though.
> 5. What the result [...] will be, in the web page's DOM.
Have you seen the tag soup generated (by necessity) with MathJax or KaTeX?
[0] https://www.w3.org/TR/REC-MathML//TR/REC-MathML/
[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/MathML3/
[2] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/MathML_Proj...
In either case, you can use TeX as your input, and if you do, you have to convert it, client-side or browser-side, into something usable by the browser; it's just that if the browser accepts MathML the rendering is faster and/or more convenient, plus you get other options.
Using the same format for equations as for the rest of the document (i.e. HTML/XML) is advantageous (in addition to the parsing benefits). In particular, you can use the same mechanisms for styling and transforming elements, as you can for the whole document. For instance, you could easily style parts of an equation, provide pop-ups that explain what each symbol means, when you hover over it, or interactively change the equation. (Much of this hasn't actually been done, outside experiments, because only Firefox properly(-ish) supports MathML, so it would have been wasted effort.)
[0] https://gist.github.com/aplaice/266b092bc48afbbdd46cdbd0ca81...
[1] Presentation MathML is still obviously not semantic, but it can be better in this respect than default TeX — there have been proposals for semantic TeX, but none of them have really caught on.
Also, directly converting TeX to MathML, even client-side, is much easier and faster than MathJax's many-to-many approach (I'm not criticising MathJax — given the constraints, they're doing the best possible job).[0][1][2] (See also the Ascii to MathML converter[3] that has already been mentioned in another comment.)
[0] http://fred-wang.github.io/MathUI2014/demos/7-web-component....
[1] https://github.com/fred-wang/MathUI2014/blob/master/demos/7-...
For instance, as a user, if you want to scale the equations by some amount or use a different maths font, it's a couple of lines of CSS, using exactly the same method you'd use to make any other changes to the appearance of a web-page. (Yes, you can easily do the former with MathJax, but I don't think the latter is possible user-side).
As a developer, if you'd want to interactively highlight parts of an equation, for educational purposes, it'd be trivial with MathML, but rather hard to do nicely with MathJax (statically coloured elements are possible with MathJax, with the "color.js" extension, but not dynamically coloured ones — and no, swapping out the entire equation to make colour changes is neither nice nor scalable). Alternatively, if you want to embed equations in a diagram or a graph, it's pretty easy with MathML[0][1], but would be difficult otherwise.
Obviously, all of the above is in principle possible with JavaScript implementations, but it's far harder. You might argue that this extra effort is worth the smaller attack surface. IMO, given the importance of maths and science, it isn't.
Also, why do we, say, have the CSS flexbox layout? After all, we could have used javascript to arrange elements into an appropriate table or even just set the x and y positions of all elements...
[0] http://fred-wang.github.io/MathUI2014/demos/2-mathml-in-svg....
[1] http://fred-wang.github.io/MathUI2014/demos/6-mathml-in-webg...
[0] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Math/advancedSettin...
[1] not that "niche" websites like nLab[2] should be disregarded, since the web was originally designed to help scientists...
At least in Firefox, if you press Space or PageDown (to scroll down a "page"), on the linked article, you'll lose several lines of the text, as they're obscured by the header. Illustrating:
<------ page 1 --------->
<------ page 1 --------->
<------ page 1 --------->
<------ page 1 --------->
<------ page 1 --------->
<------ page 1 --------->
<----- lost line ------->
<----- lost line ------->
<------ page 2 --------->
<------ page 2 --------->
<------ page 2 --------->
<------ page 2 --------->
<------ page 2 --------->
<------ page 2 --------->
Chrome isn't afflicted by this (on the linked article), due to the fact that its page scroll is slightly shorter than Firefox's (on a webpage without any sticky headers, Firefox gives you about 1.5 lines of context from the previous "page"/screen, when you page-scroll; Chrome gives you about 5). However, if the height of the sticky header were greater (as often is the case), Chrome would also be affected.
This is obviously in addition to the annoyance of the sticky header wasting vertical screen space, but the latter is just an aesthetic preference, while the former is broken functionality.
Yes, I know that on Firefox I can just use reader mode, but it seems sad that after almost 30 years of the development of the web, going back to a design that could easily have existed in the 90s, is an improvement.
If the torrent repository were gone permanently, it would be extremely sad, since it's (AFAIK) the only way of having automated and/or bulk download of papers, for example for data mining — sci-hub.io is understandably not really suited for this.