I hope it keeps its blazing-fast startup. I regularly used Paint instead of Photoshop on a system where I had both because Paint starts instantly but Photoshop took a bit.
I use photopea quite a bit for this reason. It's faster to open this in a web browser than it is to boot photoshop. The 1/3rd sidebar ad it loads is... a lot, but I'm amazed that I prefer that to a 30s boot time.
I am surprised how photopea can be so feature complete and still run on an ad supported model. It doesn't have all the bells and whistles or Photoshop but covers 99% of the use cases without having to keep paying for a subscription. I pay for Adobe's photography bundle but primarily for Lightroom; for any other image editing I just go to photopea.
I was just reflecting on why I fire up Paint more often than GIMP, and this is the reason. Especially when all I want to do is paste an image, add a small annotation, and copy it back out, there’s no tool as fast.
It is basically why i have KolourPaint installed on Linux and ready on a launch button despite having a bunch of other 2D image editing apps: it starts (almost[0]) instantly and is perfectly fine for cropping images, adding annotations, etc and then pasting it to imgur, discord, or whatever. The only thing missing is having a tool to draw shapes like arrows (not something the Win9x era MS Paint, which is what KolourPaint replicates, had, but it would be a useful feature IMO).
[0] it takes somewhere between half to a second, there is a visible delay between double click and the window appearing but i can live with that. I'm not using KDE as my DE, it is possible it'd start instantly if i already had the KDE libs in memory.
Yes, except (unless I'm mistaken) the snipping tool can't add text and it can't draw boxes, which are two of the core use cases of screenshot annotation.
I am faculty at University of Toronto. As part of the process of considering someone for tenure here, the university solicits six appraisals from relevant experts at other institutions. The candidate will not know who the referees are. Generally, the appraisals are positive; a negative appraisal may severely affect someone's tenure case.
I don't see the concern in this post as one of widespread caste discrimination at University of Toronto, but more that he's worried that a single prejudiced person might upset this, either an external referee, or someone internal involved in the decision-making process. In fact, that is exactly what he says.
Everyone carries some cultural/personal baggage, if that affects the outcome of some otherwise fair procedure it's a sad story but it's not the procedure's fault.
>the university solicits six appraisals from relevant experts at other institutions
If you think this could be improved, well, show us how.
It seems like you may be reading some things into my comment that I didn't write? I made no claims about the procedure being fair or unfair—I'm just describing what it is.
>Everyone carries some cultural/personal baggage, if that affects the outcome of some otherwise fair procedure it's a sad story but it's not the procedure's fault.
Python documentation is written by morons who don't understand well the subject they are discussing. Yes, it may be surprising, but it's very possible and happens all the time that a person can do something proficiently, but not know what or how they are doing.
Python documentation is full of nonsense, contradictions, bad definitions etc.
There's no such thing as "expression statement", it doesn't matter that they say so or write it in documentation. It's like saying "fraction integer" -- it has to be one or the other.
I like the four-document model. While it isn't a perfect fit for all cases, for many it is a good start.
We wrote a review of bioinformatics software documentation, which includes a taxonomy of research software documentation (Table 1) and examples of which popular bioinformatics software packages use each two (Table 2). It is clear that not every kind is needed for everything, and it's more of a menu than a prescriptive set of documentation types needed for everything:
The ruling very intentionally says "on foot", which limits it to people walking across. Leaves the door open for future debate/interpretation about vehicular traffic. You might be able to design an offroad vehicle that can "step" across the boundary but by my (non-lawyer) reading this isn't covered by that.
From reading the article, it appears that there was a fence (presumably intersecting sections of fence) that had to be overcome. Climbing the fences would be, nominally, stepping foot on those fenced properties. Using the ladder let them go over the corner boundary without actually having to step foot on the other two adjacent properties.
| Public
---+---
Public |
The fences belong to the private properties (if my understanding is correct) and the ladder lets them technically remain only, with regard to "setting foot", on the public properties.
I tried to Google about this, but I could not find anything. As one this page, there are no serious discussions about this matter. Can you share a reference?
I should have been more clear in my original post:
The precedent is that corner crossing is illegal and fences to enforce that are ok.
I meant to ask: Are fences around your lot of land legal? I would think, yes, to protected livestock against predators. However, it would be trivial to add a small space at the corner for people to do "corner crossing" between checkerboard public lands.
Next, the PDF is a great share. I am feasting on it now! Page 7 reads:
Other than these chained-together signs, there were no posts, fending, or building within one-quarter of a more of the corner.
What a laugh! Thank goodness this kind of behaviour is being overruled!
Another good part (pg7 again):
[T]here is no evidence the Defendants caused any damage to the Plaintiff's property.
On page 9, the photo of A-frame ladder in action is brilliant! The guy looks so hardcore in 100% camo. This is the like the ultimate HN "legal hack". If you position the ladder just right, all four legs will be in public lands.
Regarding you first point - fences around your land are perfectly fine (barring some other law, like an environmental protection law, zoning, whatever).
But it is illegal to block access to federal public lands. So you’d need to have some way through. Doesn’t have to be on the corner, it could be an easement or whatever somewhere else, but access can’t be blocked.
They intentionally did it to block people though, and try to defacto claim the public land as theirs - which is illegal.
Judges make the law in this country due to our common law system. The law from 1885 may say that fencing off legally accessible land is illegal, but according to the land owner the supreme court said corner crossing is illegal so the fence in this situation would not count, because it wasn't blocking legal access. The question that matters here is whether corner crossing is allowed, the fence question follows.
It absolutely is not. Corner crossing was literally illegal right up until this decision came out. Using fences to enforce that was absolutely allowed since the public land was technically not accessible. This is far from the first case about corner crossing, hopefully it will be the last.
Yeah no, this is what I called out in another thread. Corner crossing is legal, because making it so they can’t corner cross (or otherwise access the land) is illegal - The Inclosures Act of 1885. But the locals want to pretend the federal law doesn’t exist, because it lets them defacto capture this public federal land.
Still doesn’t make what the hunters did illegal, or what the rancher did legal. But it’s why it got to this point.
The Inclosures act had never been taken to court in relation to corner crossing before this case. Wyoming had a long history of corner crossing being illegal. That may have been contrary to the inclosures act, but as I said, we have a common law system. Until a judge says the current interpretation is wrong that's the law. So sure, corner crossing may have been "legal" since 1885, but only if you had the resources and knowledge to bring a case to federal court so you can get the wyoming corner crossing law overturned. Until that happened it was not legal.
I mean this is the same as countless supreme court decisions. Was gay marriage legal prior to Obergefell? No, obviously not. The ruling was based on a law that has been in existence since the civil war, but until the judges interpreted that law it did not matter.
Federal law overrides state law. It’s Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the constitution, if you want to double check.
Where federal law says it is illegal to block access to public lands, it is illegal to block access to public lands. Even more so when we’re talking federally owned public land.
There is no law (or judicial interpretation) that Wyoming can pass that is constitutional to change that.
Here is a cite, which you haven’t provided any supporting you case, clearly stating as such, regarding the Inclosures act and someone playing similar games - around 1893. That instance was in Colorado, but was sustained by the Supreme Court and applied nationally.
If you have an actual cite to an actual applicable case, please do post it. The earlier link literally agrees with me, as the judge cited the Inclosures Act when dismissing the claims that corner crossing was illegal.
They are supposed to pay the rancher a trespass fee to be allowed access to the public land through their property or hire a guide that has a commercial agreement with rancher that includes access to the public lands.
Or, they could just... ask. Never a guarantee, but still an option until this issue can be more clearly defined from a legal standpoint.
>“Last year, a couple of dads from Missoula and their sons showed up and asked me if they could hunt here. I told them to give me 15 minutes and I’d take them out with me. We got some really nice mule deer bucks for their sons, and they helped me work cattle the next day. We got some antelope for the dads the day after. So we had fun. One of them even bought beef from me this year.”
Here, "GB" stands for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", not "Great Britain".
> The codes are chosen, according to the ISO 3166/MA, "to reflect the significant, unique component of the country name in order to allow a visual association between country name and country code".[5] For this reason, common components of country names like "Republic", "Kingdom", "United", "Federal" or "Democratic" are normally not used for deriving the code elements. As a consequence, for example, the United Kingdom is officially assigned the alpha-2 code GB rather than UK, based on its official name "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (although UK is reserved on the request of the United Kingdom). Some codes are chosen based on the native names of the countries. For example, Germany is assigned the alpha-2 code DE, based on its native name "Deutschland".
