jackdouglas

"abc","ABC","https://homepages.cwi.nl/~steven/abc/"
"abc-assembler","ABC-assembler","https://github.com/Ourous/abc-wrapper-linux"
"ada-gnat","Ada (GNAT)","https://www.gnu.org/software/gnat/"
"agda","Agda","http://wiki.portal.chalmers.se/agda"
"algol68g","ALGOL 68 (Genie)","https://jmvdveer.home.xs4all.nl/algol.html"
"aliceml","Alice ML","https://github.com/aliceml/aliceml"
"apl-dyalog","APL (Dyalog Unicode)","https://www.dyalog.com/"
"apl-dyalog-classic","APL (Dyalog Classic)","https://www.dyalog.com/"
"apl-dyalog-extended","APL (Dyalog Extended)","https://github.com/abrudz/dyalog-apl-extended"
"apl-dzaima","APL (dzaima/APL)","https://github.com/dzaima/APL"

jackdouglas

<%@ Page Language="VB" %>
<%@ Import Namespace="System.Data.SqlClient" %>
<%@ Import Namespace="System.IO" %>
<%@ Import Namespace="System.Data" %>
<%@ Import Namespace="System.Collections.Generic" %>
<script runat=server>
Protected Class Result
	Public head As List(Of String)
	Public align As List(Of Integer)
	Public data As List(Of List(Of String))

jackdouglas

BH already has a "show your work" guideline and this still applies. In essence we<sup><sup>1</sup></sup> 
propose to firm up this guideline and begin to enforce it more vigorously. The other answers here 
illustrated a division in the community and we hope to be able to move forward together by focussing on 
what we agree on.

Writing descriptively -- "such-and-such source says X",
as opposed to "X is true" -- dovetails nicely with "show your work". If you do this you're most of the
way to showing your work. We are not in general requiring this approach, but it's a helpful approach
and answers that use it are likely to fare well. Specifying a framework explicitly in an answer can
help readers understand the internal logic, particularly for frameworks that

jackdouglas

Jack and Monica jointly propose the following path forward:

The results of this question have been somewhat inconclusive so far.  The most-voted 
answers have the following vote breakdowns (as of this writing):
 
- Avoid truth assertions (use qualified language): +12 / -7 (5)
- Bring your own framework: +10 / -6 (4)
- Good answers respect their questions: +8 / -4 (4)
- Specify your framework: +6 / -5 (1)
 

jackdouglas

dd if=/dev/zero of=vm.1 count=1 bs=1M
cp vm.1 vm.2
dd if=/dev/urandom of=vm.2 count=1 bs=1K conv=notrunc
dd if=/dev/urandom of=vm.2 count=1 bs=1K seek=4 conv=notrunc
dd if=/dev/urandom of=vm.2 count=1 bs=1K seek=8 conv=notrunc
dd if=/dev/urandom of=vm.2 count=1 bs=1K seek=12 conv=notrunc
jdiff sig <vm.1 >vm.1.sig4k
jdiff1 sig <vm.1 >vm.1.sig1k
jdiff delta vm.1.sig4k /dev/null <vm.2 >vm.delta4k.gz
jdiff1 delta vm.1.sig1k /dev/null <vm.2 >vm.delta1k.gz

jackdouglas

There have been a lot of discussions on meta about different aspects of site direction, but none directly focused on the fundamental question: What kind of site do we want to have? What should our culture be? In particular, what style of answers are we looking for?

This question is fundamentally about **where do we want to be in the end**, and not about *how we get there*.

**We all agree that contributions must 'show their work'. Exactly where and how we draw the line is an implementation detail and outside the scope of this question.**

We've provided answers that capture the main positions we know about. Please feel free to add your own if you have another outcome in mind.

Please up-vote answers you find acceptable, down-vote ones you don't, and abstain if you don't feel strongly either way. Please also up-vote the question no matter which of these you do, so we can gauge participation.

jackdouglas

**Avoid truth assertions**

We want a site that welcomes people of all perspectives, as our site description says.  
This broadens the appeal of the site (though of course we don't want a free-for-all).

This site focuses on the *text* and the 
process of interpreting it, using the tools of (at least) grammar, linguistics, history, 
archaeology, science, and comparison with other texts.  None of that is inherently 
religious, and that non-dependence on a religious foundation is what 
*distinguishes* BH from other sites in the SE network.

jackdouglas

**Bring your own framework**

We want a site that allows contributors to speak from within their framework. Overall, 
this broadens the appeal of the site, and it preserves the richness of expression when 
answers are given in the natural context of the one giving the answer, even if this
means expressing one's framework or opinions as unqualified facts.

Our aim is to be 'expert' in the context of the internet. This will not be the best 
home for those who do not think deeply about the texts or those who cannot communicate 
clearly and effectively. But it is not our aim to be home only to academics or full-time 

jackdouglas

**Bring your own framework**

We want a site that allows contributors to speak from within their framework. Overall, 
this broadens the appeal of the site, and it preserves the richness of expression when 
answers are given in the natural context of the one giving the answer.

Our aim is to be 'expert' in the context of the internet. This will not be the best 
home for those who do not think deeply about the texts or those who cannot communicate 
clearly and effectively. It is not our aim to be home only to academics or full-time 
theologians: that would narrow the user-base too far and not be sustainable.

jackdouglas

**Avoid truth assertions**

We want the site to focus on questions about the text and the process of interpreting that. 
This relies on (at least) grammar, linguistics, history, archaeology, and comparison 
with other text. None of that is inherently religious, and that non-dependence on a 
religious foundation is what distinguishes BH from other sites in the SE network.

Because we are focused on the text and the process, not on religious application, 
assertions of religious truth ("dogma") are not helpful in answers: they can't be 
examined, proven or disproven, or dug into the same way that other factors cna be.