Is there any idiom for someone trying to hide or to gloss over or to understate the defects in their work as opposed to covering up to make themselves not look bad?  By "covering up" I mean do something superficial or nominal to pacify the person who pointed out the error but do not actually address the problem (admittedly not precise). By "hide" I mean not acknowledge the problem at all or just disregard the problem or pretend as if there is no problem.
What word/phrase can I use to describe the activity of hiding a stupid mistake/incident, such as quickly cleaning up tea spilled by accident before anyone could notice?
Debian root partition resizing Fix Accessibility of the sites on the leagues (and other pull downs that share the same code path) please The  site picker seems to be ordered on-site statistics instead of alphabetically:  This makes it very hard to find Photography, Physics, and Philosophy (for example) since they are nowhere near each other in the list. I’m open to a better solution, but as it stands, this feels a little too user-hostile to assume everyone is only interested in the first 3 to 5 top visible hits in the ordered list.  Scanning pages of unorganized contents is not optimal Keyboard input should filter and not just jump around  It also breaks accessibility when someone wishes to access the list from a keyboard (or a slower input control) as opposed to a mouse and visually. Subject–verb agreement not clear in "Is two bars OK?" Is the following correct?     Can I get some chocolate for myself? Yes, you can but not much.   Is two bars OK?   Is there any rule to explain the sentence above?  The dialogue's taken from Grammar Textbook Round-Up Level #3. I read a very special book a few years back. We follow a boy who lives in a world where, if one moves far enough in a direction, that person gets distended and changed in size.   The boy works on laying tracks for the train, on which his city is. The city has to continually keep moving or it also will get squashed.   It's like a world like if one end is pinched and then dragged out like a piece of rubber string or bubble gum.   The book is not older than 10 years I think.  Hope I was clear enough... In other words, can I do something like  for() {     for {        for {        }     } }   Except N times? In other words, when the method creating the loops is called, it is given some parameter N, and the method would then create N of these loops nested one in another?  Of course, the idea is that there should be an "easy" or "the usual" way of doing it. I already have an idea for a very complicated one. How to start/stop/restart a thread in Java? Where can I find a reference to the format of the comment field (field 5) of the /etc/passwd file? In the /etc/passwd file on my system, the "comment" field, field 5, is inconsistent in its contents.  I thought that I could extract it to get the full name of the user.  fullname=`awk -F: '$1 == name {print $5}' name=$LOGNAME /etc/passwd`   However this returns with $fullname containing a name with 0, 3, or 4 commas following.  Exploring the man page (man 5 passwd) provides no details of this field other than describing it as "user name or comment field."  Perhaps there is additional information that is stored along with the user name? Let $\phi : R \to S$ be a homomorphism. If $N$ is an ideal of $S$, then $\phi ^{-1} (N)$ is an ideal of $R$. Avoid large spaces between text and equations I use the options  \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.25} \setlength{\parskip}{0pt} \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}    in the preamble of my document and most of the time the document looks like intended. Once in a while though, especially when I use multiline-equations, I get huge spaces right before and after the equation and the surrounding text, for example:    Is there any way I can avoid that without removing the \parskip option? putExtra treeMap returns HashMap cannot be cast to TreeMap android Why does shell Command Substitution gobble up a trailing newline char? Why is $\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{\gamma}\frac{f'(z)}{f(z)}dz$ an integer? Let $f$ be holomorphic in an open $\Omega \subset \mathbb{C}$ and $\gamma$ a closed curve in $\text{int}(\Omega)$, along which $f$ is never zero.   Are these hypotheses enough to claim $\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{\gamma}\frac{f'(z)}{f(z)}dz$ is an integer? If not, what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for that?  I can prove that's an integer for some particular cases, for example when $\Omega$ is convex and  $\gamma$ is a circle. But I've seen people claming this in many other contexts, like when $\Omega$ is an annulus around $0$ and $\gamma $ is an arbitrary curve inside it. This isn't obvious to me at all.  Thanks! How to tell Google to crawl distinct part of the webpage? What approach should I take to make the website Google-friendly, .  The problem is that when a specific content is being requested (eg. ) user is taken to the page using scrollbar, though the surrounding content is still being loaded. How to tell Google that for this URL  only the #36 entry should be crawled.  Is there a tag or other way to select the surrounding content as irrelevant for the URL? Including pdf_tex images from inkscape In terms of purely set theory, the axiom of choice says that for any set $A$, its power set (with empty set removed) has a choice function, i.e. there exists a function $f\colon \mathcal{P}^*(A)\rightarrow A$ such that for any subset $S$ of $A$, $f(S)\in S.$ Is this correct?  My question then is about proving this fact, so that we do not need to put it as an axiom. Now as per the research done on this single object- Axiom of Choice, I believe here that there should be some falsity in my argument. I do not find the mistake.  For any $S\in \mathcal{P}^*(A)$, since $S\neq \emptyset$, $\exists s\in S$. Define $f(S)=s$. Then $f$ is a choice function.  This was showing me that the axiom of choice is proved, but then why it had been put as an axiom? For example, in  book, the author asserts that      It is a metatheorem of mathematical logic that it is impossible to specify the function that assigns to each non-empty subset of $\mathbb{R}$, an element of itself.     There are several notes and books on axiom of choice, but here I am trying to understand through doing some argument for some problem, where problem actually arises. Express $1 + \frac {1}{2} \binom{n}{1} + \frac {1}{3} \binom{n}{2} + \dotsb + \frac{1}{n + 1}\binom{n}{n}$ in a simplifed form I need to express $$1 + \frac {1}{2} \binom{n}{1} + \frac {1}{3} \binom{n}{2} + \dotsb  + \frac{1}{n + 1}\binom{n}{n}$$ in a simplified form.  So I used the identity $$(1+x)^n=1 + \binom{n}{1}x + \binom{n}{2}x^2 + \dotsb   + \binom{n}{n}x^n$$ Now on integrating both sides and putting $x=1$.  I am getting $$\frac{2^{n+1}}{n+1}$$ is equal to the given expression.But the answer in my book is  $$\frac{2^{n+1}-1}{n+1}.$$ Where does that -1 term in the numerator come from? How can I repair the Windows 8 EFI Bootloader? How do I access the list of currently logged on users through Terminal Services Manager in Windows Server 2012? How do I format my code blocks? Can the rogue repeatedly hide in combat to sneak attack the same enemy? One of my players is a rogue and has been, on his turn, using Cunning Action to hide as a bonus action and immediately afterwards attacking. I have been ruling that this does work to grant him advantage as an unseen attacker as I believe that is the RAW, but it seems a little strange. Is he really, in the span of 6 seconds, ducking behind a corner and popping back out and this completely disorientates his target? I guess I just wanted to make sure I was ruling correctly.