The microblog: 2020.12.06 18:14:22

2020.12.06 18:14:22 (1335633694158061568) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Brian Smith (@BRIAN_____)" (1335629491377299459):

Not sure what you're claiming is wrong in the intro. The interns were handling a list renumbering in exactly the horrifying way that the intro reports.


2020.12.06 17:12:44 (1335618184083173376) from Daniel J. Bernstein:

New blog post "Optimizing for the wrong metric, part 1: Microsoft Word": This is a review of "An Efficiency Comparison of Document Preparation Systems Used in Academic Research and Development" by Knauff and Nejasmic. #latex #word #efficiency #metrics

2020.12.06 17:21:58 (1335620508776357890) from "Ric “el pony esponjoso” (@fluffypony)":

Good read, but I think the numbered lists in Word example is bad. Word has automagically handled those for over two decades, you have to work really hard to break its handling of them. It also lets you trivially shift between numbering & bullets. This is Word on a phone, for eg.

2020.12.06 17:57:40 (1335629491377299459) from "Brian Smith (@BRIAN_____)", replying to "Ric “el pony esponjoso” (@fluffypony)" (1335620508776357890):

I agree. Anybody using MS Word knows the list part of the intro is wrong. That distracted me a lot when reading the rest. Outside of math, I bet Word’s collaborative review tools increase final paper quality drastically. (I have proofread and reviewed many using this feature.)