kjodle/the-codex
kjodle/the-codex
1
1
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Projects Releases 2 Wiki Activity

Added «lettrine» package for drop caps in chapter 3

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Kenneth John Odle 2024-06-12 17:55:12 -04:00
parent cd7d6fb8ca
commit c423123cc3
1 changed files with 5 additions and 2 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

7
004/codex-004.tex
View File

@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
\usepackage{multirow} \usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{gensymb} % Just for the degree symbol \usepackage{gensymb} % Just for the degree symbol
\usepackage{ccicons} % Creative Commons icons; now we can delete an image \usepackage{ccicons} % Creative Commons icons; now we can delete an image
\usepackage{lettrine} % Drop caps
% Where are our images? % Where are our images?
\graphicspath{{images/}} \graphicspath{{images/}}
@ -271,7 +272,7 @@ And if that's the past, who knows what the future holds?
\paragraph{Note:}This originally started out as part of the the ``College, 2008'' section, but soon took on a life of its own. It didn't belong there, but it belongs somewhere. So here it is. \paragraph{Note:}This originally started out as part of the the ``College, 2008'' section, but soon took on a life of its own. It didn't belong there, but it belongs somewhere. So here it is.
\medskip \medskip
\noindent{}What does it mean to be ``good'' with something? Especially with computers? The experience of being segregated into a little room almost twenty years ago because of something I knew while those around me didn't has marked me in some way. It's taken me a long time to actually figure it out, and I think it is that there really is no such thing as someone who is ``good at computers''. This is like ``being good at sports'' or ``liking Asian food''. The concepts of ``computers'', ``sports'', and ``Asian food'' are really too large to be considered as a single entity. There is really only ``being better at this one very specific thing than everyone else in the room''. \noindent{}\lettrine[loversize=0.1, nindent=-0.2em]{W}{hat} does it mean to be ``good'' with something? Especially with computers? The experience of being segregated into a little room almost twenty years ago because of something I knew while those around me didn't has marked me in some way. It's taken me a long time to actually figure it out, and I think it is that there really is no such thing as someone who is ``good at computers''. This is like ``being good at sports'' or ``liking Asian food''. The concepts of ``computers'', ``sports'', and ``Asian food'' are really too large to be considered as a single entity. There is really only ``being better at this one very specific thing than everyone else in the room''.
In fact, the person who is good at computers generally has three characteristics that make them that way. In fact, the person who is good at computers generally has three characteristics that make them that way.
@ -313,7 +314,9 @@ I am still able to use VBA to do little bits here and there for other people—c
The number one characteristic I've discovered that is shared by all people who are generally viewed as ``good with computers'' is \textit{confidence}. Not knowledge, not skill, not experience. \textit{Confidence}. It's true that confidence comes from knowledge, skill, and experience, but I've met a lot of people who have all three of those things\footnote{How can you \textit{not} have experience with computers in 2024, when even Amish people have cell phones? It's because you can either choose to recognize that they are a part of your experience and roll with it, or refuse to acknowledge them and fight a losing battle against them.} but who still lack confidence and thus do not see themselves, nor are by others, as being good with computers. I've had to coach a lot of people like this over the years and while it's easy to give someone knowledge, or experience, or skill, it's almost impossible to get them to put those three things together into confidence. It's really something they have to gain on their own, and they either do or they don't. I'm not sure why this is. The number one characteristic I've discovered that is shared by all people who are generally viewed as ``good with computers'' is \textit{confidence}. Not knowledge, not skill, not experience. \textit{Confidence}. It's true that confidence comes from knowledge, skill, and experience, but I've met a lot of people who have all three of those things\footnote{How can you \textit{not} have experience with computers in 2024, when even Amish people have cell phones? It's because you can either choose to recognize that they are a part of your experience and roll with it, or refuse to acknowledge them and fight a losing battle against them.} but who still lack confidence and thus do not see themselves, nor are by others, as being good with computers. I've had to coach a lot of people like this over the years and while it's easy to give someone knowledge, or experience, or skill, it's almost impossible to get them to put those three things together into confidence. It's really something they have to gain on their own, and they either do or they don't. I'm not sure why this is.
The most important thing about having confidence is helps you to keep going. % New section starts with a drop cap
\medskip
\noindent{}\lettrine[loversize=0.1, nindent=-0.2em]{T}{he} most important thing about having confidence is that it helps you to keep going. This is how you can tell the difference between arrogance and confidence—confident people tend to keep going and arrogant people tend to give up.
And that's what I ultimately like about Linux—it encourages you to keep going. You don't get to a point where things are hidden away behind a proprietary brick wall. Everything is open source, right down to the core, and you can dig as deeply as you like. The only thing that's really holding you back (besides your attitude) is your time and money. But for me to even talk about these things would mean that I would have to do a deep dive into the many faults of capitalism, and that's not what this zine is about, although I do touch on that tangentially (or not so tangentially) from time to time. And that's what I ultimately like about Linux—it encourages you to keep going. You don't get to a point where things are hidden away behind a proprietary brick wall. Everything is open source, right down to the core, and you can dig as deeply as you like. The only thing that's really holding you back (besides your attitude) is your time and money. But for me to even talk about these things would mean that I would have to do a deep dive into the many faults of capitalism, and that's not what this zine is about, although I do touch on that tangentially (or not so tangentially) from time to time.