Alright, I have a mismatched setup: a 1080p and a 4K screen. No matter how you twist it, the virtual screen* will have dead zones. Self-management of a single full-screen canvas is easy (browser F11). But then I will want to use the entire physical screen estate with the editor and it'll end up re-implementing large parts of the window manager just to position the windows where they belong, rendering at the correct monitor DPI.
Further, just from the shown animation I can already see the same problems you'd encounter with a lot of screen space and old style window managers: you grow tired _very fast_ of moving and resizing additional windows yourself to fit more on the screen. "Maximize (on current screen)" is the only automation step in this direction and it is decades old. Windows' "snap to edges" is a semi-manual attempt at assisted window management.
* in Win32 terms, a rectangle encompassing the entire region with all visible screens
Not Chinese, but I might call myself trilingual and this is exactly something that has wondered me. Language "pair": ru>de>en
In very general terms, the longer you listen to a particular voice, the better you get at reconstructing the acoustically lost parts of the words. Imagine hearing low bitrate radio transmission for the first time. It's very hard to understand the words, but over time you'll get accustomed to the noise and the voice, it'll become intelligible to you. Quite literally training your neural net.
It's easy for me to read/listen to RU (native). I have no problem whatsoever listening to DE, but mentally it must be more taxing to also follow the text/train of thought (beyond very short-term memory) because I notice to be swaying away more often unless remain concentrated. So it's a little harder to memorize stuff in DE or read long thoughtful texts.
The walkie-talkie example from above is not arbitrary. I have experienced exactly that when learning DE and going to game servers with voice. Back then the microphones were all poor and noisy, it was much tougher to understand people. The adaptation took me about a week or two.
English is very specific to me. Remember what a radar chart is? That's it, one aspect is skilled to 100% and others are closer to zero. As you can ~see~ read, my writing is doing well. Listening to cleanly recorded and spoken content such as Youtube presents no issues. As with DE, I might not follow the content very well, but I can hear and understand all of it. Movies? Oh dear, subtitles please! Not only because the voice isn't recorded in a studio (sometimes whispering, sometimes mumbling etc.) but the variety of language (vocabulary, slang) and pronunciations overload me to the point of not understanding the spoken language. Yet because my general comprehension of English is good, I'd be mostly reading subtitles to not miss anything. As it stands, I would prefer either DE or RU in movies.
Years ago I had the pleasure to finally subscribe to AdoredTV on Youtube because of his content. Previously, I had skipped a video or two due to his Scottish accent. Slowly I have got used to it though. Admittedly, he had been trying to have an understandable pronunciation; some of the funny "Scottish English" videos I still can't understand. But when we had shown Adored's videos to friends, it was them who couldn't understand a word, because they were new to his accent.
Therefore I can second that subtitles are helpful, especially if you are distracted from listening or need assistance to understand spoken language (thus serves as a "gap filler"). Now knowing that the Chinese have THIS much trouble with their own tongue, I feel pity for them.
This is correct. Unfortunately, xdg-tools is a set of almost forgotten scripts that need some more eyes and collaboration to polish. I've seen many problems there. Nobody is actively maintaining it, but a couple developers could get the ball rolling. (I'm interested)
I'm a bystander, but the gist I got from the official lists and trials is that each EU country needs it's own approval with the gov agency. It may be that "being EU" has equalized requirements to an extent, but each wants their own. (bureaucracy kills?)
One example I read about was a yet experimental drug made by a Swiss company, but the trials only run in and for the US for financial and market reasons.
USD has the FDA and EU has the EMA. I am not sure how EMA interacts with each individual country.
While regulatory agencies may consider data generated from trials in other jurisdictions, they may ask questions about whether those data and conclusions and relevant and generalizable to their patient populations and health care systems.
There are also ethics to consider. Sure it may be cheaper to run trials in developing countries. But at what point does it become exploitative? Keep in mind that we are talking about human experiments, which is very serious business.
No the EU has the EMA which approves drugs for all European countries in collaboration with national drug agencies. And the EMA FDA and japanese agency are pretty well aligned. So approval by one will typically mean you also meet the requirements for the others. Notable exceptions are the recent Alzheimer drugs.
It's worse than bare maintenance, MS may have entered the stage of "clueless breaking" probably for the same reasons outlined above (newcomers don't understand what came before them).
The following is an account as an end-user. It is an old Win32 program from the 90s. Remember the theme styling controls from Desktop->Properties etc? For example you could change the white Control background to something else. Even if it never worked well enough everywhere, it was supported by native Controls. And in this application too. Recently the developer must have migrated the app to a new SDK (I guess). Not only did the clickable buttons lose all their borders, making them harder to eye-track, but all those native Controls? Lost their legacy theming support. Changing the background color no longer applies in the new version, it remains white.
And that's unlikely developer's own work. I assume the SDK adheres to newer guidelines itself.
Although I'm late to the party, I'm surprised by only 4 mentions of "Lua" in all of comments.
At its basis, a valid Lua file can consist of one table. Then the data description will be very similar to how people operate with JSON files. At any point the user is able to write code or use other standard library functions... which is pretty limited, but at the same time it's easy to sandbox plain Lua away from "dangerous" functions such as os.exec or the debug library.
There are only a few caveats:
- Lua uses a 64-bit IEEE float format with some truncated precision
- The standard interpreter doesn't handle very huge tables for parsing
- Treating .lua as code, not data, you'd likely prepend "return " to your table to just receive the table object from the config file
- Unkeyed arrays start from 1, though storing at index 0 is possible
- Cascading of data definitions is possible, like fall-through from one semi-filled table to the default table. Use the __index metamethod
Personally I find Lua's table syntax vastly more readable than JSON. Although the language naturally has comments, the parser ignores them, if that's something you want. But the same workaround works: just store the comment in some keyname_comment value.
Apart from sandboxing you'd only need to limit the script execution time to stop attempts like "while true; end"
PS: Lua started as a configuration language. Wiki:
> Lua's predecessors were the data-description/configuration languages SOL (Simple Object Language) and DEL (data-entry language).
Similarly, Russian translations are often translating such phrases verbatim. I have come to the realization that the correct translation would be to drop the "pleases" and instead use the respectful 2nd person plural "Вы" (same as "Sie" in German) as it would be sufficient.
Further, just from the shown animation I can already see the same problems you'd encounter with a lot of screen space and old style window managers: you grow tired _very fast_ of moving and resizing additional windows yourself to fit more on the screen. "Maximize (on current screen)" is the only automation step in this direction and it is decades old. Windows' "snap to edges" is a semi-manual attempt at assisted window management.
* in Win32 terms, a rectangle encompassing the entire region with all visible screens