@publicvoit I forgot to reply within the context of my original post:
While I prefer Org mode's markup, I still think that Markdown's is more clear as plain text for casual readers when it comes to references, for a couple of reasons:
- Links are of the form [[link][desc]] in Org mode---the link comes _before_ the text. When reading text, one expects a citation to come after the text. So [foo][5] in Markdown is more natural. - Using numeric references for links isn't supported by default. Named links are (which is preferable when I use it for organization, but not necessarily as plain text), but you need a '#+LINK' line. Org mode looks great if you're viewing it in Emacs or viewing HTML output, but viewing it as plain text is a bit more ugly.
Admittedly, any time I see plain text Org mode, it's within Emacs and so is beautified. For example, even if I get an email with an Org mode fragment, Gnus formats it using org-mode.
Of course, Org mode shines at so many other things when compared to Markdown.
@publicvoit Yes, I much prefer Org mode to Markdown. I use Org mode daily for time management, notes, and other things; and have used it for some projects as well (like the slides for my last two LibrePlanet talks).
I'm in the process of rewriting my personal site, and was going to convert my Markdown posts to Org mode using Pandoc, and use Org mode from that point forward. But I haven't yet compared Pandoc's Org mode -> HTML ouput to Emacs', so I can't say if I'll be sticking with Pandoc or invoking Emacs.
Not having researched this in any detail, this makes me rather uncomfortable. Not only are there concerns from a security perspective, but also a software freedom perspective---can all of this be done using only free software? Are users free to implement their own software to interface with these government services? I hope so, otherwise it's not the democratic tool that Estonia believes it to be. The article mentions X-Road, and the Wikipedia article on X-Road states that it releases source code for its software under an MIT Expat license. This would be acceptable it that's the case for all government software mentioned in the linked article.
If anyone else _has_ researched this, I'd be interested to hear thoughts on it.
@dredmorbius That may be, but having to run a script to clean up Markdown partly defeats the purpose of using Markdown to begin with. It also introduces a different type of problem: having people who may be non-technical writers run such a script. They may be writing the Markdown on the web, on their desktop, on a mobile device, or in any number of environments.
My suggestion was just editorial advice that anyone can apply regardless of technical know-how.
Many people use Markdown not just because the formatting is convenient to write, but also because it is itself human-readable. Consequently, it's also used as a plain text alternative to e.g. HTML-rendered text. I read a lot of things in plain text, so I see plain Markdown frequently.
One of the worst things you can do for legibility is to place URLs inline---it obscures the text, especially if there's a lot of them. Instead, use a reference (ideally numeric), of the form "[foo][n]".
Then, rather than placing all URLs at the bottom of the document, please them below the paragraph that references them. Not only does this reduce scrolling, but it also allows easily copying/pasting portions of the text while keeping the references intact, which is especially convenient for quoting.
Posting archive.org link because Reuters appears to have taken the article down. I don't know if that implies that they retracted their story, but the in principle, it's the concept that's important: your #Alexa data lay with #Amazon and they can---either willfully or accidentally---mishandle it. And if the article is to be believed and this sounds like a configuration error, that also implies that employees could just grant themselves access to your data too.
@lxoliva > I'm very disturbed to see that interaction misleadingly presented as a deviation from the safe space policy
Yes, I agree. But I also think that could be cleared up fairly easily with a proper reply from the FSF.
For the record: I wasn't involved in the letter nor do I know anything about it aside from the link @cwebber posted. So I could be missing some important context. I just made the unfortunate decision of jumping into a heated topic. :) I'd just like to see something as simple as this be resolved without things being left to simmer. Frankly, it's somewhat upsetting that this letter didn't receive an immediate, affirmative reply. We don't need distractions like these when we should be able to focus on what unites us.
I'm sure other things have compounded the frustration as well (e.g. recent discussions within GNU).
@lxoliva I'm honestly not sure what the formal written rules are. But that same year I was a volunteer that notified the speakers how much time was remaining and it was our job to make sure the talk ended on time. These rules (I assume) are what the volunteer for Marianne's talk was referring to. It's also made very clear to the speakers in writing, before you even submit the talk and in messages after the talk is accepted, that the 45m time slot includes questions.
Personally, if I were in that volunteer's shoes, knowing that it was rms, I would have let rms proceed without argument after letting him know that the time has elapsed. It was the last talk of the day, so there was nobody else speaking in the room after that talk (and rms explicitly stated that, showing that he was considering how his actions may affect others). But the volunteer was trying to do his job. rms could have chosen to talk to Marianne after the talk concluded, rather than going against the instructions the FSF staff gave to us and getting into an argument, which looks bad regardless of whether this was benign or not. And now we have people questioning rms' motives over what I think is actually a benign event, because of how he handled it, and because it fits a pattern of behavior from rms.
In the end, the volunteer went and got FSF staff and Georgia Young (IIRC) had to come in to tell everyone that the closing keynote and raffle were starting.
@bob, @cwebber: The link references Marianne Corvellec's talk, which I attended. It was an extremely awkward confrontation between rms and the volunteer that was trying to see that the talk adhere to its timebox. This is what prompted the frustrated rms to state that he didn't have to follow the rules---he wanted to continue his conversation.
I don't like when rms asserts himself in that manner---I think it looks bad and I wish that he would instead set an example by adhering to the rules---but I never looked at this and thought that he'd intentionally think to act in bad faith when it comes to something like a safe space policy, even though it is technically correct that he can do whatever he chooses. But there are consequences for that perspective (mainly, pushing people away).
With that said, I do understand the concern (it's easy to feel uncomfortable around rms, after all), and I support getting a response from the FSF. It's important for the community to stay on top of it---the community has power where the FSF may not.
I still haven't submitted mine yet. Remember that the FSF welcomes anyone to speak, even if you haven't done so before!
Mike Gerwitz (mikegerwitz@social.mikegerwitz.com)'s status on Friday, 05-Oct-2018 23:01:40 EDT
Mike GerwitzIt drives me crazy when sites block access via #Tor to read-only resources (like articles)---it doesn't make much sense to me. It's probably a quick decision by a team of people that don't really care or think about it, but it has strong effects that in the best case discourage use of an important privacy/anonymity tool, and in the worst case outright prevent certain users from accessing those resources (if Tor is their only option).
A common workaround I use is to prepend "https://web.archive.org/" to the URL to load it in the #WaybackMachine from the Internet Archive. Sometimes websites block even that.
The Internet Archive does great, important work, btw. Here's a recent article that emphasizes some of the major problems they're solving: