You can fix it, but I agree that it usually puts it in the worst possible place. The problem is that TeX uses an elegant dynamic programming model to determine where to break lines in a paragraph, but uses a greedy algorithm to do page layout. Why? Because the PDP-10 didn't have enough RAM for the dynamic programming tables that would be required to do elegant page layout on a typical document. On a modern computer, even if it takes 2-3MB for the tables, you most likely have a single image in the document that is bigger than that (in early TeX, images had to be added afterwards in a separate compositing phase after you sent the typeset document to the printer, because computers weren't powerful enough to handle nontrivial images).

I tried implementing the TeX linebreaking algorithm for page layout in some naive (unoptimised) Objective-C a few years ago and ran it on a 900-page book that I'd written. Even then, it took under a second to run on the laptop I had at the time. There's no reason not to do it now.

The flamebait mods are obviously from people who use the other editor.

I like rST, but Markdown seemed to get wider support so I gradually switched to using it instead because they're sufficiently similar that it's annoying using both and lots of things didn't support rST. They're both roughly equal for the sorts of things I use them for: blog posts, articles, doc comments in code. There's no way I'd write a scientific paper or a book in either though: LaTeX is still the king there.

And if you ever talk to a British soldier, you'll find that they're even higher up the list of complaints than the food...

Quite a few of them are working on upstreaming JunOS changes to FreeBSD.

Every flight that I have booked in the last few years, has involved booking the seats at the time of reserving the tickets. The only ones that didn't recline were in the back row and were clearly marked as such, and in some cases were cheaper.

An upgrade to Economy Plus (which has more leg room) typically costs about an extra 10%, and is often automatic for regular flyers. If you can't afford an extra $10/hour for comfort, then perhaps that comfort isn't as important to you as you're claiming...

There are currently a million people who have Top Secret or above security clearance. That means, one million people who may be sharing secrets with a foreign power if they are bribed or blackmailed into doing so. Do you really trust the vetting to have managed to find a million incorruptible people in the USA?

The cost is embodied in the regulation, but the regulation is (in most cases) really just codifying the cost. You can't bring a drug to market until you've first done trials that it doesn't have any serious negative effects (or, at least, that you know what they are and can disclose them), and then until you've demonstrated that it actually works. This is expensive to do, because it involves doing controlled scientific experiments on groups of human subjects.

The fact that it's expensive means that it's not possible to explore all of them and so profit-motivated companies pick the ones that will give the most return on financial investment, which may or may not be the same ones that will save the most lives, or cause the greatest overall improvements in the standard of living.

The important thing to remember is that if it was so easy for him to get these documents, then that also means that there are about a million other people with the same clearance level as him who would find it equally easy. What's the betting that none of those are Chinese agents? Especially given how many Russian agents we've learned were working for the NSA and CIA during the cold war.

People focus on Snowden's disclosure as if it's possibly giving information to America's enemies (or, at least, not-so-friendly friends), but any of them that doesn't have a completely inept intelligence agency of their own will already have the information he's released. It was only secret from the people to whom these agencies should be accountable.

My main complaint is the seat backs. They seem to be the exact opposite of the shape of an ergonomic chair, so they push forward at the base (restricting leg room) and then have no support for the lower back. You could easily make the seats thinner and more comfortable, if you took a quick look at the shape of a human before designing them.

Why? If the person in front of me in a flight pushes their seat back, then it moves the bottom forward very slightly, so I get about half a centimetre of knee room, and it moves the (small) screen of the in-flight entertainment system closer to my eyes. The seats are designed not to be made more uncomfortable when the person in front of you leans back...

Universities do a lot of early work on various kinds of treatments, but the big cost is doing the big trials needed for getting FDA approval. That's out of the budget of most universities, and even if they come up with a revolutionary cure someone still needs to do that work before it can become widely available.

The UK can't run out of GBP, but can run out of purchasing power. If the government keeps printing money, then the value of the money goes down (which is great for exports, for a while, but it makes buying things made abroad difficult). Unless all of the medical supplies, everything that doctors buy, and all of the raw materials for making them is produced in the UK, that's not a sustainable strategy.

You might want to check the renewal terms. Prior to ACA, it was entirely legal to charge someone for insurance, then refuse to renew their insurance (or jack up the price to make it unaffordable) after the first year where they make claims for something that is likely to require ongoing treatment. And then they have a preexisting condition, so they couldn't get insurance from anyone else either.