The funny part is that upon reading your question, I figured surely the Wikipedia page would have that information. Then I saw that it said in the first few words:
Xbox (stylized as XBOX)[[2]](https://www.theverge.com/news/931918/microsoft-xbox-rebrand-caps)
…which links back to the same article. Which is how I found out that the article answers your question. 🙃
The use of all caps for Xbox is a return to original form, though. Microsoft’s first Xbox logo for its console was all caps, and the company has favored using similar capped versions for the Xbox 360, Xbox One, and Xbox Series X / S console logos.
It’s a reference to another Microsoft classic: https://www.windowscentral.com/software-apps/microsoft-caught-plagiarizing-graphics-with-ai-slop-microsoft-continvoucly-morged-my-diagram-there-for-sure
Apparently, that’s American English. And for whatever reason, it’s the British that are less hoity toity about it:
Yeah, differentiating between multiplications vs. divisions and additions vs. subtractions doesn’t make sense, because they’re the same thing respectively, just written differently.
When you divide by 3, you can also multiply by ⅓.
When you subtract 7, you can also add -7.
There is one quirk to be aware of, though. When people notate a division with a long horizontal line, that implies parentheses around both of the expressions, top and bottom.
It certainly does!
…but, uh, well, it’s a widely-spaced monospace font in this case. That’s the one situation where kerning actually cannot matter.
Which seems intentional. I believe, the cartoonist is being more clever here and referencing a common ligature, specifically the first of these two:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligature_(writing)
Presumably the two letters got written together so often in this futuristic universe, that “fi” has actually become its own letter. Like how in German the “ß” came to be from a ligature of a long S (ſ) and a Z (which was written as ʒ), so together “ſʒ”.
Maybe someone who’s deep into Simpsons lore can confirm that theory. 😅
Having a third arm, so you can continue typing and also facepalm at the same time does seem quite good.
It’s a mockup I found on image search (from searching “neobrutalism GUI” or the like): https://www.magnific.com/premium-vector/hand-drawn-neo-brutalism-ui-elements-collection_186004756.htm
And yeah, that theme you linked is already pretty cool. Not terribly enamored with the retro aesthetic personally (especially with bad contrast like here), but if that can be done with KDE/Kvantum, then an actual neobrutalist theme, or just one with the papercuts fixed, is likely just as possible…
Well, this kind of design language is actually referred to as “neobrutalism”, so you might find a theme under this name. But from what I’ve seen so far, it’s mostly a thing in web design at this point…
I also always find the minimalism vs. maximalism debate interesting for usability. Lots of minimal designs are so flat that you can’t tell a button from a label or icon.
At the same time, iOS’ new Frutiger theme regularly confuses me with its transparency, e.g. yesterday I saw that the silent-mode notification had a ➋ inside. It was centered and everything. Then the notification went away, but the ➋ stayed, because it was from an app icon behind.
I wish, we could throw out the bad eye candy, like transparency, while keeping the good parts, like 3D buttons and such. I feel like this kind of neo-brutalist UI design isn’t the worst direction to go in:
(This particular example isn’t perfect, like the buttons are flat, while there’s useless shadows around the boxes. But yeah, could just move those shadows to the buttons and it would still look fine.)
Apply as much force as you can. Realize the door is now moving quite fast and about to crash into something on the other side. Leap for the door handle. Body-check the lady into another dimension. You’re alone now, so walk through the door like nothing happened.
I mean, kind of has to be the reason for the top image. When the door opens into the room, you’re really not helping by opening the door and then not just following through into the room.
That’s so awkward to push down the handle and then step back to let the other person go first, especially since it’s actually slower for the other person than just letting them operate the handle themselves.
Oh man, of course that’s a thing now. Can’t copyright that shit, but you can watermark your territory and hope that no one bothers to distribute the non-copyrightable non-watermarked version that you’re selling.
It has a watermark, so presumably a stock photo…
Hmm, for whatever reason, I’m on 2.31.4, so that might be the difference.
That version was tagged two weeks ago, because they apparently still release patch versions for rather old minor versions of nix. So, apparently I am getting updates, but I’m on some older release channel or something. No idea why.
I have to head to work now, so will have to debug in the evening or the weekend. Thanks for the clue, though.
Yeah, my mum is like that. She’ll readily tell you that you can put dandelion into salad, but also considers it a weed.
She’s also always very concerned what the neighbors think of our lawn (not that she ever asked), and one time she told me we had to mow the lawn, because dandelions are growing on there. When I told her that dandelions are flowers and that I think flowers look better than bland green, you could really see that she never even thought about it this way.
I don’t think, we are doing different things. I create a new file, put {} inside, then add it into the imports = [...];. It gives me that error.
Then I git add ., run again and don’t get the error anymore.
Is the error you pasted now from some manual assertion you did?
Hmm, that sounds exactly like my setup. Weird.
I did have the file created, with {} inside (empty Nix expression). If I git add it, it works as well:
And yeah, I understand that it’s supposed to be a stacktrace, but other error messages look similarly horrendous and I can often only try to guess what’s wrong by reading the stacktrace top-to-bottom, so I’ve somewhat gotten used to doing that.
But good to know that these terrible error messages might be a problem with my system. Thanks!
Yeah, I do kind of hate the word “train” for that reason. It just makes it sound like the animal is braindead and all the effort was on the trainer’s side.
In reality, it’s much more of a communication problem. You need to explain to the animal without using speech that you will reward it for a specific action. And then you need to explain that you will do this repeatedly and not just today either. Well, and the animal has to actually want whatever reward you’re giving it, too.
So much training advice seems to just boil down to communicating clearly and not breaking the contract of “do the thing → get reward”…