Browse Source

Editing 2022.04.20

main
Kenneth John Odle 4 weeks ago
parent
commit
ed912eaae8
  1. BIN
      002/build/codex-002.pdf
  2. 38
      002/codex-002.tex

BIN
002/build/codex-002.pdf

38
002/codex-002.tex

@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ Anyway, I'm driving a laptop now that has 8 GB of memory in it. (And I've seriou
8\text{ \cancel{GB}} \times \frac{1,048,576 \text{ \cancel{kb}}}{1 \text{ \cancel{GB}}} \times \frac{1 \text{ Commodore 64}}{64 \text{ \cancel{kb}}} = 16,384 \text{ Commodore 64's}
\]
So the computer I'm on now has as much memory as 16,384 of the computer I had when I was 13 years old. If that doesn't seem like a lot to you, I paid \$175 for this computer (used) in 2016, and paid \$200 (new) for a Commodore 64 in 1981. That's \$3,276,800 in 1981 dollars, which is the equivalent of \$8,651,869.50 in 2016 dollars. I didn't have three million dollars when I was thirteen, and I certainly don't have over eight million dollars now. Sadly.\footnote{Check out \href{https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1981}{\texttt{https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1981}} for the actual numbers.}
So the computer I'm on now has as much memory as 16,384 of the computer I had when I was 13 years old. If that doesn't seem like a lot to you, I paid \$175 for my current computer (used) in 2016, and paid \$200 (new) for a Commodore 64 in 1981. That's \$3,276,800 in 1981 dollars, which is the equivalent of \$8,651,869.50 in 2016 dollars. I didn't have three million dollars when I was thirteen, and I certainly don't have over eight million dollars now. Sadly.\footnote{Check out \href{https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1981}{\texttt{https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1981}} for the actual numbers.}
\medskip
@ -232,7 +232,7 @@ The second computer I ever owned was a Commodore 128. Whereas its predecessor on
Unlike the C-64, which was round and bulky, the C-128 was slim and sleek. In fact, one of its selling points was its portability, and I recall seeing a brochure where a college student is walking around campus with one under his arm. What they left out of that illustration, of course, is his friend dragging a little red wagon with a terribly heavy CRT monitor in it, along with an incredibly heavy power source. They were portable in theory, but not in any practical manner. But compared to a mainframe that took up an entire room or building, it was light years ahead of its time. And I \textit{felt} like that, too, like this computer was going to take me places where I would be light years ahead of where I was then.\footnote{It didn't, because you need so much more than just a computer to get ahead. You need resources, you need people who believe in what you're doing and support you, and you need people who can point you in the direction of the next step. If you don't have those things, you're not a visionary with a bright future ahead of him, you're just a nerd with a computer.}
Like I said, the laptop I am using now has 8 GB of memory, which is a lot more than 128 kb of memory. But how much more? It's difficult for most people to visualize numbers, especially when they are orders of magnitude apart, and looking at raw numbers doesn't give our brains much to latch onto. We need to \textit{visualize} these numbers, which is why I used money earlier. But because I like math and most people like food, let's visualize these numbers a different way: through food.\footnote{A\&W once tried to launch a $\nicefrac{1}{3}$ burger to compete with McDonald's quarter-pounder, the idea being you get more meat for the same price. But it didn't sell because people thought a third of a burger was less than a fourth of a burger. They could get $4>3$, but they couldn't understand $\nicefrac{1}{4}<\nicefrac{1}{3}$. See \href{https://awrestaurants.com/blog/aw-third-pound-burger-fractions}{\texttt{https://awrestaurants.com/blog/aw-third-pound-burger-fractions}} for the full story.}
Like I said, the laptop I am using now has 8 GB of memory, which is a lot more than 128 kb of memory. But how much more? It's difficult for most people to visualize numbers, especially when they are orders of magnitude apart, and looking at raw numbers doesn't give our brains much to latch onto. We need to \textit{visualize} these numbers, which is why I used money earlier. But because I like math and most people like food, let's visualize these numbers a different way: through food.\footnote{A\&W once tried to launch a $\nicefrac{1}{3}$ pound burger to compete with McDonald's quarter-pounder, the idea being you get more meat for the same price. But it didn't sell because people thought a third of a burger was less than a fourth of a burger. They could get $4>3$, but they couldn't understand $\nicefrac{1}{4}<\nicefrac{1}{3}$. See \href{https://awrestaurants.com/blog/aw-third-pound-burger-fractions}{\texttt{https://awrestaurants.com/blog/aw-third-pound-burger-fractions}} for the full story.}
Let's assume that those 128 kb of memory is equivalent to one happy childhood meal. Maybe it's your dad cooking out on the weekend, or your Nonna making homemade meatballs, or maybe it's not a childhood meal; it's just you and your significant other sitting on the futon enjoying spaghetti Lady and the Tramp style. Pick whatever meal you love, that you think you could eat every day. That meal is the equivalent of those 128 kb of memory.
@ -256,7 +256,7 @@ I went to high school in a very small,\footnote{We had one stoplight when I left
Mr. Dick also taught computers.
This was the mid 1980s, and my very small, very rural, very redneck-filled high school had a computer lab. In reality, it wasn't an \textit{actual} computer lab. It was just a room where they took all the student desks out, replaced them with chairs and tables, and plopped computers on them. Our high school had been built in the 1960s, when computers took up an entire wing of a building. Nobody thought to design a classroom with more than four outlets in those days, so there were extension cords everywhere.
This was the mid 1980s, and my very small, very rural, very redneck-laden high school had a computer lab. In reality, it wasn't an \textit{actual} computer lab. It was just a room where they took all the student desks out, replaced them with chairs and tables, and plopped computers on them. Our high school had been built in the 1960s, when computers took up an entire wing of a building. Nobody thought to design a classroom with more than four outlets in those days, so there were extension cords everywhere.
Still, it had computers in it, and that's what counts.
@ -268,13 +268,13 @@ Here's the flip side though. Let's assume I \textit{didn't} have a computer clas
Considering the huge problem that the modern tech industry faces with inclusivity and diversity, I feel pretty lucky to have had that opportunity. We need to create more of these places. Maker spaces are becoming a thing, and I hope that they are as warm and inviting as I remember that high school computer lab to be. Tech should open a lot of doors for a lot of people who normally find themselves locked out of opportunities, but tech is \textit{expensive} and these costs are gatekeepers in too many instances.\footnote{Which is one reason that I am interested in getting a Raspberry Pi and playing around with it, but in this case, I lack time, not money.}
If Oprah were really interested in changing the world, instead of handing out cars to a few hundred members of her studio audience,\footnote{Watch it while it lasts: \href{https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pviYWzu0dzk}{\texttt{https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pviYWzu0dzk}}} she should be handing out Raspberry Pis and Arduinos to hundreds of thousands of poor kids. But her viewers understand cars, not Raspberry Pis and Arduinos, and Oprah does not do what is good for society, but what is good for her bottom line. (The real privilege in getting a free car from Oprah is that you are able to actually take time off from your job and your life and go to Chicago to attend a taping of her show. But nobody really thinks about \textit{that}.)
If Oprah were really interested in changing the world, instead of handing out cars to a few hundred members of her studio audience,\footnote{Watch it while it lasts: \href{https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pviYWzu0dzk}{\texttt{https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pviYWzu0dzk}}} she should be handing out Raspberry Pis and Arduinos to hundreds of thousands of poor kids. But her viewers understand cars, not Raspberry Pis and Arduinos, and Oprah does not do what is good for society, but what is good for her bottom line. (The real privilege in getting a free car from Oprah is that you are able to actually take time off from your job and your life and go to Chicago to attend a taping of her show. But nobody really thinks about \textit{that}.) \footnote{You want to know who does a lot of good for people, but doesn't make it all about herself? Dolly Parton, that's who. Dolly Parton is a saint. We truly don't deserve her.}
It saddens me that we are now at a price point where technology should be able to transform the lives of millions of people, and free them from the situation they are in now. I know a lot of people say that kids are so much more comfortable with technology now, but this really isn't a great thing. When I was a kid, you used technology to change your life. There wasn't a lot of technology, so it basically boiled down to learning how to use an extremely slow computer to do tasks you'd rather not do, using a VCR to record shows so that you could watch them at a later time, and duplicating cassettes and creating mix-tapes. As I grew into young adulthood and started teaching, I saw more and more how kids could use computers to do a lot of that. Mix-tapes were replaced by mix-CDs. You could manipulate technology to improve your life, and when you were done, you shut if off and called it a day.
Now it's the other way around: technology manipulates you and you \textbf{can't} shut it off. Websites (I'm thinking of Amazon here, as they are the best at it, but plenty of other websites do this as well) now \textit{tell} you what you want to buy. You can buy things on subscription so that you don't have to think any more.\footnote{It can be devilishly tricky to actually unsubscribe from some of these things, to the point where it's easier just to absorb the expense (we can always get the kids vaccinated \textit{next} year, and just decide that this is how you live now.} Streaming services control what you watch or listen to. No longer can you just walk into a record store or a video store and get what you actually want. People have become addicted to their phones in a way I'd never imagined possible. (If you are ahead of me at a red light, and the light turns green, but you don't go because you don't notice that the light is now green because you're looking at your phone, believe me—I \textit{will} let you know that the light is now green and you can proceed through the intersection. Believe me, you will know.)
Now it's the other way around: technology manipulates you and you \textbf{can't} shut it off. Websites (I'm thinking of Amazon here, as they are the best at it, but plenty of other websites do this as well) now \textit{tell} you what you want to buy. You can buy things on subscription so that you don't have to think any more.\footnote{It can be devilishly tricky to actually unsubscribe from some of these things, to the point where it's easier just to absorb the expense (we can always get the kids vaccinated \textit{next} year) and just decide that this is how you live now.} Streaming services control what you watch or listen to. No longer can you just walk into a record store or a video store and get what you actually want. People have become addicted to their phones in a way I'd never imagined possible. (If you are ahead of me at a red light, and the light turns green, but you don't go because you don't notice that the light is now green because you're looking at your phone, believe me—I \textit{will} let you know that the light is now green and you can proceed through the intersection. Believe me, you will \textit{know}.)
Advertisements are everywhere, on every app, on every streaming service.\footnote{Include mindfulness meditation apps—see the back cover.} They are constantly telling you that you need this product or this service, and it becomes very difficult to screen that out, so much so that even drunk purchasing is being a substantial part of the economy.\footnote{\href{https://www.finder.com/drunk-shopping}{\texttt{https://www.finder.com/drunk-shopping}}, \href{https://www.marketwatch.com/story/amazon-is-prime-territory-for-drunk-shoppers-2019-03-25}{\texttt{https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ \\ amazon-is-prime-territory-for-drunk-shoppers-2019-03-25}}, \href{https://www.techtimes.com/articles/240241/20190326/drunk-us-adults-spend-48-billion-shopping-online-and-amazon-is-so-happy-about-it.htm}{\texttt{https://www.techtim \\ es.com/articles/240241/20190326/drunk-us-adults-spend-48-billion-shopping-online-and-amazon-is-so-happy-about-it.htm}}.} Before, you had to leave your house to get manipulated into buying something, now you don't even have to leave the house. You can literally shop yourself out of house and home without ever leaving your home.
Advertisements are everywhere, on every app, on every streaming service.\footnote{Include mindfulness meditation apps—see the back cover.} They are constantly telling you that you need this product or this service, and it has become very difficult to screen that out, so much so that even drunk purchasing is being a substantial part of the economy.\footnote{\href{https://www.finder.com/drunk-shopping}{\texttt{https://www.finder.com/drunk-shopping}}, \href{https://www.marketwatch.com/story/amazon-is-prime-territory-for-drunk-shoppers-2019-03-25}{\texttt{https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ \\ amazon-is-prime-territory-for-drunk-shoppers-2019-03-25}}, \href{https://www.techtimes.com/articles/240241/20190326/drunk-us-adults-spend-48-billion-shopping-online-and-amazon-is-so-happy-about-it.htm}{\texttt{https://www.techtim \\ es.com/articles/240241/20190326/drunk-us-adults-spend-48-billion-shopping-online-and-amazon-is-so-happy-about-it.htm}}.} Before, you had to leave your house to get manipulated into buying something, now you don't even have to leave the house. You can literally shop yourself out of house and home without ever leaving your house or your home.
What was promulgated as a potential servant, ever willing and able to come to our assistance, has now become our master. For more about this, I've created a YouTube playlist that you can watch here:
@ -286,17 +286,17 @@ What was promulgated as a potential servant, ever willing and able to come to ou
\bigskip
What strikes me most about some of the videos in the the playlist I've linked above is that the emphasis on using technology is always that it will free up our time to spend time improving ourselves and relaxing. But do any of us really have more spare time as a result of technology today? (I would like to think that as a species we are intelligent enough to do that, but the fact there there is a patch of plastic the size of Texas floating around in the middle of the Pacific Ocean tells me otherwise. "Out of sight, out of mind" is meant to be a warning, not permission to shift blame.)
It's amazing how in many ways, we've far surpassed the technological capacities we imagined earlier, but rather than freeing up our time to improve ourselves (in true \textit{Star Trek} style), we are merely slaves to our own creations. I shudder to think how ``Hotel California'' has become a daily reality for so many of us.
It needn't be that way, however. If more of us had been able to experience what I experienced in that seventh grade computer class, perhaps our relationship to technology today would be different. Perhaps we would realize that, like the wheel or fire, technology is a tool to help us improve our lives, not to be led around by it. Of course, look at what we've done with both wheels and fire—we are destroying each other and ourselves as well with them. Perhaps we never should have climbed down out of the trees onto the grassy savanna.
I don't know. It seems that our philosophy, or at the very least, our ethics, surrounding technology and what we do with it always lags far behind the cutting edge of that technology. If there are other species in the universe that have managed to travel faster than the speed of light, certainly they \textit{must} have come to a philosophical decision about the role of technology in their daily lives.
What strikes me most about some of the videos in the the playlist I've linked above is that the emphasis on using technology is always that it will free up our time to spend time improving ourselves and relaxing. But do any of us really have more spare time as a result of technology today?
\chapter{A Scanner Clearly, or More Thoughts on Being an Archivist}
In the first issue of this zine, I wrote about a basic workflow for archiving books through scanning them into pdf files. While I covered about everything I wanted to cover on the computer end of things, I barely talked at all about the physical labor that goes into scanning a book. For those who are interested, here's what happens behind the scenes before you even get to the computer.
In the first issue of this zine, I wrote about a basic workflow for archiving books through scanning them into pdf files. While I covered just about everything I wanted to cover on the computer end of things, I barely talked at all about the physical labor that goes into scanning a book. For those who are interested, here's what happens behind the scenes before you even get to the computer.
\section{The Non-Computer Stuff}
@ -382,7 +382,7 @@ Despite all my prattling on about the many advantages the command line has for y
\medskip
I'm not going to get into the difference between the command line, the terminal, and bash (the Bourne Again Shell, if you are interested.\footnote{You may not be, but after all, you are reading \textit{this} so you very well may be. I'll talk about that in a future issue. (Also, it's called that whether or not you are interested in that. I know of very few things that have a conditional name.)}) For now, let's just assume that you know about \texttt{ctrl alt t} opening a terminal window to get you access to the command line.
I'm not going to get into the difference between the command line, the terminal, and bash (the Bourne Again Shell, if you are interested.\footnote{You may not be, but after all, you are reading \textit{this} so you very well may be. I may talk about that in a future issue. (Also, it's called that whether or not you are interested in that. I know of very few things that have a conditional name.)}) For now, let's just assume that you know about \texttt{ctrl alt t} opening a terminal window to get you access to the command line.
If you are used to using the command line, chances are that you have a certain set of commands that you use a lot. For example, if you're pushing to your Github repos all the time, you probably are typing \texttt{git push origin main} quite often. You can create a bash alias that makes your life a lot easier.
@ -522,22 +522,22 @@ When I first thought about doing the second issue of this zine, I thought it wou
\noindent But the more I thought about it, the more I began to think that this is \textbf{not} a good idea. There are a couple of reasons for this.
First, who am \textit{I} to decide if something is beginner, intermediate, or advanced level, especially when it comes to computers? I'm not an expert in all things computers, much less all things Linux. The most I can say is that ``Oh, yeah, this is one of the first things I learned how to do'' which \textit{implies} that it's a beginner level. But it might not be. It's just where I started. Somebody else might start somewhere else, in a place that I didn't bother to get around to for years, and which I tend to think of as intermediate or advanced level. But to them, it's where they started, and so they'll also think of it as beginner level. LaTeX has been around for a long time, but it always seemed very advanced to me. As it turns out, it's not difficult to learn. (Although like most things, learning a thing and mastering a thing are very different activities.) Things can be difficult if you don't have the proper tools for them, but does that mean they're advanced?
First, who am \textit{I} to decide if something is beginner, intermediate, or advanced level, especially when it comes to computers? I'm not an expert in all things computers, much less all things Linux. The most I can say is that ``Oh, yeah, this is one of the first things I learned how to do'' which \textit{implies} that it's a beginner level. But it might not be. It's just where \textit{I} started. Somebody else might start somewhere else, in a place that I didn't bother to get around to for years, and which I tend to think of as intermediate or advanced level. But to them, it's where they started, and so they'll also think of it as beginner level. LaTeX has been around for a long time, but it always seemed very advanced to me. As it turns out, it's not difficult to learn. (Although like most things, learning a thing and mastering a thing are very different activities.) Things can be difficult if you don't have the proper tools for them, but does that mean they're advanced?
Second, these words are highly contextual. What does ``beginner'' even mean? Someone who's just sat down to a computer for the first time in their life? Or someone who's been working on computers since they were ten years old, but are just now beginning to learn LaTeX? These words are easier to define in other areas, such as sports or music, where you have to learn to skate before you can play hockey, and you have to learn scales and chords before you can play music. Computers are the great levelers of walls and fences, provided, of course, that you have access to one.
Third, people may self-select out of things. Many years ago, I taught computer classes at my local community education center.\footnote{One of the things I learned is that is a right way and a wrong way to teach people how to use computers. I should write about that sometime.} It was a tremendous amount of fun, both for me and my students, who came from all walks of life.\footnote{A bit of a clichè that, I know. But I can't think of a better phrase.} They were \textit{occassionally} intimidated by certain things, but for the most part, they were eager to learn as much as they could.
The class was extremely inexpensive, but it was rarely ever full, which made me wonder why more people didn't take this class. There are two answers here. First, this was the early 90s and a lot of people didn't even have computers at home, so what would be the point for them? (You don't need a car if you have no place to go.) Second, a lot of people were terribly intimidated by computers, because they thought you had to be really smart to use them. So they self-selected out of something they were perfectly capable of learning because they thought it was too advanced for them.\footnote{People are really afraid of making mistakes and looking stupid, but that's a by-product of our public education industrial complex. You can't learn \textit{anything} without making mistakes. In fact, people who are truly experts about things often point out that they learn as much or more from their mistakes than they do from their successes. But we have turned making mistakes into something to be ashamed of, rather than something which will help us learn and understand things.} Let's encourage people to self-select \textit{in}, rather than out, because once they get here they'll have a lot of fun. Let's not be gatekeepers.
The class was extremely inexpensive, but it was rarely ever full, which made me wonder why more people didn't take this class. There are two answers here. First, this was the early 90s and a lot of people didn't even have computers at home, so what would be the point for them? (You don't need a car if you have no place to go.) Second, a lot of people were terribly intimidated by computers, because they thought you had to be really smart to use them. So they self-selected out of something they were perfectly capable of learning because they thought it was too advanced for them.\footnote{People are really afraid of making mistakes and looking stupid, but that's a by-product of our public education industrial complex. You can't learn \textit{anything} without making mistakes. In fact, people who are truly experts about things often point out that they learn as much or more from their mistakes than they do from their successes. But we have turned making mistakes into something to be ashamed of, rather than something which will help us learn and understand things. Fuck that attitude. Go forth and make mistakes. (Just not in the voting booth.)} Let's encourage people to self-select \textit{in}, rather than out, because once they get here they'll have a lot of fun. Let's not be gatekeepers.
Fourth, it implies that there is a hierarchy, which I hate. There are many ways in. Because math is so strongly allied to computer science, we tend to view learning about computers as hierarchical as well.\footnote{I think this is one of the reasons that most people aren't good at math and don't like math. Sure, you need to know \textit{some} algebra to do geometry, but you don't need to be an algebra expert. If you really like geometry, and are encouraged to apply yourself to it, you'll eventually learn all the algebra you need. The same is true of trigonometry and even calculus. You don't need to become an expert in those earlier forms of math; you only have to become good enough at them to move on to the next step. People who write math curricula should take note, but they won't.} But that just isn't the case. I started learning how to write BASIC when I was in sixth grade because that's all that was available to us. But basic BASIC is no different than basic Fortran, or basic Cobol, really. The only difference is that BASIC is fairly limited in scope, which was, sadly, all that was deemed appropriate for kids. It's like giving kids little fake plastic tools when they really want to build something. Give kids real tools and let them experiment with them and figure out how they work. But we never do that.\footnote{This is, coincidentally, the same sort of thinking that doesn't like sex education, despite the many studies that have shown, conclusively and repeatedly, that when kids have access to high-quality, non-biased sex education, the rates of teen pregnancy and teen STDs decrease, often dramatically.}
Fourth, it implies that there is a hierarchy, which I hate. There are many ways in. Because math is so strongly allied to computer science, we tend to view learning about computers as hierarchical as well.\footnote{I think this is one of the reasons that most people aren't good at math and don't like math. Sure, you need to know \textit{some} algebra to do geometry, but you don't need to be an algebra expert. If you really like geometry, and are encouraged to apply yourself to it, you'll eventually learn all the algebra you need. The same is true of trigonometry and even calculus. You don't need to become an expert in those earlier forms of math; you only have to become good enough at them to move on to the next step. People who write math curricula should take note, but they won't.} But that just isn't the case. I started learning how to write BASIC when I was in sixth grade because that's all that was available to us. But basic BASIC is no different than basic Fortran, or basic Cobol, really. The only difference is that BASIC is fairly limited in scope, which was, sadly, all that was deemed appropriate for kids. It's like giving kids little fake plastic tools when they really want to build something. Put the kids in a sandbox with real tools and turn them loose: let them experiment with them and figure out how they work. But we never do that.\footnote{This is, coincidentally, the same sort of thinking that doesn't like sex education, despite the many studies that have shown, conclusively and repeatedly, that when kids have access to high-quality, non-biased sex education, the rates of teen pregnancy and teen STDs decrease, often dramatically.}
\chapter{Coda}
\section{What I Learned About \LaTeX{} While Creating This Issue}
As a big part of the reason I created this was to learn more about LaTeX, I'm keeping up with this running list.
As a big part of the reason I created this zine was to learn more about LaTeX, I'm keeping up with this running list.
\begin{enumerate}
@ -549,7 +549,7 @@ As a big part of the reason I created this was to learn more about LaTeX, I'm ke
\item You can draw with the \texttt{tikz} package. You can also draw chemical structures with the \texttt{chemdraw} package. I have no idea how to write about those things on paper in an interesting way, so it may be some time (or never---never is always an option) before I get around to that. But there's an example at the end.
\item You can also draw just using the \texttt{picture} environment. \footnote{There is a good tutorial at \href{https://www.overleaf.com/learn/latex/Picture_environment}{\texttt{https://www.overleaf.com/learn/latex/Picture\_environ \\ ment}}.}
\item You can also draw just using the \texttt{picture} environment.\footnote{There is a good tutorial at \href{https://www.overleaf.com/learn/latex/Picture_environment}{\texttt{https://www.overleaf.com/learn/latex/Picture\_environ \\ ment}}.}
\item As with most things that *nix-based, there is usually more than one way to get to where you are going. Often, there are many ways, and they lead you down paths you hadn't even imagined. A little research goes a long way. (See the next two sections as examples of this. I had not even thought about this before I sat down to write this.)
@ -577,7 +577,7 @@ file.log
\texttt{file.aux} contains information your document needs to manage any cross-references in your document. \texttt{file.log} contains information about how your file was processed; if you run into errors, this is a good place to find a solution, or at least to find what to search the internet for. But it's the \texttt{file.dvi} file that we're interested in.
\texttt{.dvi} files are device independent files. They're a lot like PostScript or PDF, but without font embedding. To convert this to a pdf file, run the following command:
\texttt{.dvi} files are device independent files. They're a lot like PostScript or PDF, but \textit{without} font embedding. To convert this to a pdf file, run the following command:
\begin{verbatim}
$ dvipdf file.dvi
@ -599,7 +599,7 @@ file.log
file.pdf
\end{verbatim}
I have noticed that when I generate the pdf file using the former method, I get a much smaller file than I do the second time. As an experiment, I ran the \texttt{integral.tex} file that I created in the next section through both of these methods. Running the file through \texttt{latex} and then through \texttt{dvipdf} resulted in a pdf file that was only 7.0 kb in size. But when I ran it solely through \texttt{pdflatex}, I ended up with a pdf file that was 30.5 kb big. This is most likely due to a difference in compression methods\footnote{See this for more information: \href{https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/38145/why-does-pdflatex-produce-bigger-output-files-than-latexdvipdfm}{\texttt{https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/38145/why \\ -does-pdflatex-produce-bigger-output-files-than-latexdvipdfm}}} so this could make a difference for you if you are working with large documents.
I have noticed that when I generate the pdf file using the former method, I get a much smaller file than I do the second time. As an experiment, I ran the \texttt{integral.tex} file that I created later in the next section through both of these methods. Running the file through \texttt{latex} and then through \texttt{dvipdf} resulted in a pdf file that was only 7.0 kb in size. But when I ran it solely through \texttt{pdflatex}, I ended up with a pdf file that was 30.5 kb big. This is most likely due to a difference in compression methods\footnote{See this for more information: \href{https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/38145/why-does-pdflatex-produce-bigger-output-files-than-latexdvipdfm}{\texttt{https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/38145/why \\ -does-pdflatex-produce-bigger-output-files-than-latexdvipdfm}}} so this could make a difference for you if you are working with large documents.
Go forth and manage your mischief.
@ -652,7 +652,7 @@ Line 9 is where the magic happens. It allows us to set the actual page size of t
\end{document}
\end{Verbatim}
I admit, I had to play around with the variables here, and there may be a way to automatically fit the page size to the content, provided I only want to create a single page: use the \texttt{standalone} document class. This source code:
I admit, I had to play around with the variables here, which is a bit of a pain. Fortunately, there is a way to automatically fit the page size to the content, provided I only want to create a single page: use the \texttt{standalone} document class. This source code:
\begin{Verbatim}[numbers=left,numbersep=-2pt]
\documentclass{standalone}
@ -731,7 +731,7 @@ I am very comfortable living in the center of that Venn diagram. \\ (And yes, I
\vspace{-20pt}
\end{wrapfigure}
\noindent Anyway, off to right is the kind of thing I've figured out how to draw using \texttt{tikz}.
\noindent Anyway, off to the right is the kind of thing I've figured out how to draw using \texttt{tikz}.
Yeah, I've got a ways to go. (If you couldn't tell, it's a house with a floating roof. If you're wondering why the roof is floating, I am too. Let's just assume it's some modern Swedish design.\footnote{I'm good with this. Let's not make it weird.}) I literally have a dozen browser tabs open just to draw that little Swedish house, and yes, that is how I tend to learn the best: here's the basic idea, here are a bunch of examples (some of which seem to contradict one another), and here's my sandbox where I play around with it until I get it just the way I like it.

Loading…
Cancel
Save