The microblog: 2020.12.06 18:27:51

2020.12.06 18:27:51 (1335637087006072834) from Daniel J. Bernstein, replying to "Ric “el pony esponjoso” (@fluffypony)" (1335634039118688258):

Or maybe they had no idea how to auto-number within the format of that document (non-indented numbered paragraphs), or how to auto-number anything. I didn't ask. Anyway, I'm missing how these assessments of intern competence are supposed to be disputing something in my blog post.


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.)

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 18:15:44 (1335634039118688258) from "Ric “el pony esponjoso” (@fluffypony)":

Yes but that’s because they purposely disabled Word’s autonumbering (which you can do with some difficulty). In other words, the fault was their own, not a deficiency in the software they were using.