ntrz

> you can do "g" motion, but I cant seem to get my muscle memory to remember that. to me "down" should always use whats visible on the screen, not just dumbly move to the next line.

You could always add key mappings to your .vimrc file so it works this way.

Wouldn't the results of that online visual contrast test depend on your monitor's color calibration, etc? Or is it designed in some way that avoids that affecting the results? I'd hate to think my body was infested with mold when I'm actually just using a crappy 10-year-old monitor.

Edit: I see from the FAQs there's some kind of display calibration portion at the start of the test; should have read the website more carefully before asking!

Yeah, agreed that it seems unlikely to be a problem for most typefaces. I just think it's a bit misleading to suggest it's guaranteed to unburden the typeface of any and all 'intellectual property' protections ("In the US, you can literally go and vectorize any font in the world and do whatever you want with it").

This sounds like a typeface is not copyrightable but only because the mechanism for protection is different (patent system). So by doing what the GP suggests you wouldn't be violating copyright, but you may be in violation of the design patent on the typeface?

How does the man page's "size_t fread(void *ptr, size_t size, size_t nmemb, FILE *stream);" disagree with the GP's "fread(buf, size_of_item, number_of_items, file_ptr)"? Both seem to support that "fread(buf, N-1, 1, f);" is "telling it to read one item of size N-1".

Thanks for the explanation! That makes sense.

The previous paragraph says

> ...due to yet more historical situations (e.g. struct sockaddr, which has a fixed-size trailing array that is not supposed to actually be treated as fixed-size), GCC and Clang actually treat all trailing arrays as flexible arrays.

But I don't know, that doesn't seem to match the result I am getting with clang 13.1.6. It does seem to respect the array size declared in the struct, not treat it as a flexible array. I get -Warray-bounds warnings if I try to access anything past o->variable[3]. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what they're saying or my example is screwed up.

Edit: Actually, I guess it does end up treating it like a flexible array -- it produces -Warray-bounds warnings when compiling, but the resulting binary works (and doesn't trigger asan). Not sure I entirely understand it though.

Don't you need to have an "GitHub-approved" fork (i.e. use the GitHub fork button) if you want to create pull requests on the upstream project in GitHub? Or is there a way to do that from the kind of repo you're describing?

Heh, repeatedly toggling some of the switches too rapidly on there causes some interesting growth. My "EXAM" switch ended up dangling down past much of the documentation.

As far as learning what it looks like, there are photos on the site too (under "The Artifact").

The incorporation of Facebook is a bit silly but it's a student project, I guess the point was really for the students to consider the sort of unusual constraints and considerations that are required for such a long-term design. Seems unlikely anyone involved really expected to be updating that Facebook page for the next thousand years.

> Also, continued public interest is probably one of the reasons that research grant money continues to be available to study something that was found 15 years ago.

Unfortunately for Dr. Holley, it doesn't seem to have been working out that way in this case (from his page linked above):

> ...state politics in previous years have meant that we have only been able to obtain limited funding for research and as a result little progress has been made.

> Our corporate firewall used to block any website or payload that contained the word "hack".

How else are you going to stop employees from downloading and playing NetHack at work?