DiogenesKynikos (u/DiogenesKynikos)

DiogenesKynikos commented on Canada's Carney called out for 'utilizing' British spelling bbc.com/news/articles/cj6... · Posted by u/haunter

DiogenesKynikos · 2 hours ago

> In an open letter, they asked Carney to stick to Canadian English, writing that it is "a matter of our national history, identity and pride".

A bit touchy, aren't we?

There are much better things to be proud about than using "z" instead of "s" in a few words.

DiogenesKynikos commented on A brief history of Times New Roman typographyforlawyers.com/... · Posted by u/tosh

CivBase · 4 hours ago

The author provides a single critisism ("The italic is mediocre"), does not elaborate, then immediately hedges their critique.

Helvetica is used as an example of a font which garners more "affection" in contrast to TNR, but is never praised by the author or recommended as an alternative - at least not in the linked passage.

DiogenesKynikos · 4 hours ago

The author also criticizes the narrowness of the font (and particularly of the bold style). They're not trying to argue that Times New Roman is terrible - just that it's substandard.

DiogenesKynikos commented on A brief history of Times New Roman typographyforlawyers.com/... · Posted by u/tosh

DiogenesKynikos · 5 hours ago

Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

DiogenesKynikos commented on A brief history of Times New Roman typographyforlawyers.com/... · Posted by u/tosh

CivBase · 5 hours ago

This article has a weird progression.

It starts with the origins of TNR. Then it basically says it's a decent font with no significant problems. Then it talks about how it's popular because it's the default.

Then in the last paragraph it takes a hard stance that you should not use TNR unless required. It even implores the reader with a bold "please stop". It makes no arguments to support this stance and offers no alternatives.

DiogenesKynikos · 5 hours ago

Here's what is says about Times New Roman:

> Objectively, there’s nothing wrong with Times New Roman. It was designed for a newspaper, so it’s a bit narrower than most text fonts—especially the bold style. (Newspapers prefer narrow fonts because they fit more text per line.) The italic is mediocre. But those aren’t fatal flaws. Times New Roman is a workhorse font that’s been successful for a reason.

It says that there are problems. They're just not fatal.

> It even implores the reader with a bold "please stop". It makes no arguments to support this stance and offers no alternatives.

It says that there are plenty of alternatives (it specifically mentions Helvetica) that are better than Times New Roman. The argument is that Times New Roman is okay, but that it has flaws, and that there are easily available fonts that are superior. If someone is devoted enough to fonts to write a blog about them, then the existence of superior alternatives is enough of a reason to not use a font.

Loading parent story...

Loading comment...

DiogenesKynikos commented on Are the Three Musketeers allergic to muskets? (2014) ox.ac.uk/news/arts-blog/a... · Posted by u/rolph

Tuna-Fish · 6 days ago

The original novel is set in 1625-1628. At that point, firearms are well and truly established, having proven themselves to be the war-winning weapon in the Italian Wars more than a century ago. They are not new and unproven technology; they are the weapon that the great grandparents of the main characters fought and won with.

But they are a symbol of the wrong social class. A musket is something that a peasant or a burgher can use to kill a noble. All the main characters in the three musketeers are nobility, and their social class has suffered greatly from the "democratization" of war. They, like almost everyone like them historically, much prefer the old ways from when they were more pre-eminent, and look down their noses at firearms. They spend very little time at war, and a lot more time duelling and participating in schemes.

The high-tech of the early 17th century wasn't even matchlocks anymore, it was flintlocks. Those took another ~50 or so years to become general issue, but at the time of the novels upper class people who can afford modern weapons wouldn't have been fumbling with matches anymore.

DiogenesKynikos · 6 days ago

Even though firearms were well and truly established by the 17th Century, blade weapons remained important right on through to the mid-1800s.

Bayonet charges were a major aspect of Napoleonic warfare, and only really went away with the development of firearms that had higher rates of fire and were accurate out to larger ranges. In the Napoleonic era, soldiers would close to within 50-100 meters, fire off a few volleys, and then charge in with the bayonet.

By the time armies were equipped with breech-loading rifles that could fire half a dozen accurate shots a minute at a distance of a few hundred meters, the volume and accuracy of fire made the bayonet charge obsolete. But that was rather late (the 1860s or so).

DiogenesKynikos commented on The state of Schleswig-Holstein is consistently relying on open source heise.de/en/news/Goodbye-... · Posted by u/doener

DiogenesKynikos · 9 days ago

It's not ideology. The US has started sanctioning European judges who serve on international courts, causing Microsoft to cut off access to its services.

Given that the US has shown it's willing to wield sanctions as a blunt instrument against anyone and everyone, it's only prudent for European countries to reduce their exposure to US tech.