What exactly is penalizing modest people? Paying people to strip is penalizing „modest people“ who don’t want to strip?

I had the same problem initially. It's sometimes easier on the command line, since piping file and directory objects to commands generally binds their PSPath to LiteralPath using a parameter alias.

Marquee, blink, i, b... Older people like me remember the old "innocent" days of the internet. It's probably nostalgia, but the modern web doesn't seem exciting anymore...

<marquee> quickly got considered a bad design as it prevents revealing the whole information at once and requires a lot of focus and patience. However here I guess in this form it can be used for presenting other products as an additional row

IANAL, but they either have to honor the verbal contract (pour an additional cup AND pay $20) OR the contract is void and therefore they can be sued for assault. Of course, the "can" in "if I can" may be construed as "being able to", but that's up to the jury I guess.

Pouring more water isn't required, only the permission to pour more water is required. And that was granted in this scenario.

As the old saying can go, "It depends on what the meaning of 'can' can be."

That's a great point about stripping authorship. It would be nice if there was some sort of blockchain linking every bit of knowledge to its source. Some people at least would like getting attribution--I know I would. Instead we get a planet-sized meat grinder producing the perfect burger material. Just make sure to add enough spices to make it edible, i.e. not to offend anyone.

You are using LLMs to summarize bloated articles probably generated by LLMs. Maybe stop paying attention to such "articles" and cut the middleman?

I'm also not a fan of overly-funny writing, but I just wanted to say that I found your style quite enjoyable. Maybe it's because a can relate somewhat to your situation... :b

If A can die from sesame seeds and B can't and the A-to-B ratio is something like 1:1e+6, doesn't it make more sense for A to bake their own bread instead?

The Wikipedia entry on text-based user interfaces uses IT as an example of a text-mode program featuring a pixel-accurate mouse pointer. The "citation-needed" had always been annoying me, since I knew it was true, but I couldn't prove it. Now, we can finally link to IT_MOUSE.ASM and be done with it.

That seems like an analytical conclusion based on a primary source, and thus a violation of No Original Research policy if sourced directly to the primary source on which the conclusion is based, and not a published secondary source that actually provides the analysis of the primary source.

Just cite that HN comment above you then;)

One of Wikipedia's sourcing paradoxes is that the literal horse's mouth is the worst source as to be unusable.

No, primary sources are fine if they say the thing you are sourcing them for (high quality secondary sources are usually preferred, but primary sources aren't “the worst” or “unusuable”); they aren't okay for something that requires additional analysis/interpretation. (That's true of any source, but it’s more of an issue with the use of primary sources.)

I mean this as a genuine comment and not a political non-sequitor but we'll see how it lands. If you think that's a bad idea, can you imagine what Donald J. Trump's wiki page would look like if you allowed 'primary' sources? Or, really, any political figure. Though I think he makes a very good implicit case against allowing that.

"Original research"/primary sources should not matter for facts, i.e. those laid out as actual code.

(It didn't land well.)

I agree. It doesn't seem to make sense for some facts.

I was way out of my wheelhouse on Wikipedia one day and I saw some popular K-Pop group had announced their new album release date on their Instagram feed. I updated their Wikipedia entry with a citation to the group's own announcement and was very swiftly smashed by some over-arching editor who told me what a fuck-up my life was for even thinking this might be a suitable source for the information.

If the fact is in the source cited, primary sources are okay as direct sources. If it is an analytical interpretation of the source (such as most fact claims about the source or its contents, rather than fact claims made directly in the source), then that interpretation needs sourced from somewhere.

Somewhere that isn't the person updating the article, that is. The trick is to make a random website that does the same, and then it's totally fine!

[citation needed]

Bisqwit has a video about the technique: https://youtu.be/7nlNQcKsj74

But is Impulse Tracker a true textmode application? While not full of flashy graphics and icons, it uses lots of widgets and layout features that put it squarely in conventional GUI territory. And the repo contains the VESA code for rendering the equalizer UI.

It was a common technique in the DOS era to simulate GUIs with text. This was not just done with the characters in codepage 437 either; using redefinable character sets in the EGA and VGA, graphical elements such as buttons, input fields, etc. could be rendered in character cells. By redefining characters where the mouse pointer was supposed to be, a pixel-accurate mouse pointer could be created. Not just trackers used this technique, but e.g., later versions of Norton Utilities did as well.

Apparently this was hidden behind the Alt+F12 key combo? I might have to fire up a copy as I don't remember ever seeing this bit. Edit: it doesn't seem to be enabled in 2.14. Oh well, got to hear "Blue Flame" again!

The rest of the application runs in 80x50 text mode, and it included a character editor so you could customize the box drawing characters if you were so inclined.

I think it was a rhetorical question. I wasn't a big fan of the SS series, but those damn kamikaze still echo in my mind. I've even had nightmares about them...

the way they start in the distance and blend into the rest of the sounds until... ".. wait what's that sound?"