> you can never have the following contiguous string: WORDSAMPLE
This kind of situation actually does occur, and you can then use the knowledge that the solution is unique to conclude that neither alternative (WORDS+AMPLE or WORD+SAMPLE) can be part of the correct solution.
https://iographica.com/ is a similar application that makes prettier pictures. (Anti-aliased rendering, more sophisticated visualisation that maps ‘mouse stops‘ of different lengths to disks of varying sizes, and maps time to colour.) Hacking Karbon to teach it similar tricks could be a fun project; maybe Pycairo would be suitable for better rendering?
I don't know about “McKinsey infiltration into many a large F100+” first-hand, but from context I'd guess it's simply getting consultants from McKinsey & Company[0] jobs in the ‘infiltrated’ firm, on the basis that it has no in-house employees capable of properly setting up / running the bizarrely complex and idiosyncratic SCM-ERP-HCM-BI-etc. software in question.
Basically: You have a problem; Oracle/SAP says they'll solve it for you. Now you have a second problem; they say McKinsey'll solve it for you. Now you have …
That's all correct. While researching, I potentially found another mistake: Not sure if others see it the same way, but to me, ‘Aldi brand groceries‘ means that the brand of those products is literally called ‘Aldi’. According to a WAZ article [0], Aldi's house brand for their butter is ‘Milsani’. (By the way, apparently Aldi South's equivalent is ‘Milfina’, which is totally what Awkwafina should change her name to if she becomes a mother.)
Depending on which style of literate programming you're going for, Sphinx[0] might be a good starting point. There are extensions that can fulfill a lot of requirements; for example, I like using Napoleon[1] and MyST-parser[2].
> looked at it recently and was appalled at the amount of clicking required
IMHO that's actually not a big deal. From a comment I made in 2020 [0]:
> That's what I was concerned about before I played through one of the three campaigns a few years ago — that the UI would seem unbearable after having played a lot of Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 2. I found it actually quite OK after learning the keyboard shortcuts (of the Dos version). What actually ruined it for me and made me not want to play the other campaigns is the poor AI. Easy enemies would have been alright; I'm not that good at RTS games anyway and being able to finish each level on the first try was nice. But the opponents are so exceptionally stupid that it just got boring.
So, yes, the controls seem silly from a modern point of view, but they're far from the critical issue that prevents the game from being enjoyable.
By the way, there's a grave mistake in my old comment. I had written:
> Dune Legacy lets you play the campaigns, not just single-player skirmish, against its improved AIs. I just tried selecting ‘hard’ and (with game speed at maximum) got completely wrecked on the second map. Wonderful!
As I played more of the campaign in Dune Legacy, it turned out that the AI is even worse than in the original game. I only thought it was ‘wonderful’ because it attacked my base-under-construction with most of its preexisting army as soon as I gave my presence away too early on. But once I switched my strategy to build more stuff in secret before attacking, it turned out that the AI just sat there uselessly; no halfway decent build order, no scouting.
TL;DR: If you'd like to try multiplayer vs. humans, learn the controls and give it a try, it's really not bad! But if you want a good single-player RTS from the olden days … maybe try Plants vs. Zombies? Overcooked? Definitely not Dune 2.
Oh, and about UnDUNE II: that one really has poor ergonomics, judging from the 5 minutes I played it. It's an incredibly cool piece of art, but what it does particularly well is emulating the original game within the constraints of Pico-8. As opposed to imagining what Dune 2 would have been like in a world where Pico-8 were state of the art. It's like playing Doom on a digital pregnancy test: It's extremely cool that I could do it if I wanted to; but I really, really don't want to.
Interesting; can you or someone please elaborate? I thought that device-specific drivers wouldn't be needed for the vast majority of audio interfaces, because they're connected via USB and all they need to do to ‘just work’ upon plugging in is implementing the relevant USB device class.
From my (programmer's) point of view, all I need to know to work with an audio interface is the number of input and output channels and the respective arrays of sample rates and bit depths. In theory, a generic USB driver can handle that. In practice, I observe that my Linux-using colleagues have 99 problems with audio, but none of those is related to plugging in a $1 dongle from AliExpress. (Therefore, I used to think that those audio interfaces ‘just work’, but now I'm curious about what I've been missing all along.)
Why is releasing Linux drivers for an audio interface even a thing?
That's true for the cheap dongles. Where it gets problematic are the high end "Audio Interfaces" for studio recording work. The USB Audio Class 1 standard was released in 1998 and supports 2 channels at 24/96, over USB 1.0. This is obviously anemic for all but the most basic work. The upgraded USB Audio Class 2 standard was released in 2009, but was unsupported in Microsoft Windows until an update to Windows 10 brought it in 2017. Therefore, prior to that, any manufacturer who wanted to support Windows were put in the position of writing their own drivers for anything with more than 2 channels.
Aha, that's a good point! It was silly of me to assume that if any cheap dongle works, that should mean ‘proper’ interfaces would work at least as well.
However, it seems like that explains why we needed Windows drivers, but not why device-specific Linux drivers are a thing? Unless the implication is that manufacturers who needed to make custom drivers anyway didn't bother to make their devices class compliant?
In terms of language features yes. But, personally, I will install this version ASAP (3.10.1, I won't install the fresh one, there are always bugs to iron out) because of the great efforts toward improving error messages. Effort that will be ongoing in 3.11.
Those little things make the dev and teaching experience much, much better.
This kind of situation actually does occur, and you can then use the knowledge that the solution is unique to conclude that neither alternative (WORDS+AMPLE or WORD+SAMPLE) can be part of the correct solution.