zlacker

>>legran+(OP)
Google: you are a web company. Please learn to publish your research papers as web pages.

>>simonw+d4
I expected to see some eldritch css monstrosity, but no, its just a pdf. A well formatted one, at that.

What’s your issue there?

>>orange+l5
Reading two column PDFs on a mobile phone sucks.

Plus I can't use web tools, like "Read this page" in Mobile Safari.

And copying and pasting is harder.

And I can't link to individual sections.

I'm honestly baffled by people who prefer PDFs for this kind of information. Are they printing them out on paper and going at them with a highlighter or something?

>>simonw+K5
Just my personal take, but when I have to read something carefully, I find it easier to do on paper.

For example, I recently wrote an article about taking random samples using SQL. Even though I was writing it for my blog, which is HTML, I proofread the article by rendering it as a PDF doc, printing it out, and reviewing it with a blue pen in hand.

What surprised me is that I also found it easier to review the article on the screen when it was in PDF format. TeX just does a way better job of putting words on a page than does a web browser.

Actually, if you want to do the comparison yourself, I'll put both versions online:

HTML: https://blog.moertel.com/posts/2024-08-23-sampling-with-sql....

PDF: https://blog.moertel.com/images/public_html/blog/pix-2024060...

I don't think either version is hard to read, but if I had my choice, I'd read the PDF version. But maybe that's just me.

Let me know which you prefer.

>>tmoert+0d
On mobile phone, as a reader with photophobia, the pdf causes physical pain, and is illegible, whereas the html is perfectly readable via reader mode (where text can be enlarged and dark mode settings are respected.