The logo displayed at the top of each SE site is designed to link to the respective site's homepage. This works fine on most SE sites, except Meta SE.  For some reason, the logo is only clickable on its very left edge, as demonstrated below.    I'm using Opera stable 37.0.2178.43.  Using Inspect Element, this is what I see...
On every other site on Stack Exchange I can click on the site's title and be taken directly to the questions...     Except Meta.stackexchange.com   Here I actually have to click on the word "Questions" as there is no link active on the Meta title and logo.  Now I agree this isn't a big deal, however as I typically visit stack exchange pages up to a couple of hundred times a day, this one that doesn't fit spoils my flow. I am pretty certain it used to work.  It works for me in Firefox, and Safari on iPad, but even closing and reopening Chrome doesn't fix the issue.  Chrome is on Version 53.0.2785.116
Right place to ask a "discussion" question (I'm setting up a blog, what should....) Does "no larger than" imply shapability? How do the Flashes breathe utilizing their super speed? The air pressure would be extreme. Do they run in a pressurized bubble? How do I use 'chmod' on an NTFS (or FAT32) partition? Best way to detect when a user leaves a web page? What is the best way to detect if a user leaves a web page?  The onunload JavaScript event doesn't work every time (the HTTP request takes longer than the time required to terminate the browser).  Creating one will probably be blocked by current browsers. Why is it sensical for a proposition with a false antecedent to validate to true? In propositional logic, the statement "If pigs can fly, then elephants can lay eggs." validates to true because the antecedent validates to false.  In other words, given $a \rightarrow b$, if a is false, the entire statement is true. Why?  Just because the antecendent is false doesn't mean that another fact depends on it, right? What is the difference between currying and partial application? I quite often see on the Internet various complaints that other peoples examples of currying are not currying, but are actually just partial application.  I've not found a decent explanation of what partial application is, or how it differs from currying. There seems to be a general confusion, with equivalent examples being described as currying in some places, and partial application in others.  Could someone provide me with a definition of both terms, and details of how they differ? I've been perusing the internet looking for interesting problems to solve. I found the following problem and have been going at it for the past 30 minutes with no success:     Find a function $f: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ satisfying $f(f(x)) = -x$ for all $x \in \mathbb{R}$.   I am also wondering, can we find $f$ so that is continuous?  I was thinking of letting $f$ be a periodic function, and adding half the period to x each time. I had no success with this, and am now thinking that such a function does not exist.  Source: I was recently granted German refugee status with a travel document and, in my interview, I told them I would never go back to my home country, Iraq. Now, someone I loved died in my country.  Is it possible for me to leave and return to the Schengen area, using my Iraqi passport? Would German Immigration notice and would it revoke my refugee status?  Would I be able to use both my Iraqi passport and my German travel documents? Would the German authorities know if I did this? I'm reading Algebraic Number Theory by Jurgen Neukirch. I have some problems with some of the exercises in Section 9 of Chapter 1.  They are:  1) If $L / K$ is a Galois extension of algebraic number fields with non-cyclic Galois group, then there are at most finitely many non-split prime ideals of $K$.  2) Let $L / K$ be a finite (not necessarily Galois) extension of algebraic number fields and $N / K$ the normal closure of $L / K$. Show that a prime ideal $p$ of $K$ is totally split in $L$ if and only if it is totally split in $N$.  I have worked on them for a long time but couldn't get any idea of it.   Can you please help? Thank you! Where to download Flash Player for offline installation? I can't find Flash Player download link which will give me the full EXE/MSI file, not the tiny downloader which downloads data from the internet.  What's the proper download site for this? How to identify predatory publishers/journals Why do snap-packages exist - is there a real need? Assumptions  Honestly, I do not know much about  snap-packages - but this is irrelevant for this question - see below. I assume the system is significantly different from the existing one.  Does the change make sense?  Is there an actual need, strong enough? That is - is there a new use case, that is important enough to develop a new format - and the associated infrastructure?  Was it not feasible to change the current method to cover the new use cases too?  Or am I missing the point?  It is possible that what I see is mostly marketing - new names and presentation for minimal technical change, to get a chance that any body assumes it as "new and better" and it may be actually used. Also, it may be that the new packages are so closely based on the existing format that it is mostly a change in presentation to the user. That could be a good solution, of course. In this case, this question would have not much relevance.  Then, I would hope that is still useful enough to answer to side aspects.  Just let me know if the question is not helpful or confusing to new users, I'm happy to delete it.  So, why do they exist?    Background  My first reaction was "That makes no sense!"  This is similar to a situation where, on the physics site, someone asked, unhappy, why nobody discusses his brilliant new ideas in answers. It looked strongly like crackpot ideas; So far from actual physical knowledge that it was hard to find a point to even start. I wrote an answer that did not touch his ideas with a single word, but explained why one would just not discuss assuming crackpot ideas - not the first case of that. The answer was actually hitting the point, I think.    If my assumptions were right, this case is similar.    But then, maybe not - let's see. does not appear to actually define what a rigid shape is. Rather it defines 'same shape' and 'rigid transformations' without giving any definitions of what is necessary and sufficient for a shape to be considered rigid.  For instance, I've seen the following image:    I understand intuitively why the triangle is rigid and quadrilateral is non-rigid. It is also my understanding that inserting a single diagonal connection into the quadrilateral would make the shape rigid? However, given the following image (labeling the shapes $S_1$, $S_2$ and $S_3$ in sequence left to right):    If $S_1$ had a single diagonal connection AB, it would be possible to flip ADB over axis q to obtain a shape similar to $S_2$ with the addition of connection AB (my explanation may not be the greatest). This shape is clearly not the same as $S_1$, so how can we say $S_1$ with a single diagonal connection CD is rigid? I feel I am unclear on what the definition of rigidity actually is. "There Is"/"There are" depends on plurality of the first list element or not? Is the "omniscient-omnipotent-omnipresent" definition of God consistent? is commonly defined as an  (infinite knowledge),  (unlimited power),  (present everywhere) entity.  Is there any logical  in this definition?  I have seen several paradoxes like below     Does God know what he's going to do   tomorrow? If so, could he do something   else?" If God knows what will happen,   and does something else, he's not   omniscient. If he knows and can't   change it, he's not omnipotent.      "Can 'an omnipotent being' create a   stone so heavy that it cannot lift   it?"   Do they mean that the defintion of God ( as commonly held) is logically inconsistent? Bash copy all files that don't match the given extensions When I import pictures from my camera in Shotwell, it also imports the video clips. This is somewhat annoying, as I would like to store my videos in another folder. I've tried to write a bash command to do this, but have not had success.  I need a command that meets the following requirements:   Locate all files in a directory structure that do not have an extension of .jpg, .png, .gif, or .xcf (case insensitive). Move all of these files into a target directory, regardless of whether the file names or directory paths contain spaces or special characters.   Any help would be appreciated!  EDIT: I'm using the default shell in Ubuntu, meaning that some commands are aliased, etc.  EDIT 2: I've attempted this myself (not the copy part, just the listing of files part). I turned on extglob and ran the following command:  $ ls -R /path | awk '   /:$/&amp;&amp;f{s=$0;f=0}   /:$/&amp;&amp;!f{sub(/:$/,"");s=$0;f=1;next}   NF&amp;&amp;f{ print s"/"$0 }'   This lists everything. I tried using grep on the end of it, but haven't the foggiest idea of how to get it to not match a pattern I give it. The extglob switch didn't help much with grep, even though it does help with other commands. Updating global js variable within function and sending updated to HTML document Is there a human home planet? Did all the humans in the Star Wars universe originate on a single planet some time in the distant past, or did they originate on different worlds and intermix into one species over millenia?  This is specifically about only humans, not humanoid aliens. I would prefer answers from the main canon or EU canon. If "clearly evident" is redundant, what word or phrase suggests being indisputable but not readily apparent? A  asks whether the modifier "clearly" changes the meaning of "evident". I would have said, prior to examining a few dictionaries, that evident did not necessarily mean readily apparent, but to my surprise it does.  This brings me to ask what word or expression would mean something can be taken as a true fact, but not through an easily constructed (not obvious or readily apparent) rationale?   For example, if Sherlock Holmes says something is true while everyone else is still sitting on their hands, then it is evident to Holmes, but not to the rest of the world. So, from everyone else's point of view, it is not readily apparent, and (by definition) apparently it is not evident, clear, or clearly evident at all, based on the dictionary definitions. But (let's stipulate) it is true and deducible from the observable evidence. What would we call this?  Update  An update is highlighted above. I can see from some of the answers and comments that I may have gone off my mark with the phrase "not through an easy-to-follow rationale”, and I have modified the question to correct this. I understand that there can be rationales, arguments, or proofs that, once explained, may or may not be easy to follow. What I intend is that the rationale to support the indisputable conclusion is not (initially) easy to recognize or construct (not readily apparent) in the first place. I apologize for the confusion. (The original can be seen in the change history.)  Update 2  Shortly after offering a bounty to this request, I recalled a single word that I now believe is a very good match to the parameters specified in this inquiry as it is stated above. That word has not yet been suggested (or approached) by any answer or comment (active or deleted) at the time of this edit. This request is changed to a single word request. (However, if you feel a single word fits well but not without some additional supporting words, please offer your thoughts in an answer.) While my curiosity for the term has already been met, the request and bounty remain as an open challenge. I will post my own answer once the bounty has expired and been awarded.