For instance, I'd expect you to find "me too" comments, and those should be eliminated, just as "me too" "answers" on S.O. are eliminated.

I'd expect you to find status-update queries and replies. So that suggests you need a mechanism for pinging for an update that doesn't require a bunch of text from user and developer, or else some mechanism by which the freshness of a ticket becomes irrelevant.add new answers to old questions.)

I'd expect you to find people posting workarounds, which would suggest that you want workarounds to be a different "type" than regular commentary, and you probably want them called out separately somehow. It sucks to have to read through three pages of identical me-too complaints to find a workaround and then read through another two pages of people thanking the workaround author for the workaround, as frequently happens on the Ubuntu tracker.

I'm not sure if these are helpful examples or not, but I think when you see a pile of messages that you have to read through to extract content, you are looking at an opportunity to work out the hidden semantics of the thing, and turn those hidden semantics into first-class entities and actions, to make a more structured environment that will save people time.

I have seen too many JIRA deployments where the only plan was, make the state machine larger and require more separate fields from everybody. But those fields and states really just represent the hope that you might not have to read that pile of comments. In practice, most of those fields wind up empty, most of those states wind up skipped over, and you still have to read the whole ticket. Why? Because a JIRA ticket is still fundamentally a chronologically-sorted forum thread.

JIRA is basically the most sophisticated programming forum, for issue tracking. What we need is the Stack Overflow of issue tracking, that figures out what the real entities and actions are and eliminates the chronological pile-up.

I wish I had sources for my other comments handy. If I have time I will try to dig some up.

Pandoc is a good tool for automating workflows that start with some other format and end with LaTeX.

Another good option if you like Emacs is org-mode, which has a LaTeX export, among other things.

What is different about ConTeXt is the prevailing attitude towards using plain TeX from it. LaTeX really seems to consider plain TeX quite unsafe. I suspect this is because it is hard to build a resilient declarative system on highly weird and procedural TeX. ConTeXt, on the other hand, kind of encourages you to use TeX directly. So that led me to learning more about plain TeX, which now seems much less scary to me than when I was using LaTeX.

Show your kids how to save and how NOT to overwrite your save in BoTW.

Having my kids blow away my ~20 hours of work completely deflated me and I have not been able to get back into it since.

Then again, I've gotten deeply in chess lately...

In general, strong play has a lot of forcing moves that demand responses. Being obsessed with having the last word is akin to allowing the other player to dictate when and where you will play, which is a substantial advantage for the other player. Go is won by area, not capture, so often a weak-looking sketch of territory is more effective than a lot of direct squabbling over little stones.

It's also easy to overplay. Being greedy is a good way to lose everything in Go. So a good game can have the flavor of a negotiation. There are even a lot of standard trades that aim for equality between the players.