drvortex
In my opinion, the needs of STEM researchers are very different from those of the humanities. STEM researcher tend to use citations to substantiate pre-existing information, almost never have footnotes, and typically have schematics/flowcharts/graphs in their documents.
A good editor should be able to cross-reference citations, figures, handle SVG smoothly and definitely have Mermaid/MathJax support.
I used Obsidian for 2 years. But I ditched it because it was local only. And it’s sync capabilities (without storage) cost more than an entire office site + cloud storage subscription package. Ridiculou that they expect 8 Euro per month just to sync (not even store) my data.
I now use UpNote. Which has cloud sync, works cross platform and has a one time purchase option that is less than 50 bucks
It is not directly using your code any more than programmers are using print statements. A book can be copyrighted, the vocabulary of language cannot. A particular program can be copyrighted, but snippets of it cannot, especially when they are used in a different context.
And that is why this lawsuit is dead on arrival.
Firefox and Chrome both already sync bookmarks, why are you not just letting the browser sync it?
The elephant in the room is, did the gene editing work? If yes, are those babies protected from HIV?
If yes...the world is not the same anymore.
No sympathy here. Also, clickbait headline.
Please e careful with your mirror. You are now susceptible to the same lawsuit as the original Project Gutenberg. I am not sure where you are in the world, but Germany has legal assistance treaties with the US/UK/Scandanavia, all EEC and Schengen countries.
https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/108th-congress/27/d... https://www.mlat.info/mlat-index
The problem with IE was that it was a shitty bloated browser. And to be honest, nothing shook its dominance before Chrome. Not even Firefox.
That is a dominating position making it the de facto standard, even if not absolute.
Mozilla has a very unique problem. It's most ardent and loyal users are technically savvy. They expect a high quality, privacy-respecting, ad-free product.
But, here's the catch, they will not pay for it. How does Mozilla survive?
Google finances Chrome through its Search/Ad business. Safari and IE costs are bundled in the cost of the devices/OS they are on.
How should Mozilla survive? Should they go the shareware route and have a paid copy for 20$ ?
They have to make money somehow.
By virture of sheer popularity, Chrome is the de facto standard. And if they have provided anything that becomes useful or popular, then by virtue of popularity of that feature in what is already the post popular browser, makes that feature part of the de facto standard.
The post is just pedantic whining about how something isn't according to the written word in some document written some years ago by a bunch of people that the average user of the standard does not even know.
I understand the value of standardization. Everything should be standardized. But what the standard should be is completely another question. I would say that all enhancements/popular features should be standard. At least that way, we'll have more people happier, rather than follow the least common denominator approach where there is a compromise that leaves no one happy.
Take a cue from Onenote/Evernote/Keep. A notes application MUST run even in shady/non existent internet connection.
Is multi-process here already?
Is there any scenario where an email client would be necessary - i.e. a browser based solution will not work?
But a compiler has come to mean a program that translates source-code into machine code.
By this new understanding, a transpiler is a combination of a compiler and a decompiler with different input and output languages.
So po-tay-toes, po-taa-toes. No one cares, we know what is meant by transpiler.