I see a possible solution. Have a tool which posts to your blog _and_ to twitter.
You get the engagement on twitter and also have the information in the open for other people to read too (you can link the blog post at the end of the inlined twitter long form post).
Can some kind soul please upload (at least one) of these books to archive.org? That seems a much
better place for Public Domain works than google drive.
I understand that the people releasing the books may not be tech-aware enough to realize that many
people will not download them from google drive (this is not for technical reasons).
While I understand the point about displaying a time in a given timezone (output/strftime)
I don't see how specifying a timezone on a epoch count makes any sense (input/strptime).
A 'number of seconds since epoch' (%s) is a _duration_, not a time. It makes no sense to attach a time zone to it. (This seems to have been the initial response from the project maintainer).
From the original article the reported "bug" is about _parsing_ an epoch duration, not about displaying a time.
DateTime.strptime('0 +0100', '%s %z')
Probably I am missing something but I've re-read the original article and I cannot see this point addressed directly (examples are given but they have to do with displaying/output, not parsing).
I too, have resorted to the same techniques, making me feel like a "master forger" at his painstaking art.
I was imagining a tool which would just let me create an interactive overlay on a PDF. It sounds like Xournal might be just the thing I need. So, thanks for the tip.
The de-anonymizing attack is very interesting. Thank you for highlighting it.
The creator name is 'feature creep' about a future use scenario. People were trying to add uniqueness by changing the creator name, so I added it to the key generation hash.
Instead I should have removed the creator name field from the interface.
Srsly tho. at the moment I don't have those features, but neither did the PDF form experience I'm trying to beat. It's a low bar, but we are still expected to fill out PDF forms today, in the future year of 2022.
(just between you and me, I was planning on ignoring the suggestions for extra libraries and "modernisation"; also it's a feature that it doesn't use a gui form designer. ssshh don't tell anyone...)
Thanks for the Milligram suggestion. I will look into it. It may even fix your mobile experience.
Also thanks for for the mobile test feedback.
Can I ask what mobile device you tested on? Such data points would be really useful to me.
I actually did test on my phone first, Android/Chrome and _in landscape_ it appeared usable.
The PDF also produced OK. It was not an _amazing_ experience but compared the PDF form experience I had it was a delight. I don't consider a phone when I have to fill out a form but in an emergency it would have been possible.
I just tried it in Firefox (latest/postmodern, Linux) and none (not a single one) of the form's fields are editable.
It's an even worse experience than Libreoffice.
Create a form using text markup. Get an URL pointing to the form and mail it to your customers.
I recently received a PDF form (created by M$ Word). I use Linux and managed to open it with Libreoffice (Draw!).
The text entry boxes were misaligned or just missing. Digits each had a separate text field. Tiresome...
By the time I had re-exported it to PDF with the fields filled, some of the formatting had been changed/lost.
So I made this.
I'd rather fill out forms in my browser. Browsers can print PDF. What could go wrong?
AdventOfCode[2021] using sed,prolog and ivy (APL-like) among other languages.