> In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
Which is of course intriguing, since cat-v.org hosts frothing-at-the-mouth vitriol about topics like women in tech and gay marriage in the always trustworthy and well reasoned medium of reposted reddit and slashdot comments. And presumably I'm supposed to click over to the technical stuff with a straight face.
It's telling that you'd apply a derogatory label and attack the source medium rather than say anything of substance about the content that offended you.
cat-v is chock-full of food for thought. You don't have to agree with any of it and in fact disagreement is a large part of the site.
"Other than total and complete world domination, the overriding goal is to encourage and stimulate critical and independent thinking."
I agree that it's misleading based on the title. On the site and in the text above it's more explicit about being a Zelda-like engine for action adventure games, and it looks like an awesome project. I clicked the link expecting something like Adventure Game Studio, though.
"...long writing was necessary only where quick contextualisation was impossible"
Adler and Doren's "How to Read a Book" covers quick contextualization; there were techniques and ideas about this starting in the early 70s, most of which is still very relevant and I've found very useful in my own reading life.
In this case, Wikipedia's citation leads (via an intermediate hop) to an academic article that dates Adventure to 1975-76, and argues that a date of 1972, which some other sources had previously mentioned, is incorrect: http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/001/2/000009/000009...
I think Wikipedia is notorious for that in general, along with constant subtle bias (of whoever won the pissing contest in the discussion page) in just about every article.
>There's value in a shorter more targeted tutorial
That's often true, but I was disappointed that this was little more than a rephrased version of what's on the Arch Wiki.
I love the Arch documentation on the Wiki. It's perfect for me– laid out well, easy to follow, arranged in a logical wiki order, and stuffed with insanely useful tips.
The pages on stuff like tmux are fantastic.
Most of the time the information is already in the wiki. And it's nice how the installation guide covers every corner case. I smoothly migrated my laptop from a simple installation to luks+lvm, just by following the guide. You can actually read TFM because it's already there. It's also kinda funny how many google searches that relate with configuration issues on linux link back to the arch wiki. Definitely documentation is one of the stronger parts of arch.
Have you used uTorrent recently? They've had an unshrinkable ad area in the main window for a while. Torrent sites are full of ads too; I'm willing to wager that there are plenty of advertisers willing to put ads up in non-traditional spaces. It's not going to be Proctor&Gamble, but revenue's getting made for sure. Not to mentioned the "bundled" crapware being discussed.
How about a non-Apple App Store: something like homebrew with a friendly GUI that's easy to navigate? I started using Homebrew Cask recently, and it seems like a perfect workflow for the average user who just wants to download VLC or whatever.
I'm imagining Grandma pulling up the "Application Warehouse", let's say, and clicking a download button under a VLC icon. It gets downloaded from a trusted source over HTTPS, gets checked against a hash, symlinked and Gran's ready to go, all without the hassle of shady installers from the search engine shitpile.
They are/have. In Windows 10 it is called "OneGet." It is a Linux-like package manager to complement their Windows Store (app store) which isn't going away.
Brew integration would be nice. There used to be a couple of non-Apple app stores, but most of them were killed off when the actual App Store came along.
https://www.cakebrew.com is an open source GUI that makes homebrew easy to navigate. Though homebrew has no flashy screenshots or customer-oriented product description so I don't think it's a contender as a Mac App Store replacement for your average user.
Sure but using macports implies a level of technical understanding to evaluate trustworthiness. Most end users don't have that, and so they could just as easily be convinced to trust the CNET App Store.
That's sometimes true, but it's nice to hear someone with status admit they're not an infallible paragon. There's value in that, especially for those lower on the pole who stew in their own minds with assumptions about how everyone else is x amount smarter and more competent, however true that may be.
OK, but what's the value in that statement–what does "discussed" mean for him? Looking at the 2009 list, there are plenty of books still circulating in discourse. Asterious Polyp and the Dan Chaon, Margaret Atwood and Jonathan Lethem novels are still quite talked about. Without context, I'm going to assume that is this just an acerbic, arms-crossed way to snub a popularly considered list.
> In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
Which is of course intriguing, since cat-v.org hosts frothing-at-the-mouth vitriol about topics like women in tech and gay marriage in the always trustworthy and well reasoned medium of reposted reddit and slashdot comments. And presumably I'm supposed to click over to the technical stuff with a straight face.