TopAnswers
TeX
:) 
@samcarter We need a TikZlings unicorn: https://twitter.com/TeXniker/status/1639061725478629376?t=C6kptCR0YRsvSH1I50Msew&s=19
This looks like a fun toy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccpsyRipHlk
I've recently read about it on Mastodon. Looks indeed very interesting.
[typst](https://github.com/typst/typst) looks very promising. Hope it will replace TeX in the future.
Great suggestion, thanks a lot! At first, this tool refused to work saying ``` Image with transparency and a bit depth of 16. This is unsupported due to PIL limitations. error: Refusing to work with multiple >8bit channels. ``` however I didn't need any transparency here, so I: - opened the original PNG image in Gimp; - picked a suitable background color; - added a new layer filled with this color; - merged the original layer into the new background layer; - removed the alpha channel from the resulting layer (right-click on the layer → Remove Alpha Channel); - used File → Export As... to write a new PNG file without the alpha channel. After this, `img2pdf` worked quite fine on the new file. The sizes of the original PNG and the resulting PDF file are very close (the PDF file being slightly smaller: 17,023,902 vs. 17,050,961 bytes). Besides, your link taught me the existence of the `pdfimages` tool which is fantastic to: - list all images embedded in a PDF file (`pdfimages -list foo.pdf`); - extract them, e.g. with `pdfimages -all foo.pdf someprefix` (there are options to choose output formats, `-all` being equivalent to `-png -tiff -j -jp2 -jbig2 -ccitt` according to the `--help` output). :-)
Use `img2pdf` instead. It's a command line tool that is really well behaved. See its [README that contains comparisons to other tools](https://github.com/josch/img2pdf#comparison-to-imagemagick)
Hi all!
In order to convert from PNG or JPEG to PDF (a photo to be printed at a shop to put in some enclosing on a grave), my naive way is:
```
\documentclass[border=0mm]{standalone}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\begin{document}
\includegraphics{image}
\end{document}
```
Before doing so, I've tried ImageMagick's convert but the resulting PDF size was much smaller than the original PNG, so I guess ImageMagick degraded the image by using some default resolution. Apart from looking up the PNG resolution and somehow feeding it to ImageMagick, which is too cumbersome to my taste, is there an obvious way I have missed (on Linux)? Thanks!or even https://www.shortlist.com/media/images/2019/05/50-best-hollywood-beards-4-1556697841-CDRC-column-width-inline.jpg
something like https://images.halloweencostumes.co.uk/products/52613/1-2/biblical-moses-wig-and-beard.jpg ?
she needs a beard! Just somehow a slightly different looking one
I love the idea! The beard looks a bit too much shaving cream or icing right now
```
\documentclass{standalone}
\usepackage{tikzducks}
\begin{document}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=2]
\duck[recedinghair=lightgray!70,beard,book={\parbox{1cm}{\centering\tiny 10 Quacks}},bookcolour=gray]
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{document}
```what about Moses duck?
It's easier for the others if you use a single account (and in the long run for yourself... we rabbits know)
it is possible, there are two different methods to "log in", on your profile page there is the section "link another device to this account", that one will be invalid after 1 minute, but the key created in the next section "account recovery" can be used indefinitely.
Concerning using the same topanswers.xyz/tex account on two machines: Is it possible to do this if I can access the two machines, say, only with an interval of ≥1.5 h in between (because they are simply far apart and off unless someone actively uses them)? Should I bother at all having one and the same account?
:)
my mistake
oh it is a wolf after all
question for the experts. Does it look like the fox is wearing its hat ? https://topanswers.xyz/image?hash=f0b63582053faaa9bff6057b5fe75a206a7e765ebeb6e0cce78c65abb243f6be
a few people play with the idea to start from scratch, but at this point it's merely a thought experiment. So yes, consider this a joke :)
You close your eyes for a few hours and the site is flooded with `beamer`... Time for `xbeamer` to put an end to this :P
patch vs. redefinition in general is a difficult question. Personally I think that for classes/package with a rapid development and lots of new features, a patch might be better. This way one can enjoy cool new features. For things which are pretty stable and just being maintained, a redefinition might be more robust.
On topanswers, I would certainly be willing to write a full answer. Here one does not have the problem that one would just duplicate a bunch of previous posts :)
> I will not argue with the beamer maintainer about beamer but my reasoning was that if in the future the code for footnote changes then a patch seems more robust?! I would conclude the opposite. Say for example beamer would for some reason make a small change to the code, e.g. using `\RaggedRight` from the ragged2e package instead of `\raggedright`, then your patch would fail. With a redefinition, it might not pick up some minor changes beamer does, but it would keep working, (that's just an example, I don't think anybody has plans to replace `\raggedright` :) )
- Thanks! - Are you willing to provide a full answer later? I can also ask the question on https://topanswers.xyz/tex if that is preferred. - And please tell me when I am wrong!
Here a version with a patch
```
\documentclass{beamer}
\usepackage[english]{babel}
\newcommand{\myPHText}{Lorem ipsum is placeholder text commonly used in the graphic, print, and publishing industries for previewing layouts and visual mockups.}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\beamer@@tmpl@footnote{\raggedright}{}{}{}
\makeatother
\begin{document}
\begin{frame}
\footnote[frame]{\myPHText \myPHText}
\end{frame}
\end{document}
```1. Marijn tried hooks but it did not work (see comment underneath the question: https://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/678385). 2. I will not argue with the beamer maintainer about beamer but my reasoning was that if in the future the code for footnote changes then a patch seems more robust?!
> I was hoping for a general approach such as “AddCodeBeforeFootnoteEnvironment” (I made this up) without the need to repeat the original code for a footnote. One could patch the template instead of redefining it, but as it so short, I don't see a big advantage from doing this. > In addition, I am Covid-positive (for the first time) since Saturday Oh no! Get well soon!
Thanks! And sorry for the question with several sub-questions. Honestly, I was thinking about spitting it up but then thought that a future reader might appreciate one place for all related questions (assuming a future reader also might change several environments as I do). I was hoping for a general approach such as "AddCodeBeforeFootnoteEnvironment" (I made this up) without the need to repeat the original code for a footnote. In addition, I am Covid-positive (for the first time) since Saturday and wasn't fully awake when I posted the question :) (lame excuse). Otherwise, I would/should elaborate more/better, sorry.
I did not mean to say that one should fix every such instance out there. Of course, it will be a tedious task, but coding consistently and meaningfully can aid new learners to understand the system better. (_just what I feel_ :smile:)
There are hundreds of such cases in beamer - many of them with no consequence - I don't think is is worth the time and energy to fix them unless they actively cause a problem.
Hmm, but still I would avoid writing it this way, it becomes confusing. I have struggled a lot with these `%`s in my early days and especially because of their inconsistent use in the TeX-world.