In the "inverted pyramid" the most important information (which should come first) is represented by the base, which is the biggest part of the pyramid and holds up the rest of the pyramid. In a sense, it is the foundation, so you have to "get it right".
The analogy is "base = big = foundational = important"
Personally I think that's confusing, because you just as easily say the tip of the pyramid should represent the most important information, which should be conveyed concisely and without extraneous detail or background.
In that case the analogy would be, "tip = concise = main point = important"
That is confusing. In my mind, the tip of the pyramid is the smallest part of the pyramid, just like the brief overview at the beginning of the post is the smallest part. The base of the pyramid is the biggest part of they pyramid, so that is the bulk of the post where it goes into detail.
The "inverted pyramid" first described a visual pyramid, not a conceptual pyramid. I found an 1887 article in Time magazine on journalism, describing the inverted pyramid structure.
Specifically, the top of a newspaper article (the display, summarizing the article) consisted of not just the title, but multiple lines of different sizes. First, the title in large capitals. Next, a line of small capitals. Finally, three, four, or more rows of smaller type arranged in the form of an inverted pyramid.
That is, the lines in the heading got progressively shorter, making a visual inverted pyramid, with the most important information first.
Later, the "inverted pyramid" term described the structure of the entire article with the most important parts first, but the metaphor does seem backward.
It's funny because from that diagram I really don't see any particular relationship between the shape and its content. You could draw a regular pyramid with three segments and write the same labels on it and it would make just as much sense to me.
If anything a regular pyramid makes more sense to me: you want the smallest/narrowest useful description at the top and then you gradually expand on it as you go down, providing more (wider) context and detail for the key information.
Edit: Of course, it's a widely used term and good to understand in that context; the Wikipedia link is useful.
I think it's about laying foundations at the beginning, not the length of the text at the beginning. The first sentence/paragraph is the foundation of everything beneath it, whereas the base of a normal pyramid is the foundation of everything above it.
And you could also run your own archive bot (x86 only). I've got one running in a docker container, it downloads a webpage and auto-uploads it to archive.org
archiveteam:
image: atdr.meo.ws/archiveteam/warrior-dockerfile
ports:
- '8101:8001'
mem_limit: 4G
cpus: 3
dns:
- 9.9.9.10
- 8.8.8.8
labels:
- com.centurylinklabs.watchtower.enable=true
container_name: archiveteam-warrior
environment:
- DOWNLOADER=asdf # Change this to your nickname
- SELECTED_PROJECT=auto # Change this to your project of preference or let the archiveteam decide with 'auto'
- CONCURRENT_ITEMS=6 # Change this to the amount of concurrent download threads you can handle
watchtower:
command: '--label-enable --include-restarting --cleanup --interval 3600'
cpu_shares: 128
mem_limit: 1G
cpus: 1
image: containrrr/watchtower
volumes:
- '/var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock'
container_name: watchtower
After 10.7 (and certainly post-Metal) I don't think the framebuffer is accessible via userspace, you'd probably need to create a kernel extension to expose it somehow.
Although windowserver must write to the framebuffer somehow so there's probably a private API as well
> Nobody ever wants to be in the middle of a line, then move down to the next line and continue writing in the next column from where you left off. No real-world program ever wants to do that.
Replacing LF behavior with NL behavior in terminal raw mode is a non-starter, decades worth of software will break. The enter/return key only sends CR anyway, software has to decide what to do with that: sometimes the answer is emit CRLF, often there are program-defined margins so the CR gets translated to direct cursor movements.
I'm pretty sure drh is making a case only against the use of CRLF in protocols, not trying to redesign terminal in the process. If you're emulating a machine which understands LF then you're kinda stuck with line feed semantics, for better and for worse.
That doesn’t matter. The claim being made by the grandparent post is that the legal system isn’t well-equipped to deal with scenarios like, “yes the digital signature is valid but it was improperly authorized.”
The legal system also isn't well equipped to deal with the conceptually roughly equal case of someone stealing your car and running people over with it, but it deals with it anyway.
