I just feel that it's technically wrong to call it x64. x86 is the architecture. The x belongs there, so x86-64 makes more sense, but not "x64". It's a marketing term, but it still bothers me.

Isn't "x64" still an x86 architecture?

Ok good point, maybe the kids today never heard Jokkmokks-Jocke?

How about Jokkmokk?

I had to convince people to let me on board a plane because my name contain a swedish letter (å). Their computer system translated it into "aa", which then didn't match my passport.

The danish people will maybe say a lot of things about us swedes, but don't believe the lies.

The reason is that you're reading TeX, not LaTeX. The latter has abstracted away the fundamental building blocks so few people know how an hbox is set anymore. So, an hbox is a box where the content is in horizontal mode. Between the things is glue. Glue can stretch and shrink. Depending on how you have set your tolerance and penalties, there's a maximum percentage of stretch allowed. If the glue stretches more, it becomes bad, this is called badness and can effectively be up to 10000 bad. So why not just put more things into the box? Well, (La)TeX probably tried to do that, but came up with worse badness. TeX always chooses the least bad option on a paragraph level. In practice, the usual suspect is often that you have something else that can't fit the last part of a line, like a really long word. If you can look at it and manually hyphenate it, things might be better.

The author of JSLint wrote:
"So I added one more line to my license, was that, "the Software shall be used for Good, not Evil." And thought: I've done my job!
/.../
Also about once a year, I get a letter from a lawyer, every year a different lawyer, at a company. I don't want to embarrass the company by saying their name, so I'll just say their initials, "IBM," saying that they want to use something that I wrote, 'cause I put this on everything I write now. They want to use something that I wrote and something that they wrote and they're pretty sure they weren't gonna use it for evil, but they couldn't say for sure about their customers. So, could I give them a special license for that?

So, of course!

So I wrote back---this happened literally two weeks ago---I said, "I give permission to IBM, its customers, partners, and minions, to use JSLint for evil." "

People seem to think that those who choose permissive licences don't know what they're doing. Software can be a gift to the world with no strings attached. A company "taking" your code is never taking it away from you, you still have all the code you wrote. Some people want this. MIT is not an incomplete GPL, it has its own reasons.

For example, OpenBSD has as a project goal: "We want to make available source code that anyone can use for ANY PURPOSE, with no restrictions. We strive to make our software robust and secure, and encourage companies to use whichever pieces they want to."

We have a similar system in Sweden, strong social safety nets etc. Some years ago I volunteered in a soup kitchen giving free food to anyone, and saw some homeless people. We can offer apartments etc, but some people are not able to handle it due to mental illness and/or substance abuse. It's quite sad, but ending homelessness completely is very difficult, and requires health care efforts on many levels.

I wanted to try inserting and removing kernel modules, so I looked around and thought "well, I don't have a USB stick in right now so I can safely try removing the usb kernel module." So I did that, and after pressing enter I realized my keyboard is connected with USB.

There's also PonyOS (https://www.ponyos.org/) They wrote their own kernel, so it's not Linux, but it is Unix-like.