must of my procrastination is really just elaborate tangential work (i.e., perfectionism).
--
how does the chicago manual of style reference tables and figures? it abbreviates them within parentheses but otherwise does not abbreviate them. it does not capitalize them except at the beginning of sentences. equations have numbers in parentheses, all other item types simply use the arabic numeral.
Equation (1) might be true (fig. 1) but table 2 lists the cases.
the latex cleveref package doesn't quite accommodate this behavior.
compromise! use option noabbrev and just avoid abbreviations everywhere. it's a bit nicer anyway, if anything.
--
my opinion is that latex hyperref should use boxes to depict links (as opposed to the color of the text itself), so that the colors are not shown when printed.
ok but we need good colors for the boxes. ok hyperref doesn't use the dvips color names with the border colors. ok let's manually convert color codes and enter them. not too much work!
--
why repeat a legend in a single figure? in my opinion, it's best to just show a legend once in a figure.
ok, but the stata package gc1leg doesn't respect sizing or aspect ratio. ok, the package gc1leg2 does! not too much work!
--
how does the chicago manual of style capitalize these terms that i use frequently?
ok i read a lot on this but was never fully convinced.
compromise! just go with what seems to be the prevailing opinion and call it good. luckily this opinion is that the terms in question ought to be lowercase, which is preferred by default.
--
why is biblatex-chicago not showing a citation?
ok, it seems to be because i had just cited it last. ok, apparently there's a noibid option for the package which fixes it. noibid should be default, because cmos doesn't promote ibidem. not too much work! (after debugging and posting the question on stack exchange, anyway; during this process, learn that natbib is largely unnecessary, so remove its usage.)
--
hey, i have footnotes. we better ensure they're done however described by the fucking chicago manual of style.
ok symbols go <asterisk, dagger, ...>. both symbols and arabic numerals should be superscript in the text. however, they both should not be superscript in the actual note. further, only the numeral should be followed by a period.
compromise! i could not get this working within thirty minutes, so they will stay all superscript with without a period after the arabic numeral in the notes.
--
why did my internet connection drop?
is it the wifi access point? is it the switch? my router seems to be working flawlessly. my router has a built-in wifi card that supports hostap, so let's enable it. we better bridge it with the ethernet because i don't want a bunch of unnecessary subnets. ok why are dhcp leases now only being offered on one of the bridged interfaces? ugh someone reports this problem from 8 years ago.
compromise! now i have a bunch of stupid subnets. the external access point is now connected directly to the router on one of its ethernet interfaces, and a switch is connected to the router on a separate interface. now i hope to catch the access point being a shithead.
(this one took a lot of time)
--
is this just me?
--
how does the chicago manual of style reference tables and figures? it abbreviates them within parentheses but otherwise does not abbreviate them. it does not capitalize them except at the beginning of sentences. equations have numbers in parentheses, all other item types simply use the arabic numeral.
Equation (1) might be true (fig. 1) but table 2 lists the cases.
the latex cleveref package doesn't quite accommodate this behavior.
compromise! use option noabbrev and just avoid abbreviations everywhere. it's a bit nicer anyway, if anything.
--
my opinion is that latex hyperref should use boxes to depict links (as opposed to the color of the text itself), so that the colors are not shown when printed.
ok but we need good colors for the boxes. ok hyperref doesn't use the dvips color names with the border colors. ok let's manually convert color codes and enter them. not too much work!
--
why repeat a legend in a single figure? in my opinion, it's best to just show a legend once in a figure.
ok, but the stata package gc1leg doesn't respect sizing or aspect ratio. ok, the package gc1leg2 does! not too much work!
--
how does the chicago manual of style capitalize these terms that i use frequently?
ok i read a lot on this but was never fully convinced.
compromise! just go with what seems to be the prevailing opinion and call it good. luckily this opinion is that the terms in question ought to be lowercase, which is preferred by default.
--
why is biblatex-chicago not showing a citation?
ok, it seems to be because i had just cited it last. ok, apparently there's a noibid option for the package which fixes it. noibid should be default, because cmos doesn't promote ibidem. not too much work! (after debugging and posting the question on stack exchange, anyway; during this process, learn that natbib is largely unnecessary, so remove its usage.)
--
hey, i have footnotes. we better ensure they're done however described by the fucking chicago manual of style.
ok symbols go <asterisk, dagger, ...>. both symbols and arabic numerals should be superscript in the text. however, they both should not be superscript in the actual note. further, only the numeral should be followed by a period.
compromise! i could not get this working within thirty minutes, so they will stay all superscript with without a period after the arabic numeral in the notes.
--
why did my internet connection drop?
is it the wifi access point? is it the switch? my router seems to be working flawlessly. my router has a built-in wifi card that supports hostap, so let's enable it. we better bridge it with the ethernet because i don't want a bunch of unnecessary subnets. ok why are dhcp leases now only being offered on one of the bridged interfaces? ugh someone reports this problem from 8 years ago.
compromise! now i have a bunch of stupid subnets. the external access point is now connected directly to the router on one of its ethernet interfaces, and a switch is connected to the router on a separate interface. now i hope to catch the access point being a shithead.
(this one took a lot of time)
--
is this just me?
i also tend to fall in love with problems
i'm not in love with my problems
or is this just a difference of nomenclature?
how are you doing?
or is this just a difference of nomenclature?
how are you doing?
bluet: fall in love with solutions, please
<3
<3
i think what i fall in love with is the process of solving the problem, so much that i don't want to complete the solution, since that would be the end of what i liked. i fear losing purpose