« first day (4414 days earlier)      last day (68 days later) » 

8:29 AM
@DavidCarlisle ooh vim
 
@PauloCereda Quack
 
@PauloCereda breakfast
 
@JosephWright ooh a duck
@DavidCarlisle oh no
 
8:48 AM
@PauloCereda :)
 
 
4 hours later…
12:25 PM
\protected :(
 
@DavidCarlisle Oh dear
 
@JosephWright I blame you for me being so modern
2
 
@DavidCarlisle ?
@DavidCarlisle oh texhax list.
 
@UlrikeFischer texhax list, I allowed one instance of \protected in miniltx before checking for it so it fails in classic tex and needs etex
@UlrikeFischer yep:-)
 
@DavidCarlisle why do they use tex instead of etex?
 
12:40 PM
@UlrikeFischer Tradition
 
Meanwhile, anyone following the untraditional cricket scores?
 
 
5 hours later…
6:09 PM
@DavidCarlisle No, it seems we are \protected against cricket here. :|
 
@mickep the best first day test score ever, apparently
 
@DavidCarlisle WOW
 
@DavidCarlisle Cool! I have never had a channel that sends cricket, so I know nothing about it.
 
@mickep ask @PauloCereda he is the local cricket expert bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/63819110
 
6:14 PM
@DavidCarlisle And his favorite player is _Duck_ett?
 
@mickep he carries a cricket bat just in case...
 
 
2 hours later…
8:23 PM
@DavidCarlisle Reading tex.stackexchange.com/q/667165/52406. Is it so that in tikz-cd, the label is from the beginning set in scriptsize, and therefore the c and the 1 there are both in scriptscript size?
 
9:02 PM
@mickep ah I was answering while doing something else. I'll delete
 
@DavidCarlisle But you almost wrote that at the beginning, so...
 
@mickep yes I could fix it, but deleting is easier;-)
 
@DavidCarlisle I see new answers as well. But isn't this in the end another example where one could question the situation with design sizes? As is, the f in the tikz-cd example is taken from a different design size, isn't it?
 
@mickep f is cmmi7 c and 1 are cmmi5
 
9:17 PM
@DavidCarlisle Indeed.
 
@mickep it would probably look better with cmmi10, cmmi7, cmmi5 scaled 80% ie scaled \textstyle rather than \scriptstyle
 
@DavidCarlisle Yes, that seems like a better idea, indeed.
 

« first day (4414 days earlier)      last day (68 days later) »