Simple enough, in chat and in comments, when typing [metaso] the expected behavior is to get a link to . Instead, however, I get a link to .
In chat, the short code [metaso] expands to http://meta.stacexchange.com/ (no typo, the missing 'k' is the bug I'm reporting).  (And since this is too short a bug report, I'll note that I think that [metaso] should probably point to .)
How do I fix gaps around my lean-to greenhouse? back commandbutton in jsf Installing "firmware-b43-installer" offline 2-10x Slower Deployments with Winter '15? Proof, is $\forall x : (P(x) \lor Q(x)) \Leftrightarrow \forall x : P(x) \lor \forall x : Q(x)$? I have to prove if the following statement is true or false $$\forall x : (P(x) \lor Q(x)) \Leftrightarrow \forall x : P(x) \lor \forall x : Q(x)$$  I understand the first statement as, for every $x$, at least one of the functions $P$, $Q$ is true. For the second statement, at least one of the functions $P$, $Q$ is true for every $x$. Is this correct? When yes, how could I prove this? Using the distributive law will clearly render me the wrong result. How do I get a Seraph Crystal? Where to ask question about hardware? Idea of paying for things with time I recently read the .  This book had the idea of the time you live as something that can be used to pay for things. When you run out of "money" you die.  I was wondering is this the original source for this idea? Or does anyone know of an earlier book with the same idea? Adding a citation after paper is accepted I am a junior researcher in mathematics. I worked simultaneously on proving Theorem A and Theorem B. They both generalize Theorem X in two different directions. Theorem X was proved several years ago (not by me). The proofs of Theorem A and Theorem B use very different techniques, and so I decided ahead of time to write one paper for each.  I finished proving Theorem A before I finished proving Theorem B. Then, I submitted Paper A to a journal (and the arXiv) proving Theorem A. Paper A includes a survey of related problems in the introduction. After a short while, I managed to prove Theorem B, and two months after the submission of Paper A, I submitted Paper B (to a different journal, and also to the arXiv). Now, six months after the submission of Paper A, it is accepted with requests for minor corrections. There is no response yet regarding Paper B.     In this situation, is it a reasonable/common to add one/two sentences to the survey in introduction of Paper A, explaining and citing the arXiv prepreint of Paper B, in addition to the minor corrections the referees asked for? (and letting the editor and referees know that I did that in my answer to their reports which comes along with the corrected manuscript).   Note that I am not asking if it is ok to cite a preprint. This is something I do, and so do other people, at least in math. My question is about making a change, after acceptance, which was not asked by the referees and the editor. I think every single one of us has experienced a dark dot in his/her sight when looking at a white surface such as a white ceiling, there's something in our eye that with a little focus we can see it, and when we move our eyes around, that thing floats around quickly in your sight. It's like a substance on eye's surface, I want to know what is it called. Hope I'm clear enough. In the category $\mathbf{Set}$ is "the product of an empty set of sets a one-element set"? I was reading  on Category Theory and it said (paraphrased to add context):     Exercise 4: Explain why in $\textbf{Set}$ (the Category of Sets), the product of an empty set of sets is a one-element set.   which I think is incorrect. The product of two empty sets (or any number) is empty because we are considering:  $$ \emptyset \times \emptyset = \{ (a,b) : a \in \emptyset, b \in \emptyset \} = \emptyset$$  where $a \in \emptyset , b \in \emptyset$ are false, so the above is the $\emptyset$ which is NOT a one element set (its a zero element set).   This should be trivial so I am assuming I am somewhere mis reading the natural language of the exercise. Someone help me catch where is it and what the answer should be? i.e. whats being asked and the answer? When is the past perfect exactly needed? I have never had this problem before. But after seeing some questions posted on ELU, I started to doubt. I have been through links1, pages of grammar books2, a lot of questions3 posted here and ELU. I now still can't seem to understand how the past perfect is exactly used. The references sometimes even contradict each other.  What I had understood so far was      The past perfect is not necessary if we are not 'going back' to the earlier past, and simply moving from one event to another.   but I then saw a lot of other 'rules' including      If the sequence is clear, the past perfect is not needed.   which is slightly different, less 'narrow' and can be applied in more situations than the first ruleA, and      The past perfect is optional only when talking about an action at a specific time.   This is confusing. Can anyone here clarify things out please?    A For example, for  Doing the survey [completed] -&gt; Showing the result      We showed the result of the survey we did.      If the second rule is applied, the sentence above is fine (the sequence is clear), but not if the first rule since we are not moving from any event to the next and possibly even going back.    1  and   2 Practical English Usage (2005) by Michael Swan, Collins Cobuild Student's Grammar (1991). Upper-Intermediate Cutting Edge.  3 including , , ,  etc. How tipe are this series?  $$\sum_{n=2}^\infty \frac 1 {n^2\ln n}$$ But $$\sum_{n=2}^\infty \frac 1 {n\ln n\ln(\ln n)}$$ I used Condensation Test, but I stack after that. Thanks! I am trying to testfor a player holding a diamond sword named Notch's Legendary Sword. How can I do that? Who ever gets the best answer will be able to get the first look at my NEW adventure map! Quantum systems without a classical analogue? I am now reading the quantum mechanics textbook by Dirac (chap. 4, $\S21$, p. 88).   He says that his quantization procedure does not include all possible systems in quantum mechanics and there are systems without a classical analogue.  How is this possible? I have run into a conundrum.   When I go to get some friends cans of beer I say:     You guys want a beer?   When I am referring to going to a bar and drinking some I say:     Let's go get some beers!   When I go to a store to buy beer I say:     I am going to get beer.   How can I work this out? My friend is a native Chinese speaker and this is the sort of plural thing that trips her up. How is this explained? Adding CSS Reference on Site Page Sharing a Bluetooth Keyboard and Mouse sequentially between two Macs I work out of my house where I have two computers: a mid-2010 Macbook Pro (for my day job) and a mid-2010 iMac (personal). During the workday, my iMac acts as a second display for my Macbook Pro via Mini Displayport.  Currently, I use a USB keyboard and mouse for my work computer and a Bluetooth keyboard and Magic Mouse + Magic Trackpad for use with my personal computer. I'd like to get rid of the wired keyboard and mouse and just use the Bluetooth stuff for both machines (but never simultaneously).   Is it possible to easily share the single set of input devices without having to repeatedly break and reestablish the pairing of the input device to the correct computer? I'm not opposed to buying some type of additional hardware to accomplish this, provided it's not prohibitively costly or cumbersome to use or configure.  It's not clear to me how I would tell the MacBook Pro to leave the devices alone so the iMac can have them for the evening. I want to avoid de-pairing and re-pairing the devices each time I want to shift them back or forth.  Basically is there software or hardware that works as a Bluetooth KVM switch? Circular determinant problem I'm stuck in this question: How calculate this determinant ? $$\Delta=\left|\begin{array}{cccccc} 1&amp;2&amp;3&amp;\cdots&amp;\cdots&amp;n\\ n&amp;1&amp;2&amp;\cdots&amp;\cdots&amp; n-1\\ n-1&amp;n&amp;1&amp;\cdots&amp;\cdots&amp;n-2\\ \vdots &amp;\ddots &amp; \ddots&amp;\ddots&amp;&amp;\vdots\\ \vdots &amp;\ddots &amp; \ddots&amp;\ddots&amp;\ddots&amp;\vdots\\ 2&amp;3&amp;4&amp;\cdots&amp;\cdots&amp;1 \end{array}\right|$$ Thanks a lot. Place each foot on a scale: can you add the two to find your weight? I frequent a blog from a British psychologist, and every Friday he likes to pose an interesting puzzle or riddle. The Monday after that he posts the answer. They're good fun, and IANAP but  made my it-might-not-be-quite-as-simple-as-that detector go off.  My question boils down to this: let's say I have two identical scales, and I stand on the scales with one foot on each scale. The scales read W1 and W2. Does my weight equal W1 + W2?