something98

I'm pointing out that everyone is comfortable with most files not being human-readable. And that it's a red herring to suggest that text is the longest-lived format. I'm sure my data could outlive text files if I "stored" it on granite blocks, but it's not very useful in that format. Same with plain text; it just isn't a very useful format.

I found this years ago: http://leoeditor.com/

Not universally true. But, regardless, most files are not text.

This argument always sounds superficial to me.

1) You can have corruption in files of any type. Text is no more robust to random bit flips. Pick a file format and there are often tools that can isolate the corruption to a small portion to recover everything else.

2) The solution to lock-in is not "let's make everything text", but "let's have open file formats". Many types of data, especially for project-management-like tools, aren't particularly well suited as plain text (or a markdown format). So many extra unnecessary parsing/regex steps have to be jumped through for the program to use it, and the sanitizing functions now have to be moved from code to the user's brain to not break things.

By all means, support open file formats and exporting functionality. But shoehorning -everything- into text sounds like some crazy mix of bikeshedding and worldbuilding. Why waste your time? Especially knowing MD will fall out of favor eventually, and a new format du jour will rise. What will you do then?

I'm slowly, after a few "painful" experiences on either end of the pendulum, coming to see the wisdom in that position.

Would you mind sharing how you, currently, find programming work at around 20hrs/wk?

This is true (and rarely mentioned); rodents don't get AD. But they can be genetically engineered to produce the proteins that researchers consider the hallmarks of AD. The fact that this is a circular definition never fails to frustrate me when discussing the misuse of animals for AD research. (and the fact that billions have been wasted on proving that this circular definition doesn't apply to humans is especially sad)

Define better. Eink, lightweight, and perfectly sized for books. What is missing?

I'll check it out. Thank you.

Having been making a go at several of the suggested applications, which all use MD, I’m also starting to like it less and less.

I find the side-by-side panes of some just a hilariously stupid waste of space. And the editors that at least do live “previews” feel so janky when editing; watching pound signs appear and disappear as you move off a line, or having text shift around as bold and italics markers come and go.

No, I don’t need all the formatting capabilities of a word processor. But there’s a reason why MD is often pretty-fied: it’s damn ugly and noisy as hell.

I get that people want a “pure” text format for longevity’s sake; but just demand a text export-in MD if you like. But working in MD is crazy making; it’s ugly, distracting, and worst of all, the “raw” form is nothing like documents and formatting we’re all used to, so even if you get used to it, all of the other documents in the world you interact with will still be using real bold, italics, and headers of increasing size.

Had to log in to correct a point made above. The paper does -not- say that the plaques are not removed over a 4 week period. The paper and supplement call out that at a 4-week follow up "there was no sign of residual tracer in brain tissue".

This! It’s been many years since I first started “adjusting” my processing circuits to understand all of the ways various English learners can mess up (and long ago started noticing similarities on what they consistently mess up, and their mother tongue). And don’t get me wrong, watching two or more people use broken English as their intermediary is always cool.

However, even the slightest mispronunciation in -their- tongue just hits a brick wall. I suspect it’s because so few have to deal with poor to intermediate speakers (excepting children) that their brains just can’t cope with imperfection.

I get so annoyed by authors that bury this point. Rodents are NOT tiny humans. Although there are some findings that carry over, there is much that does not.

I've got news for you. There never were any (well done) big studies that said the opposite. However, there were health authorities that repeated really bad "science" because it supported their preconceived notions.