I simply can't get my head around how the Community user works.  Is it a daemon process running in the background, responsible for approving / rejecting edits, poking old questions, etc., or how else does it work?  Thanks.
I see the  on the user page.  It seems to edit posts sometimes.  What is it? And why has it downvoted over 1800 times? See also:
tikz arc with -latex arrow tip Why the arc does not fit over the circle if we use -latex arrow tip? Maybe some bug or some bad math computations?    MWE  \documentclass[11pt,margin=2pt]{standalone} \usepackage{tikz} \usetikzlibrary{arrows.meta}  \begin{document} \begin{tikzpicture} \draw         (0:1cm) arc (0: 180:1cm) arc (180:0:1cm and 2cm); \draw         (0:1cm) arc (0:-180:1cm); \draw[-&gt;]     (0:1cm) arc (0:  80:1cm); \draw[-latex] (0:1cm) arc (0:- 80:1cm); \end{tikzpicture} \end{document} How do I fill an area with faces lined up in a grid over a not flat surface? Hello to everyone again,  I'm looking for an addon or a short cut to fill fast and simmetrically a NOT FLAT surface that needs to be closed with vertices. Doing it manually it takes a lot of time. I tried to do CTRL F and then Grid fill,but it didn't work. Neither F key works. Check the attached screenshot. thanks. According to the documentation, the  method uses a round-to-even algorithm which is not common for most applications. So I always end up writing a custom function to do the more natural round-half-up algorithm:  public static decimal RoundHalfUp(this decimal d, int decimals) {     if (decimals &lt; 0)     {         throw new ArgumentException("The decimals must be non-negative",              "decimals");     }      decimal multiplier = (decimal)Math.Pow(10, decimals);     decimal number = d * multiplier;      if (decimal.Truncate(number) &lt; number)     {         number += 0.5m;     }     return decimal.Round(number) / multiplier; }   Does anybody know the reason behind this framework design decision?  Is there any built-in implementation of the round-half-up algorithm into the framework? Or maybe some unmanaged Windows API?  It could be misleading for beginners that simply write decimal.Round(2.5m, 0) expecting 3 as a result but getting 2 instead. Potentiometer for two 12V/1.1A fans in parallel The beamer command \alt&lt;*overlay specification*&gt;{foo}{bar} will insert foo if the current slide is within the given overlay specification, and bar otherwise.  It's equivalent to   \only&lt;*overlay specification*&gt;{foo}\only&lt;*complementary overlay specification*&gt;{bar}   Here is a sample document using it:  \documentclass{beamer} \begin{document} \begin{frame} \begin{align*} y &amp;= \frac{(x^2+1)\sqrt{x+3}}{x-1} \\ \ln y &amp;= \ln (x^2+1) + \frac{1}{2} \ln(x+3) - \ln(x-1) \\ \frac{1}{y} \frac{dy}{dx}       &amp;= \frac{2x}{x^2+1} + \frac{1}{2(x+3)} - \frac{1}{x-1} \end{align*} So \[ \begin{split} \frac{dy}{dx} &amp;= \left(\frac{2x}{x^2+1} + \frac{1}{2(x+3)} - \frac{1}{x-1} \right) \alt&lt;2&gt;{\frac{(x^2+1)\sqrt{x+3}}{x-1}}{y} \end{split} \] \end{frame} \end{document}   This is very useful and saves typing.  But if one of the alternatives is larger than the other, it leads to jiggling slides.    What I would like is a overlay-specification-aware command \altvisible that would take the same amount of space on each slide.  So it would have to insert a box as big as the bigger of the two, and then set the correct material.  So the above document with \altvisible instead of \alt would not jiggle.  Any takers? "Where somebody/something at" ? I'm not a native English speaker, so I would like to have an explanation of that expression: "Where something/somebody at?"  Examples :      Where Brooklyn at ? (interlude in a Lonely Island album)      Where you at ? (seen on a game server, instead of Where are you, I suppose)   Are not they supposed to say "Where is/are ..."? Use ALT to move windows in Windows like in Linux In most Linux window managers, one can use the Alt key while clicking and dragging to rearrange windows. This is one of my favorite features of Linux window managers.  Is there a way to do this in Windows 7? Word caption style -- different style for label and number? This should be a common problem for anyone involved in technical writing.  When you insert an image (or table etc.) caption in Word, you get  dialog. You enter your caption,  "A happy bicycle" (in yellow).  This might be fine for a happy bicycle, but I want to have captions that have one style for the "enumeration" (label and number) and one style for the description (caption text, as called by Word), as such:    I have tried searching for this but I haven't found anything yet... Suppose I look at a parallel plate capacitor in its rest frame and calculate the electrostatic energy, $E$.  Next, I look at the same capacitor in a primed frame boosted in the direction perpendicular to the plane of the plates. In this frame, the $E$-field is the same strength, there is no magnetic field, and the volume over which the $E$-field extends is less by a factor $1/\gamma$. This suggests $E' = \frac{1}{\gamma} E$, but relativity states that energy transforms as $E' = \gamma E$.   Where is the missing energy? HDMI/Displayport audio control for OS X Do I cast the result of malloc? If the laws of random variables weakly converge to a point mass at $c$, then the random variables converge in probability to $c$. This is question 10.3.1 from Rosenthal's First Look at Rigorous Probability.  Suppose $\mathcal{L}(X_n) \Rightarrow \delta_c$ for some $c \in \mathbb{R}$. Prove that $\{X_n\}$ converges to $c$ in probability.  Here $\mathcal{L}(X_n)$ refers to the distribution of $X_n$.  Is the following proof correct?  Is a simpler proof available?  Is there a simple proof using Skorohod's theorem?  I attempted to prove the contrapositive. Suppose $X_n \not \to c$ in probability.  This means that there is an $\varepsilon &gt; 0$ so that for all $N$, there exists an $m &gt; N$ such that  \begin{equation}   P(|X_m - c| \geq \varepsilon) &gt; \eta, \text{ for some $\eta &gt; 0$}. \end{equation}  Consider  \begin{equation}   B := \{x \in \mathbb{R} : |x - c| \leq \varepsilon\} \in \mathcal{B} \text{ the Borel sets on $\mathbb{R}$}. \end{equation}  Then $B^c \in \mathcal{B}$ and denoting the distribution of $X_n$ as $\mu_n$ we have  \begin{equation}   \mu_n(B^c) = P(X_n \in B^c) = P(|X_n - c| \geq \varepsilon) &gt; \eta. \end{equation}  For all $N$, there exists an $m &gt; N$ such that the cumulative distribution function of $X_m$ is not the same as the cumulative distribution function of $\delta_c$; in particular it's mass changes somewhere at least $\varepsilon$ distance from $c$. Finally because $\delta_c(\{x\}) = 0$ for all $x \neq c$ this completes the proof. Show that $\lim_{n\to\infty}b_n=\frac{\sqrt{b^2-a^2}}{\arccos\frac{a}{b}}$ If $a$ and $b$ are positive real numbers such that $a&lt;b$ and if $$a_1=\frac{a+b}{2}, b_1=\sqrt{(a_1b)},..., a_n=\frac{a_{n-1}+b_{n-1}}{2},b_n=\sqrt{a_nb_{n-1}},$$ then show that   $$\lim_{n\to\infty}b_n=\frac{\sqrt{b^2-a^2}}{\arccos\frac{a}{b}}.$$ I tried to calculate explicitly the first few terms $a_2,b_2$ etc but the terms got too complicated really quickly and I couldn't spot any pattern. What is the difference between "accumulative" and "cumulative"? I'm having a hard time understanding the real distinction between  and .  accumulative     adjective         tending to accumulate or arising from accumulation; cumulative.   tending to accumulate wealth; acquisitive.      cumulative     adjective         increasing or growing by accumulation or successive additions: the cumulative effect of one rejection after another.   formed by or resulting from accumulation or the addition of successive parts or elements.   of or pertaining to interest or dividends that, if not paid when due, become a prior claim for payment in the future: cumulative preferred stocks.      These definitions (and those from other dictionaries as well) say different things but I can't understand how they aren't really meaning the same thing.  Yet, when thinking about it, it seems there are some cases where it is distinctly more correct to use one or the other.  What's the difference, practically? New "[tag:" syntax interferes with Markdown links Links in [link text][number] format don't work properly if they follow a tag using the new [tag:tagName] format. Here's the result of [tag:python] [gold badge page][1]:      [gold badge page]   Putting the tag inside the link is worse. Here's the result of [[meta-tag:bug] some text][2], where [2] is google.com:        The part of the link outside the tag just disappears silently.  EDIT: To be more precise, the entire link to [2] disappears. The markup that is produced contains (invalid) nested anchor tags, as shown here from Firefox's "View Source":  &lt;a href="http://google.com" rel="nofollow"&gt;&lt;a href="/questions/tagged/bug" class="post-tag required-tag" title="show questions tagged 'bug'" rel="tag"&gt;bug&lt;/a&gt; some text&lt;/a&gt;   So the tag is still a link, but it is a link to the tag page, which is the behavior it would have if the link to [2] didn't exist at all. The user's desired behavior in this case is... ambiguous, to be charitable.  EDIT 2: I briefly included markup from Firebug here, but it turned out to be irrelevant. It has now been removed to improve readability. See  if you're interested. Is a comma necessary in "What’s funny, is …"? In the sentence     What’s funny is Cat’s dry humour.   Wouldn’t it be better to put a comma after “funny”:     What’s funny, is Cat’s dry humour.   This question entails a (at the time of writing) heated discussion in the . Prove $\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{a_n}{n}$ exists for positive sequence where $a_{n+m} \leq a_n + a_m$ Let $\{a_n\}_{n=1}^\infty$ be a positive sequence of real numbers such that $a_{n+m} \leq a_n + a_m.$  Prove that $\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{a_n}{n}$ exists by showing that $\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{a_n}{n} = \inf_{n \geq 1} \frac{a_n}{n}.$   A similar question has been posted previously, see  , and I have found that this is the general result of "Fekete's Subadditive Lemma" for sequences, but I am unhappy with the few proofs I've seen.  Perhaps the clearest one I have found is  , but this seems a bit tricky for what is expected on this qualifier question.  We are given a hint "treat $\liminf$ and $\limsup$ separately".  Does anyone know of a more direct way to show that this limit exists? Custom Adapter for List View I am using Adobe CC(2015) latest version and the behaviour of the smart objects isn't normal. When I paste a vector from Illustrator to Photoshop, the vector looks low quality or rough.   ORIGINAL  IN PHOTOSHOP   However, if I click over the smart object layer(in Photoshop)and this is opened in Illustrator, the vectors looks as the original one.   VECTOR OPENED IN ILLUSTRATOR FROM PHOTOSHOP SMART OBJECT   How can I solve this? Persistent live drive with a partition for persistence There are some web sites describing  new tools new features in [new versions of] old tools  that can create a persistent live drive from an iso file with Ubuntu 19.10 and the corresponding Ubuntu family flavours.  Why and how does it work? How is it different from earlier methods for persistent live drives? Isn't live the default for a cloned drive?