(1) I acknowledge that the author already states that "[they are] quite well aware that this uses Unicode not ASCII."
(2) Having said that, as a request to everybody for future text-based creations, could we please stop referring to non-ASCII text as "ASCII". Using characters that aren't in ASCII really shouldn't be referred to as ASCII. Pretty please.
(3) The more generic label of "text QR" or "text-based QR" would be better, in my opinion. In this particular situation, saying "Unicode text QR" or "Unicode QR" would also be appropriate.
Note well: "tobacco use" is a umbrella term that includes e-cigarette use (with nicotine), since the nicotine in vape juice is derived from tobacco plants. Also note: "combustible tobacco product use" declined.
"Among high school students, during 2011–2018, no significant trend in the reported use of any tobacco product overall was observed (Figure 2). However, changes were observed for individual tobacco products over this period. A significant nonlinear increase in current e-cigarette use occurred from 2011 (1.5%) to 2018 (20.8%). During 2011–2018, significant linear declines in combustible tobacco product use (from 21.8% to 13.9%) and ≥2 tobacco product use (from 12.0% to 11.3%) occurred; by product type, significant linear declines occurred for cigars (from 11.6% to 7.6%), smokeless tobacco (from 7.9% to 5.9%), and pipe tobacco (from 4.0% to 1.1%). A significant nonlinear decline was observed for cigarettes (from 15.8% to 8.1%). A significant nonlinear change during 2011–2018 was observed for hookahs (from 4.1% to 4.1%).
Among middle school students, no significant change in use of any tobacco product overall occurred during 2011–2018 (Figure 3). However, changes for individual tobacco products were observed. A significant nonlinear increase in e-cigarette use occurred (from 0.6% to 4.9%) during 2011–2018. A significant linear decline was observed for combustible tobacco product use (from 6.4% to 3.3%), ≥2 tobacco products use (from 3.8% to 2.4%), cigarettes (from 4.3% to 1.8%), cigars (from 3.5% to 1.6%), smokeless tobacco (from 2.7% to 1.8%), and pipe tobacco (from 2.2% to 0.3%); a significant nonlinear change occurred for hookah smoking (from 1.0% to 1.2%)."
Note: 090310.pdf (9 March 2010) is an older version of the textbook. The latest revision of the textbook PDF (091117.pdf, 9 November 2017) is available at:
(I have not tried either of these solutions, so I'm not sure if they actually work.) Although still separate applications, Karabiner and Scroll Reverser are both free. (I mention this since you stated having to "pay for an app".)
Curious: (1) Do you have some screenshots demonstrating this issue and (2) perhaps an example PDF that others could download for the purpose of issue reproduction? (I have not seen this issue, nor am I able to reproduce this issue after repeatedly trying under Preview. I have compared it with on-screen rendering under Acrobat XI, as well.) // Preview 10.0 (944.5), macOS 10.13.4 (17E202), MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2017)
For anyone that wants to download the books, I strongly recommend downloading the PDF archive on Archive.org because the image scans within the PDFs are of much higher quality. https://archive.org/details/Harvard-Classics
Sprite_tm’s presentation at the 2017 Hackaday Superconference... “Small Fruit: Disembiggening the Macintosh Plus” (31 min.) → https://youtu.be/V-PiNVPp5h0
It is a grave accent. Something which was and still largely is of little use to many that grew up in United States knowing only English. So, such users abused and re-purposed it as a "backtick", which feels like an unfortunate decay due to ignorance. But such things continually happen.
In all reality, it was originally named after Shockwave Flash, but the extension meaning was retcon'd to Small Web Format to avoid confusion with Shockwave.
The trick is to use a font that has ligatures, but not to use the ligature characters directly. Let the presentation choose the glyphs to display, and let the encoded characters remain separate as they should. CSS handles this with "font-variant-ligatures" (works in some browsers). I just did a test in Chrome on OS X; toggling between "font-variant-ligatures: common-ligatures" and "font-variant-ligatures: none" changed the presentation, but it did not negatively impact the accessibility, searchability, etc. as the ligature characters would. Automatic glyph substitution in presentation yay; encoded character substitution nay.
Ah! That explains the cruft I've seen today with the mess of truncated tweets with links to themselves (twitter.com/i/web/status/…) at the end of the tweet text. (If you use a third-party client, you'll see this duct-tape in the tweets.)
Went to a dark room with an Apple Remote; let my eyes adjust for a little while. Pressed it many times; I couldn't see the infrared coming from the LED with my naked eye. (But the camera on my iPhone imaged the infrared from the remote's LED.) I envy your biological wavelength detection.
I don't know about Apple, but I know lots of companies that will avoid using the registered logos of others whenever possible, as it opens up the possibility for being bound by another legal string. By avoiding the issue entirely -- not even using the registered logo -- this completely avoids the question of fair-use vs. being sued and/or paying fees.
Now, what they will do is explicitly write the company that has the registered logo -- requesting written approval for a particular context/usage. If they get that, then they will use the registered logo. But as the default case, "avoid as much as possible" is standard policy. Some are more afraid of legal matters than others. Whether this fear is justified is not as immediately relevant in this particular context, as is the existence of the fear itself and the consequences thus.
"Poking fun" would be something along the lines of using the blue-screen-of-death screen as seen with previous networked computer icons in OS X. Whereas, in this instance, the visual representation is a very simple, generic "window" that is still distinctly different from any previously registered Microsoft Windows logos. To me, this instance appears to just be simply avoiding unnecessary use of a registered logo.
I could also get into it further, elaborating why textual registered trademarks may be considered easier to use for fair-use (used for informational purposes) versus registered graphical elements (i.e., logos), but I have no such desire.