Aethylia

I haven't tried that yet but I'll give both a try, thank you. I'm not giving up on it yet. Good to know they're responsive, I might look at fixing it myself.

Yes that's correct, but I think it appears everytime with a refresh.

Completely agreed on avoid Tampermonkey, but Violentmonkey fails to detect the page on one of my scripts very often. If I refresh it works. This is a match with no wildcards and just a simple path after the URL.

Perhaps a simple bug, but doesn't give me much faith in the project.

The same often goes for security without the .txt too.

Congratulations! Really good to hear, and definitely a nudge to me to let people know when their blog was useful.

I'm not sure this is true. In my experience a lot of people actually do think that it's case sensitive. Many times I've heard someone describe the capitals while verbally telling someone their addresss.

However it being insensitive has probably helped a lot of times where people make mistakes in explaining or copying those capitals.

By maps to, they mean it counts as the same email address. 111@ and lll@ do not do that. The font has no impact on the email spec. However it can add extra confusion.

This doesn't really make any sense. It's not just gmail that does this, dots are almost always ignored before the @.

Nobody else can register an email that is the same as yours but without a dot. So the only way you receive someone else's email is if they give the wrong address.

It is true and it's not just gmail, dots before the @ are ignored.

I think it looks beautiful, but have to echo the comments about not having the home, end, pgup, pgdown + numpad keys making it impractical. Would 100% get this if it had a full sized version.

You could change the option of where to save downloads. Instead of automatically putting them in the downloads folder, if you change it to ask every time, then you will get the file browser prompt before the download starts.

I feel like once I noticed usenix is an anagram of unisex, I can't stop reading it that way.

Did we read the same article? They aren't claiming those things at all. Those are the claims of the original study, which are being disputed by this attempt at reproduction. The writers suspect those claims to be false due to the choice of the original study to not remove likely intentionally non-random data.

I believe the 13% stat you saw is that your score had a higher random score than than 13% of other participants, so not very random.

Applets work well on firefox desktop for me.