> In essence give a sub-3% user base a disproportionate amount of attention.
Some comments in this thread are arguing that many less economically developed countries provide poorer connectivity and lesser bandwidth than elsewhere. Are the users in these countries truly "sub-3%" of the global user base? I honestly don't know.
Depends on the site, naturally, but it seems to me that devoting dev resources to serve users in less developed countries is a good thing. Wikipedia, for instance, renders essentially the same with or without Javascript. That helps to account for its vast international uptake, is my guess.
Emacs includes a built-in mode named Org. Org-mode offers both hierarchy and tags. Org does many things, but it's especially accomplished at notetaking.
Elisp authors have written package extensions (aka "plug-ins") for Org-mode that provide even more powerful and specialized note-taking. Among the most popular today are org-roam (built on the zettlekasten method) and denote.el.
I used org-mode for a while, but I just don't like emacs to be honest. Especially on Windows (which I'm forced to use at work)... my experience it the plugins are just not written with Windows in mind, doing stuff like hard-coding link logic with unix syntax.
Also, at least for my use case which is to find random notes I took about stuff 2 years before and that's hidden God knows wheres, I find the way Zim does it to be superior because it allows fuzzy searching on a note basis.
For example: you can't remember how to kill and recreate a new default-vm to fix docker-machine, you search "default vm", and it will find all the files that have both "default" and "vm" in them, even if they're not on the same line.
Thanks for recalling the earlier discussion. It includes testimonials to Emacs org-mode, and to the Zettelkasten package built atop org-mode, org-roam.
Org-mode can't be beat, IMO, if you live in Emacs all day long, as I do.
One thing I would really like for my notes is some sort of AI or fuzzy thesaurus-aware search, so I can enter a search phrase and get "similar" matches from all my local files, not just "exact" matches like you'd get from grep.
Preferring the active voice to the passive voice (to use the terms from formal grammar) whenever feasible is the universal recommendation of writing instruction in English, e.g. by everyone from Strunk & White to the Random House Handbook to George Orwell.
As noted by others in this thread, the active voice puts the focus on the actor, i.e. the grammatical subject. This lends the construction vigor. The passive voice, which puts the focus on the grammatical object, is weak and even dull by comparison.
As well, by diminishing the actor, the passive voice can serve to evade responsibility and accountability: "The campaign finance rules were violated by the senators." rather than the more pointed "The senators violated the campaign finance rules." This convenient effect explains the prevalence of the passive voice in bureaucratic prose, which was Orwell's particular bête noire.
The active voice is also less "wordy," which improves the vigor of the style. In the example I just gave, the word count is 9 versus 7. I achieved the lower count by removing an auxiliary verb ("were") and a preposition ("by").
Now, I could have written the previous sentence like this: "The lower count was achieved by removing an auxiliary verb . . ." etc. Here the passive voice is probably preferred, because the actor, "I", is not of significance, and may even distract.
The passive voice does have its uses, hence the caveat "whenever feasible" in the first sentence above.
No: music ushered in the Romantic age, earlier than Goethe and Schiller in literature.
The musical style, a decisive break from the High Baroque, was initially called "Sturm und Drang." It appeared in the work of Gluck and Haydn in the 1760s.
By the first decade of the 19th century, Goethe and Schiller had retreated from Romanticism. In the same decade, middle-period Beethoven had already made Romanticism immortal.
Immortal is not an exaggeration. To this day, orchestral film music remains utterly derivative of late Romantic composers like Richard Strauss.
The most famous example of musical Romanticism's enduring dominion is probably the opening of Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey." Everybody knows the fanfare and the ecstatic harmonic progression that follows in full tutti; few know it was written by Strauss in 1894.
The rip-offs of Academy Award winner John Williams would be impossible without the much better music of the 19th century.
Corresponding data point: in 1822, Beethoven chose Schiller's "Ode to Joy" (1785) to provide the lyrics for the final movement of the 9th Symphony.
I believe it's unfair to call Williams' music a rip-off; film music, as enjoyable as it can be, has a commercial purpose and is created to stand behind the action and dialog of a film, not stand alone as music of the Romantic masters was. His score to Star Wars: A New Hope was a deliberate call-back to the music of Korngold, Steiner, Newman and others who defined film music in the 1930s and 1940s. Korngold was both a legitimate composer of late-Romantic music and a film composer.
I don't think it's wise to conflate Sturm und Drang with Romanticism, despite their similarities. They are also quite distinct in many respects.
And Beethoven is rightfully considered to be a transition point between the Classical and the Romantic style, you can hear the echos of Haydn (and even Bach) even in his late works.
I was careful to say "middle-period Beethoven." Beethoven's stylistic evolution over the course of his life truly astonishes. In his late period, e.g., the Grosse Fugue, one can hear Bartok being invented.
Indeed. My iPhone 6s (lovely big screen) has worked perfectly since 2015. I'm disappointed that IOS 16 won't be available for it, but I really can't complain after continuous, impeccable compatibility for almost eight years.
And, as the parent noted, my 6s is still getting security updates; current is 15.7.1. I'd swear Apple is sneaking in some UI polishing too.
Some comments in this thread are arguing that many less economically developed countries provide poorer connectivity and lesser bandwidth than elsewhere. Are the users in these countries truly "sub-3%" of the global user base? I honestly don't know.
Depends on the site, naturally, but it seems to me that devoting dev resources to serve users in less developed countries is a good thing. Wikipedia, for instance, renders essentially the same with or without Javascript. That helps to account for its vast international uptake, is my guess.