What does that mean?

See also: https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/midterms-larry-krasner-crime/

Any steps more complicated than plain text make it harder to access the text. Have extra steps if you want, but always have plain text available.

Maybe, but you will also always be able to read plain text. The scenario where plain text is unreadable is one where there are no computers at all.

> It's interesting that the internet archive blog doesn't use a secure connection.

https://blog.archive.org/2022/11/15/digital-books-wear-out-faster-than-physical-books/

If it's not readable, then the fact that it is still somehow archived is not as useful.

> And if there are any operating systems which are incapable of opening a pdf, then really that's on them for being poorly designed.

The goal of an operating system is not to read PDFs. As several others have pointed out to you, you could have a plain text file (with the proper encoding) that could be read on a computer that is decades old and it will be readable on one that is made decades from now. You don't know that is true of PDF.

Because plain text will always survive any change in formats, media, input device, etc. It will always be the most indexable, searchable, accessible, and transportable format.

>A plain text format is inferior to a .pdf in literally every way.

Obviously untrue.

Plain text is the ultimate format. All books need to be in plain text.

>That doesn't answer my question. Look at the thread you are in: you called something bad faith that wasn't even a question. The fact that you are paying no attention to the thread itself and blithely writing "bad faith" with no comprehending of what the term means or what is written in the thread is itself bad faith.

That doesn't answer my question. Look at the thread you are in: you called something bad faith that wasn't even a question. The fact that you are paying no attention to the thread itself and blithely writing "bad faith" with no comprehending of what the term means or what is written in the thread is itself bad faith.

What do you think "bad faith" means?

It is absurd. Not everything that The Onion publishes is satire. Message boards are not better off for a raft of comments that are just quotations of an existing piece of media, especially when someone else has already made the same lazy comment.

My questions were asked in good faith.

Oh, okay.

That doesn't answer my questions.

If you're going to respond with a joke, at least an original one that isn't just quoting a piece of media would be nice. How is Reddit better for having these kinds of comments repeatedly?

Also, the person didn't recommend the show or even name it: how would I have known that this is a recommendation? It's just the laziest and most unhelpful comment.

You answered a question with a question. If you're going to respond with a joke, at least an original one that isn't just quoting a piece of media would be nice. How is Reddit better for having these kinds of comments repeatedly?

Someone else already posted this. How is this supposed to lead to meaningful conversation?

How are they yours?