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.
'white-space: pre' is what I learned there. Never knew such a thing could be possible. This means no need to do a 'nl2br' on the content if it contains no HTML, this is a common scenario, I am going to see if 'white-space: pre' just makes everything magically look okay.
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.
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 honestly don't understand this cynicism. Facebook does not want your deleted video, and they certainly don't want to keep it given the current media frenzy, with the CEO under fire.
Every application of any complexity has features which inactivate, but don't delete data. At Facebook scale, deleting data is non-trivial, and it would be impossible to immediately delete something.
We all have bugs, including extremely critical security bugs, availability-threatening performance bugs, or many other types of bugs. It's strange that we accept those bugs as merely bugs, without assuming a backdoor, or intentional sabotage, but when it comes to personal data, suddenly it's a nefarious plot.
It's an odd position to take that Facebook is not only saving these deleted videos intentionally (for what, exactly?) but that they'll now lie to us and pretend to delete them, but only remove it from their Download Information tool.
At Facebook-scale the data is massive -- far bigger than anyone here could possibly comprehend and that includes the Facebook and Google-ers lurking around.
Data has incredible inertia. And when there's a lot of it, in a lot of different places, I can imagine that it becomes very difficult to keep track of.
I'm glad that Facebook's data export tool included some things that maybe it didn't expect to.
>I can imagine that it becomes very difficult to keep track of.
The GDPR prompted them to make the data resurface, so it's not impossible to track this data given a few months of warning. It's just that Facebook as a company does not have an interest in deleting data they collected.
Can't understand why you're downvoted. If you can't handle the data you collect, maybe you should collect that data in the first place? Or invest in technology, hire more engineers to handle the data you collected?
You're right that it's not due to the GDPR, but existing EU law already required them to provide all user info on request. See Max Schrems' work, specifically his 2011 complaints to the Irish Data Protection Commissioner, and the subsequent Europe v. Facebook case.
Oh, most certainly they do want that video. Their business is knowing who we are and what drives us, so they can target those ads better. That's what makes their shareholders money.
That the people working there are human beings who might consider it immoral to keep deleted material, is what most people rely on when using such services... but being kind is not Facebook's goal.
It's upsetting that the bug exists in the first place, but there's nothing unsettling about this response. Have you ever reported a bug to an Internet company before? What do you expect them to say?
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.
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.
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?
There's a lot in what you say. Not crazy at all. They only looked awful for about 10 seconds hehe. But sure, using them to help show the meaning is a good idea. I've recently learnt to write a = b*c + d, spacing assisting clarity. Carry on, I support you in your chosen mission.
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.
If by "pure TeX" you mean Plain TeX, I use it, as well as LaTeX (I know I'm far from alone here). i agree that ConTeXt is a great project, with many advantages over LaTeX.
