The bottom-most bridge was built around the 12th century. How the hell they managed to build stuff like this way back then staggers me.

I find it hard to relate with this sentence. That’s just 3 bridges on the top of what seems like a natural rock formation, right? With 2 being arches and the top one being a modern-ish structure.

No matter how deep it is, it’s narrow enough to just move a prebuild wooden foot bridge used for people to go around constructing the thing.

I prefer copying the text on the terminal and pasting it, due to most platforms using jpeg compression on png uploads, making written text worse.

This was by far the best way to explain current slang.
I got all of it No Tea

Ahh! Wrong org. It was OSI, not FSF.

When you switch to Linux and can now pay for windows.

https://www.opencompute.org/projects

This seems to be a non-profit

Well, FSF OSI would have trademarked “Open Source” if they could.

There can’t be infinite deceleration,

I realise I should have been more specific.
Considering the pusher as a point object, deceleration of the pusher be infinite. Just another simplification so that you don’t have to calculate what would happen to all the speeds in between.

You said unfoldable not non-compressible. Your fault.

This is a nice example that also makes me think more questions.

• Will the hole punching be forward or backward?
• Assuming infinite deceleration, for an observer on the other end of the barn, will the barn be punched through, before or after the pole-pusher has stopped?
• For the pole-pusher, will the barn be punched through, before or after it has stopped?

Gets more interesting

The only time any information can be encoded onto entangled particles is when they’re created.

If that were the case, then we aren’t really doing FTL communication, unless we manage to entangle them at a distance. No?

OIC, it’s still useful if we want to make a secret key and send it somewhere. Then both sides can take a reading sometime in the future and they can then use whatever cluster of entangled particles they saw, as the symmetric key.

Nice.

Depending upon what you are aiming for, I’d go with a sidebar. Something like this:

• (a) The sidebar’s horizontal width can be changed, causing all docked widgets in it to resize their width to fit.
• (b) The docked widgets/sections may resize vertically, either automatically or manually
  • In case of manual resizing of widgets, you might want to add a scroll area in the widget
• (c) A widget/section may leave empty area in the bottom or vertically expand to fill
• (d) In case of empty area, the sidebar can either have empty space or be vertically shortened to expose part of the workspace underneath
• (e) Instead of having just a single widget, you can have a section on the toolbar, with multiple widgets in it. In this case, when the user changes the tab, the section will either automatically resize (vertically) as per widget requirements, or will stay the size that the user set manually, adding a scrollbar in case of overflow or empty area in case of lack of widget content.

This is in contrast to usual sidebars that tend to have a main tab bar, which only allows for a single docked widget to be shown at a time. This will allow the user to stack widgets both vertically and horizontally as per their requirements. A similar example can be seen in the right side panel in the Design Mode of Qt Creator itself.
Folded widgets/sections, when docked, will yield vertical space to other widgets/sections, which will in turn, snap upwards (or you can do downwards if that’s your fancy)

Maybe you can also make the floating widgets mergeable into tabs, which will reduce the number of point+click actions in cases where only 1 of 2 widgets is being used.

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Because the stuff that’s actually exciting and unknown, flies miles above their heads.