Hi everyone. If I need to convert a JPEG file to a PDF file, and convert isn't cutting it. It was suggested to me that I could just embed the JPEG in a LaTeX file, and get a PDF that way. Does that sound reasonable?

@FaheemMitha Yes that should work.

@AlanMunn Ok. Thanks. That does not seem to be commonly done, though.

@FaheemMitha Well if you have a way to generate PDF without an intermediate JPG at all, that would be preferable I think.

@AlanMunn Oh, certainly.

Promotion ads 2016: meta.tex.stackexchange.com/questions/6473/…

@yo' Perhaps I try to come to the PhD defense too but I've some bureaucracy paper to do to explain what have done in one year and have to check it with my supervisors so it's not only me :/

@yo' And may be in conflict with other licenses too

@PauloCereda en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_ducks ;-)

@RomainPicot Sorry I lost you completely. This question has no edits on it, so it's been about GrindEq since its very beginning .... ?

@yo' I think it's the sentence

> How can we proceed with conversion Latex to MS word if references in Latex document are added using bibtex?

which is a general question

@yo' Well I may have extrapolate. For me the OP just want his/her code working not especially with GrindEq

@JosephWright Exactly !

@JosephWright Ah ok. I missed this part, sorry. Well, still the problem with GrindEq has a very easy answer, which cannot be really posted in the generic question...

Btw, a +300 answer to a -100 question. I just wowed.

@yo' The funny thing is that the Powers have a point. CC BY-SA is only suitable for code if you are wanting GPL-equivalence. The problem then is that there is a vocal subset of people who seem to think that SO is meant to be doing exactly that. The Powers though have not helped themselves by setting a date in advance and not sticking to an existing license in full for their suggestions.

They've also completely failed to address the 'what counts as code' thing

@JosephWright And they have failed to hear what we think. Almost like if "we want to hear what you think" means just "hear" as stated, and not "listen" as would be appropriate.

@yo' Indeed: like I say, I see that they have a point, I'm not saying they've handled it at all well

@yo' For example, upvotes on the question have been interpreted as positive about the idea rather than 'this is a good topic for discussion'

@JosephWright I understand this. I don't like making licenses a big deal. I understand people who re-license their TeX.SE code as WTFPL. I also understand that choosing the good license is a problem. But they are not solving this problem.

@JosephWright morning (you should have written my last answer, I don't know what I'm talking about really:-)

@JosephWright FWIW, MIT license does not solve this problem at all. Or does it? Is LPPL compatible with MIT?

@DavidCarlisle Getting people to give me prefixes continues to be an issue: I should do another sweep over TL (I think it is a sensible plan)

@yo' With the usual 'I have no legal background' warning, my take is that you can use MIT-licensed code in a LPPL package provided you note that those parts to which the MIT license applies

@DavidCarlisle if too packages define \foo

@yo' MIT only requires that you say where the code came from and that any reuse does the same

@yo' Of course, unless this is tested in court we don't know (see current tex-hyphen list discussion about re-licensing to avoid LPPL precisely because it's never been tested in that way, for example)

@DavidCarlisle Are you following the tex-hyphen business?

@JosephWright And from what I understood (and yes, I read both meta Qs), the attribution is non-standard and can be legally removed by easy tricks...

@Johannes_B yes just fixed that (and a few others:-) usually takes a few iterations to eliminate typos

@DavidCarlisle :-D

@JosephWright no, I probably should be. tug.org mail list?

@JosephWright oh there were some questions before Christmas about licencing hyphenation on some list or other, is that ongoing?

@RomainPicot ooh <3

@DavidCarlisle tug.org/pipermail/tex-hyphen, specifically tug.org/pipermail/tex-hyphen/2016-January/001344.html (FMi might also be interested)

@DavidCarlisle Ongoing

@egreg yay!

@DavidCarlisle I'm mainly watching for interest

@JosephWright will read

@JosephWright people use the internet to watch all kinds of things out of interest:-)

@DavidCarlisle I can see Google's point about the LPPL

@JosephWright so can I. In the TeX's world, it's probably fine, despite important and unique, we are small and can handle a lot of things in "good will". For Google, this is not so quite the case.

@yo' Exactly. I guess if I were writing code in an area where the MIT license or similar is common, it would be likely my choice.

@yo' The irony with the 'legal challenge' business is that if you do a good job of the license and getting people to play fair then it will never happen ...

@PauloCereda Coin Coin ! :)

@JosephWright Possibly; like we use to choose LPPL... However, the way how they try to introduce it on SE is twisted round. First, double licensing, second, altered licence, third, complete lack of good explanation.

LPPL has one more problem: This open source license is not open source enough for some people out there.

@yo' ?

@JosephWright Debian?

@yo' No, the whole 1600 email business was about making sure they were OK with it

@JosephWright sorry, but if it takes 1600 mails with them, and 0 mails with anybody else, something is wrong.

@JosephWright just caught up on that thread, can't say I disagree with the LPPL description:-)

@yo' they have special status as so many other linux (and other) distributions use the debian open source guidelines as reference, so if debian had said latex wasn't open source then most linux distributions would have dropped it.

@DavidCarlisle :-)

@yo' For the FSF too ;-)

@DavidCarlisle ok, I wasn't so much aware of this. After all, I don't really care personally (and selfishly)

@RomainPicot FSF?

@JosephWright personally once we decided to give up on the "must rename" clause I'd have flipped to something more like CC0 (not that as it was probably before that was formalised) but just saying as little as possible but that isn't the way it turned out and after months of fractious discussion we were just glad to get anything that everyone would agree to.

@RomainPicot They've not looked at if for years and of course their position is that the GPL is the only way to go (really). Frank and Richard Stallman have I believed discussed things in the past.

@yo' well you might have cared (or at least might have been using some other software by now) had that discussion ended differently.

@yo' Free Software Fundation (GNU GPL addict ;-)

@DavidCarlisle Yes, had I been involved I'd have gone that way (perhaps MIT rather than CC0 as the latter isn't formally a license, and there's the whole acknowledgement business)

@JosephWright LGPL is fine too ;-)

@DavidCarlisle well, I don't install vanilla, so I don't need texlive in my distro ;-)

@RomainPicot Stallman was involved in the above mentioned thread when LPPL 1.3 was written (everyone was involved at some point:-)

@yo' Yes, but various things depend on (La)TeX so there's a knock-on effect

@JosephWright I know. Still, this can happen if Norbert refuses to comply with what they "preach".

@RomainPicot Not sure that's quite true: they really want as much as possible GPLv3

@JosephWright you're right but they "accept" LGPL too otherwise why create it

@RomainPicot Fair enough

@RomainPicot It's an organisation they don't always agree and it has gone on a long time so sometimes change their mind, Stallman has published before now saying LGPL was a mistake (and try to reclassify the first L as "lesser" from the original "Library" as he thinks libraries should be GPL)

@DavidCarlisle I think they changed their minds also because people have used LGPL for other stuff than library and it was not intended

@RomainPicot gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.en.html

@JosephWright good idea on ltnews, hopefully keep everyone happy and fill out the space..

@DavidCarlisle "Proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; free software developers need to make advantages for each other." -- Bullshit. And the reason why I've never believed anything that got out of GNU about licences is reasonable. This approach puts small independent developers in the worst possible situation; because they don't have the money, but they are "proprietary developers".

Good maen

That's why I truly hate this "free only for free people" approach. As if "free people" was a higher caste.

@yo' RMS has a certain rhetoric style and zeal that I don't always agree with, (and I do work for a proprietary software company:-) but has to be said that without that zeal open source software (and a lot of proprietary software) would not be where it is today.

@DavidCarlisle True

@DavidCarlisle But the problem is that I don't understand how software is open if it's closed. Almost like it is clopen if you release it under GPL.

@yo' ?

@DavidCarlisle Well, if you don't make your library available to someone who makes money on it, what's the goal?

@yo' That's the whole question of MIT/BSD-style licenses versus GPL-style ones

@JosephWright yep, exactly. GPL is "we do things for ourselves, actually". BSD is "we do things for everybody".

@yo' Do you want someone to take work you've made available for free, alter it and make it available only in complied form

@JosephWright Probably not. Do I want to prevent people from doing this? I don't think so.

@yo' we don't produce open source software (mostly) we sell a software library, but it's written (mosty) in emacs and initially developed (mostly) on linux the build system is gnu make, it's often compiled with gcc and so it goes. Even in proprietary software companies the entire software stack is held together by open source software.

@DavidCarlisle Not all: I guess MS use their own closed-source compiler, IDEs, etc. for developing Windows

@DavidCarlisle yes, and then (sorry, it's a stupid thing), you can use a GPL library, but only if you soft-link it, not hard-link. WHAT?! (I hope I got this right.)

sorry, I gotta go now. See you later.

@yo' Like I say, that's the 'big question': some people really don't like the idea that their work can be used without it also being open, others are not keen on the restrictions this imposes, so we have different licenses

@JosephWright some people at MS yes (but note MS just moved their entire .NET software stack from their own closed codeplex source control to git, so even there open source is used more than you might expect)

@yo' and of the open source unix like systems what proportion use linux and what proportion use BSD? Not everyone likes the way GPL spreads itself but it works (and worked well enough to kill off sun and other commercial unix vendors in the end)

@DavidCarlisle Sure, it's complex

@DavidCarlisle BSD still about, though

@JosephWright yes but linux spread more. Partly that's about functionality but the fact that it uses a licence written with the explicit intention of forcing the spread of like minded software is not exactly a coincidence.

@DavidCarlisle Oh, sure

@JosephWright speaking of software development, I'd better go and do some....

@DavidCarlisle :-)

ooh firefox just restarted with a command line interface

@DavidCarlisle The joys of being on Windoze?

@DavidCarlisle ?

@egreg @JosephWright ^^^^

@DavidCarlisle Ooh

One of the fun things about using nightly as your default browser is that you never quite know what they are going to throw at you (it changes at least once a day:-)

@PauloCereda +100 thanks:-)

@DavidCarlisle :)

How can I report a bad behaviour that seems to be reproduced on TL2015 but not previous versions?

Nevermind. :)

Would appreciate thoughts on this

@Johannes_B Maybe 200 of 3000 possible on the ship, but all are working here. While testing engines (speed, crash stop) and navigation (hard turn around, maximum inclination) others are welding and cutting and painting

And one is making TikZ drawings.

Is there a way for \addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{blabla} increase the chapter number? It is not even displaying it here... :(

@PauloCereda \renewcommand\addcontentsline[3]{\refstepcounter{chapter}}

@DavidCarlisle Thank you, it works. :) Do you know why the number is not displayed in the TOC? :)

@PauloCereda \renewcommand\addcontentsline[3]{\refstepcounter{chapter}\thechapter}

@PauloCereda what was your actual question (why would you want the toc code to increment counters?)

Is it just me or does it bother anyone else too when people mix settings and packages?

@DavidCarlisle I am creating a conference proceedings and need to manually add entries in the TOC.

@Alenanno mix?

The Submissões part is displayed correctly (this is done via \includepdf). But when I try to \addcontentsline, there's no number...

:(

@PauloCereda too many variables to guess:-)

@DavidCarlisle I know. :( I couldn't even come up with a proper MWE.

@DavidCarlisle Like packages, then an option for a package, then more packages, then another option. Basically, not writing all the packages first and then all the options.

@PauloCereda whar's written to the toc instead of a number {} or \relax or ..

@Alenanno seems quite natural to have the setup next to the package load

@PauloCereda Wouldn't making a wrapper, like \nochapter be better? :)

@yo' I have it. :)

@DavidCarlisle Yeah, I'm aware that others prefer that setup, but it bothers me lol

\part{Textos técnicos}

\chapter{Foo}

\phantomsection
\addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{Bar}
\refstepcounter{chapter}

:D

@PauloCereda Nooo quack splitting my messages :O

If I use \chapter, I get the number.

(I still have a project in mind for a good, versatile, and modular issue package for compiling journal issue and proceedings)

@Alenanno :D :D :D

@Alenanno if \usepackage[colorlinks]{hyperref} is OK then why not \usepackage{hyperref}\hypersetup{colorlinks} which is essentially the same thing?

@Alenanno I do that as well. My preambles are topic-organized: I load the packages to do somthing and configure them.

@DavidCarlisle It is, technically. I'm just talking about how people organize stuff.

@yo' I load all the packages, then all the options. :P

\documentclass[12pt,oneside,a4paper]{memoir}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}

\begin{document}

\frontmatter

\tableofcontents*

\mainmatter

\part{Textos técnicos}

\chapter{Foo}

\phantomsection
\addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{Bar}
\refstepcounter{chapter}

\end{document}

@DavidCarlisle: ^^ MWE

@Alenanno but some packages only allow options by the usepackage option, some have a setup command and some have both so hard to avoid mixing the loading and setup.

@Alenanno and then hyperref. and then cleveref, but you load expl3 first, before \documentclass, to make hobby work, which tikz-cd relies on.

^^ See, a long sentence ;-)

I want 2 Bar in the TOC. :)

@DavidCarlisle The ones that are loaded in the \usepackage, I will load there of course. I'm talking about something like \addbibresource or similar commands.

:26855627 Yep, that's what I get. :)

Boo it was removed. :D

Boooo

:D

\documentclass[12pt,oneside,a4paper]{memoir}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}

\newcommand\nochapter[1]{
	\cleardoublepage
	\phantomsection
	\refstepcounter{chapter}
	\addcontentsline{toc}{chapter}{\numberline{\thechapter}#1}
}

\begin{document}

\frontmatter

\tableofcontents*

\mainmatter

\part{Textos técnicos}

\chapter{Foo}

\nochapter{Bar}

Bla

\end{document}

@Alenanno yes but logically they are same thing so I can't say it bothers me at all if they are done at same place

@Paulo ^^ Note that Bar won't make it into the ToC if the page on which it is does not exist :-)

@DavidCarlisle It's just a matter of visual organization. :P

@Alenanno if your preamble is more than a dozen lines long it's wrong anyway: make a package and stick it all there

@yo' oooh Tom I wub you. <3

@David, @yo': Thank you!

@PauloCereda :)

@DavidCarlisle That requires more work than what I currently have. Overruled. :P

@yo' Possibly \protect\numberline

@egreg good idea, thanks, tell that to @Paulo :-)

@yo' @egreg updated, thanks. :)

@egreg ooh

@egreg ooh 2x

@egreg ooh ∞×

@PauloCereda I was suggesting a new excuse for procrastination. :)

@egreg Wait for @David to ask about my thesis. :)

@PauloCereda Isn't it on macro expansion? Then \expand\thesis might be sufficient.

@egreg I WUB YOU

Although my supervisor won't like the joke. :)

@PauloCereda Use it as the epigraph for the first chapter.

@egreg pdfTeX 1.50 \expanded?

@egreg :)

@DavidCarlisle So who is writing the additional stuff for the news?

@JosephWright Will ever it appear?

@egreg No

@egreg It's in LuaTeX

@JosephWright 0.87?

@egreg (Well, when I say 'no' what do I know, but I don't see any evidence of a likely release)

@egreg It's been there for ages (from the start?), and I don't think Hans has removed it

This is LuaTeX, Version beta-0.80.0 (TeX Live 2015/W32TeX) (rev 5238)
 restricted \write18 enabled.
(./test.tex
> \expanded=\expanded.
l.1 \show\expanded

\def\foo{\bar}
\def\bar{\baz}
\def\baz{a}
\expandafter\def\expandafter\foo\expandafter{\expanded{\foo}}\show\foo

This is LuaTeX, Version beta-0.80.0 (TeX Live 2015/W32TeX) (rev 5238)
 restricted \write18 enabled.
(./test.tex
> \foo=macro:
->a.
l.4 ...ter\foo\expandafter{\expanded{\foo}}\show\foo

@egreg No changes to foundry.supelec.fr/scm/viewvc.php/trunk/source/?root=pdftex for 5 years ...

@PauloCereda Your ad size is wrong. It must be 300*250 :P

@Alenanno I fixed it. :)

the force is with me this morning crystal ball strikes again:

@PauloCereda It's still wrong lol

@Alenanno You mean it has to be rotated?

@PauloCereda No it has to be 300 wide and 250 high

Rotated or not lol

@Alenanno So it is stupid.

@PauloCereda The rules are the rules. xD

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

@Alenanno Agreed, hence I removed my entries.

@PauloCereda Or... you can resize them?

@Alenanno No.

@JosephWright chris?

@PauloCereda D: Why not?

@DavidCarlisle Sounds good

@JosephWright you I guess:-)

@DavidCarlisle Sounds more realistic

@JosephWright safer too

@DavidCarlisle You aren't suggesting that no-one will understand the text if Chris writes it, are you?

@JosephWright LPPL

@DavidCarlisle :-)

@DavidCarlisle I thought Frank wrote it?

@JosephWright well we all did but those two mostly I suppose

The first version we just sat round the table and tried to draft something coherent, 1.3 was just the process of months of combative edit suggestions so hard to say anyone really wrote it, to be fair.

@Alenanno Sorry, I am not in my best mood today. I agree it's the rules, but they decided to apply something that will simply break all of our previous (published) ads, so that's why I think this whole change is stupid. But I will redraw the ads, at least the new series.

@Alenanno: sorry again.

@PauloCereda You don't have anything to apologize to me for! :D

Don't worry lol

@DavidCarlisle Ah

@DavidCarlisle Not in the SVN?

@JosephWright probably not (I try to forget the details)

@DavidCarlisle :-)

@DavidCarlisle It certainly has the feel of something Chris wrote

@JosephWright Probably Chris at Frank's house:-)

@Alenanno: take a look now, is it correct?

@PauloCereda Yep!

@Alenanno wooo <3

@Alenanno: sorry again. <3

@PauloCereda time to start downvoting!

@DavidCarlisle LOL

@DavidCarlisle: You know that oi is hi in Portuguese, don't you? :)

@egreg: meta.tex.stackexchange.com/a/6479/3094

@barbarabeeton: I published an ad with your avatar. If you feel I should remove it, just poke me. And I apologize in advance. :)

@PauloCereda of course I know all these things

@DavidCarlisle Ah. :)

@PauloCereda /hug

@PauloCereda No prob lol

@ChristianHupfer so sad :( He was also great in Dogma, Galaxy Quest, Love actually… and so many more…

@yo' /hugs back

GROUP HUG

@PauloCereda Quack ! <3

@PauloCereda <3

@RomainPicot Coin coin!

@clemens <3

@Alenanno -- if a manuscript file is submitted to a journal that uses latex for production, sometimes some loaded packages are compatible with the final product, and some packages are not. when the files are edited, if package-specific settings are adjacent to the \loadpackage, it's easier to avoid editing errors. (believe me, this saves a lot of time.)

@PauloCereda -- i think it's a bit silly, but have no objections.

what i do have a problem with, with the new shape of the ads, is that the logical (and official) format of the tugboat cover and tug logo is portrait, not landscape. and i don't think it's reasonable to change that, so the logical conclusion is that those can no longer be used as ads, which bothers me a great deal. any suggestions?

@barbarabeeton I'll think about it.

@barbarabeeton TB is at least squarish and does not contain the text as the integral part of the logo; something can be done about that I think. TUG is a bigger problem, the only thing I see viable is making it an ad, I mean, add text.

@barbarabeeton just have margins

@barbarabeeton I can remove it, at least the one referencing you. :)

@barbarabeeton centering a bit off :-) ^^^

@DavidCarlisle Needs a border (see rules re. white background)

@JosephWright that's a grey background (although could shrink central part a bit so the background covers top and bottom

@DavidCarlisle Oh, I see

@DavidCarlisle -- but boring. on the cover for the first volume, the frame around the press was larger, and the "tugboat" overprinted the top of the press. what about moving the box in its current size to the bottom right corner (taking care not to chop off the front foot) and moving "tugboat" up to the top left corner? still have to deal with rules about frame.

@barbarabeeton rotate TUGboat sideways and place in on the right.

If you can watch 4:3 TV stretched to a 16:9 screen you'll love this:

someone pick @barbarabeeton off the floor

@barbarabeeton That's a good point, but it looks ugly! :( lol

@Alenanno -- worse than @david's latest offering?

@barbarabeeton Which one?

@yo' -- on the right, my inclination is for it to read top-to-bottom, and that implies to me that it's sinking; not a good omen. so why not on the left, reading bottom-to-top?

@Alenanno -- the stretched one.

@barbarabeeton I thought you'd like it

@barbarabeeton Oh ahah :D maybe not worse than that lol

@DavidCarlisle -- hmmmmph.

@Alenanno If you want to advertise TeX-sx on other sites you have to post an ad at the 'other end'

@JosephWright You're right. Like what sites would be interested?

@Alenanno Academia?

@Alenanno math?

@Alenanno Physics, chemistry perhaps

@PauloCereda you've been banned I see :-)

@DavidCarlisle hm?

@PauloCereda see comment under "mine"

@DavidCarlisle ah the bloke criticizing my masterpiece. :)

@PauloCereda -- nice try, but static.

@PauloCereda no the power that be saying your files are too big

@DavidCarlisle I fixed them all. :)

@PauloCereda shame:-)

@DavidCarlisle Yours is the top voted. :)

I suspect Italians. :)

@PauloCereda so I noticed:(

@PauloCereda perhaps people just like bug free code

Englishman going for a walk:

bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35273912

@DavidCarlisle On a serious note, want me to remove it? No problem at all. :)

@PauloCereda better let democracy take its course

@DavidCarlisle ;)

@PauloCereda a lot smaller. just fiddle with the convert params or change the tex?

@DavidCarlisle Ballistic approach, actually. :) I opened them in Gimp and chose an indexed pallete. :)

Did people read Norbert's post? preining.info/blog/2016/01/10-years-tex-live-in-debian

@PauloCereda ah

@DavidCarlisle: ^^ counterattack? :)

@JosephWright have you any license related to texdev? Or it's public domain?

@StefanKottwitz: ooh all ads are using the same border style. <3

@RomainPicot Duckware. :)

@RomainPicot I'd say the content is all public domain where possible and CC0 otherwise

@PauloCereda !!/battle

@DavidCarlisle oh Psmith is sleeping. :)

@PauloCereda I had some backup today which gives me a slight advantage today...

@DavidCarlisle RAF. :)

@PauloCereda Brazilian actually

@DavidCarlisle ooh FAB then. :)

@PauloCereda Brazil is protected by the Thunderbirds?

@PauloCereda Well, so it's a familiar thing distinguishing from ads to other SE sites or commercial ads :-) on the other hand, I just have Gimp here with is not for drawing but such a frame is not hard

@JosephWright Ok thanks :-), I'll use some part of your CV to write mine and may published it only with the sources so may be useful to ask before :-)

@StefanKottwitz :)

@DavidCarlisle hm?

@PauloCereda funtrivia.com/askft/Question54024.html

@PauloCereda But honestly said: I saw the frame requirement, which is new, very late, so I fixed the images quickly by adding the same frame to each. I guess I make them thinner soon and let you keep the bold frames :-)

@DavidCarlisle ooh :)

@StefanKottwitz They are in sync with the ones I posted. :)

@DavidCarlisle: fab.mil.br

:)

@RomainPicot It's there to be helpful (links to the whole license question about SO, and as you'll see I favour CC0 for that)

@PauloCereda I'd have more faith in:

@JosephWright I've seen some people making tuto online with some license to forbid any reproduction because they have some ads or they sell books based on it...

@RomainPicot I'll add something to the 'about' to be clear

@JosephWright thanks ;-)

@DavidCarlisle I love that series. :)

@RomainPicot Done

@RomainPicot Added impressum whilst I was at it

@barbarabeeton “The joy of receiving a parcel” :D

@egreg -- is that in reference to the unicode proposal regarding calligraphic vs. script? it's been suggested that i announce that here and on math.sx, but i'm waiting for a promised blog to appear, so that i can link it. in the meantime, would you help me craft a question for math.sx to ask for info from mathematicians on their use of these two fonts? (i'll send email.)

@barbarabeeton No, I received a parcel from the AMS. :) And you know what it contained.

@egreg -- i do? i don't think i do ... i'm baffled ... ??? (but the request re math.sx stands.)

@barbarabeeton I'm afraid such a question on Math.SE would be closed as off-topic. But one can always try.

@barbarabeeton "The Joy of TeX”, remember?

@egreg: how do you like our new ad? :)

@egreg -- oh! i guess i should remember, but although i said in mail at the time that it would arrive "in a finite length of time", that's two months ago. (too much has happened over the last few months for me to remember something so lacking in controversy!) i hope it arrived in good condition, and that you will benefit as anticipated. thanks for the news.

@barbarabeeton The baby is in perfect health, thanks!

@egreg so you get all amstex questions from now on:-)

@DavidCarlisle A flood each week.

Good maen

@ChristianHupfer meta.tex.stackexchange.com/a/6476/3094 Hi!

@PauloCereda You do not really believe that you can catch attention with an ad using my photo, do you? :D

@ChristianHupfer it has begun!

@PauloCereda The Phantom Paulo Menace :-P

This is my favourite :D

@ChristianHupfer LOL

@ChristianHupfer Top voted.

@ChristianHupfer not mine

@DavidCarlisle Bug in longtable?

Erm, that's been a bit controversial in the past ...

@JosephWright I have a whole page triaging the things htmlpreview.github.io/?https://raw.githubusercontent.com/…

@DavidCarlisle Cool

@JosephWright made for a uktug talk a long time ago but unfortunately the code's not really changed much since then.....

@DavidCarlisle :-)

@JosephWright not changed since 13th May 2014 to be precise :(

@DavidCarlisle Too late :-P

@StefanKottwitz Wow, 200 people.

@StefanKottwitz By the way, i cannot split topics on gL. Maybe ou can look at that at some point. It is the Topics need to have a title thing even though no umlauts are used.