I've been noticing an issue recently I (and other users) have tried to access deleted answers, only to get the question and no error message. This behaviour is annoying, would it be possible to have some sort of error message when we try to access a deleted answer (and are &lt;10k)? Something like this:  The current issue is that if some user posts a link to the answer and the answer's deleted, other users may think (and indeed, this has happened to me) that the question is being referred to, and not the answer. Example from today:  Although , the action of  did confuse a couple of users, including myself. This would've been prevented if an error message showing the answer had been removed had been shown when attempting to visit it. I know it's a tiny feature request, but I think it'd be a nice feature to have.
Currently, if you access a deleted question you will get a short message informing you that the question has been deleted. However, if you click on a direct link to a deleted answer or comment (which you can get via notifications), nothing is displayed.  This is naturally quite confusing as you will get the message about a new answer or comment via notifications, click on the link and simply see nothing.  Therefore, I propose to display some sort of message to the user, informing her/him that the answer or question has been deleted. Note that this is different from always showing a deleted answer/comment, as I specifically request it in case you access the specific URL.  One example for a comment would be:   One example for a deleted answer is:   This question is related to ,  but requests a feature to circumvent the problem altogether.
How to set identity_insert to on in SQL Server Diamond moderator rollbacks can resurrect blacklisted tags To use Windows and Ubuntu on one computer, which should I install first? How to show that the cohomology of a Grassmannian has a basis consisting of the equivalent classes represented by Schubert cycles? Let $G(r, n)$ be the Grassmannian of the set of all $r$-planes in a $n$-dim vector space. How to show that the cohomology of a Grassmannian has a basis consisting of the equivalent classes represented by Schubert cycles? I am confused since I don't know how to compute the cohomology of a variety (how to construct the co-chain complex). I am really appreciate if you can compute the cohomology of, for example, $G(2,4)$ and show that it has a basis consisting of the equivalent classes represented by Schubert cycles. Complement property of DES I'm supposed to show the complement property of DES ($c=DES(p,k) =&gt; \bar c = DES(\bar p, \bar k)$).  My idea was to just start the algorithm with $\bar p$ and see what happens (ignoring the initial permutation for now). I looked at it step by step and got the the point where $R1 = \bar L1 \oplus f(\bar k1, \bar R0)$. So I figured I had to show that $f(\bar k1, \bar R0) = \bar f(k1,R0)$. Is that even right so far? Because I got stuck at the point where the S-Boxes are used. Why would $S(\bar x) = \bar S(x)$?  Somewhere else I read something about a formal prove using induction, but I don't know how I would do that either... Anyone seen this one yet? Vote too old to be changed, unless post is edited My vote was only a few hours old. Then I realized the answer was wrong. Updated my question and went to remove the vote. Even after updating question I still have the issue. Small issue, but frustrating.  See also: Regression in spacing before lstlisting environment with version 2018/09/02 after paragraph break How can I get free or trial ExactTarget instance How important is the following in purchasing a laptop that will be used for image editing:   processor speed amount of RAM integrated vs. dedicated graphics card HD speed (SSD; or 5400/7200/10000 rpm) Error java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: GC overhead limit exceeded How to use GCC 4.7 in place of 4.6? So I'm working on a project and I wanted to use some C11 features for C. To use those features GCC 4.7 is required, so I went to synaptic and looked up 4.7, and I found the packages gcc-4.7-base so I installed it[1].   So now that gcc-4.7-base is installed I expected to be able to use 4.7, but no, when I do gcc --version it still shows 4.6.3 even more, when I try to directly call 4.7(via /usr/bin/gcc-4.7) it doesn't exist, though a gcc-4.6 executable does exist.  How do I "activate" GCC 4.7? I read , you do some crazy stuff with update-alternatives, but it doesn't work for me as the gcc-4.7 executable doesn't actually exist on my machine.   Notes: 1. I also saw gcc-4.6-base, so I figured I'd uninstall it, but synaptic attempted to remove every package I had installed and install a Java runtime, so for obvious reason I decided not to remove it. How can I disable the volume warning if you raise the volume too much? I am writing a few rather large pseudocode functions using algorithm and algorithmic, i.e. my code looks something like:  \begin{algorithm}                      \caption{Coolest Algorithm ever}           \label{findme}                           \begin{algorithmic} [1]                   % enter the algorithmic environment \REQUIRE    Here are a few variables \\             variable 2 \\             variable 3  \ENSURE     this is the output \\             output 2  \STATE $some cool code here$ \STATE $some cool code here$ \STATE $some cool code here$ \STATE $some cool code here$ \end{algorithmic} \end{algorithm}   Unfortunately this code does not fit on one page and I am definitely not able to split it into some subfunctions or so (I already did that as far as possible).  So now I need to split up the algorithm into two pages, but I have no idea how.  The easiest way I can imagine is just to start a new algorithm on the new page, but this time letting the line counter start at line 35 or so instead of 1. But how can I do that?  Please not that there is already a similar question here on this site, but it deals with the package algorithmicx. Multiple standard input? How? When using the web interface, there is a favorite tags section where you can select a list of tags that you view most frequently.  This has become a cornerstone of my normal  on stack overflow, but it doesn't look like this is possible in the Android app.  There should be a mechanism by which you can add some favorite tags to the nav bar. Clicking these tags will take you to a list of similarly tagged questions.  Perhaps also the feed should include a section for each favorite tag.  These would be presented on their own, much like how "hot new questions" and "new unanswered questions" appear in the feed.  Perhaps something like this: Erasing elements from a vector I want to clear a element from a vector using the erase method. But the problem here is that the element is not guaranteed to occur only once in the vector. It may be present multiple times and I need to clear all of them. My code is something like this:  void erase(std::vector&lt;int&gt;&amp; myNumbers_in, int number_in) {     std::vector&lt;int&gt;::iterator iter = myNumbers_in.begin();     std::vector&lt;int&gt;::iterator endIter = myNumbers_in.end();     for(; iter != endIter; ++iter)     {         if(*iter == number_in)         {             myNumbers_in.erase(iter);         }     } }  int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {     std::vector&lt;int&gt; myNmbers;     for(int i = 0; i &lt; 2; ++i)     {         myNmbers.push_back(i);         myNmbers.push_back(i);     }      erase(myNmbers, 1);      return 0; }   This code obviously crashes because I am changing the end of the vector while iterating through it. What is the best way to achieve this? I.e. is there any way to do this without iterating through the vector multiple times or creating one more copy of the vector? I have many tags marked as "interesting" and others as "ignored". (I use Java at work, I'm a Cocoa guy by night, any anything dealing with Windows/.NET/C# simply doesn't apply to me.) When tags are added to the list in the right navbar, they appear in the order in which they were added. There are several problems with this:   It can be difficult to visually locate a tag quickly, unless you have memorized its location. The tags appear as the same gray boxes like everywhere on SO, but with a small "x" afterward, and they wrap based on size. This tends to leave a ragged right margin and wasted space. Ordering based on when the tag was added is not always the most intuitive default. Various users might prefer to view them alphabetically, by popularity, recent activity, etc.   It would be nice to introduce a tabbed interface to switch between various orderings, and remember the value in the cookie, profile, etc. Coupled with this, perhaps users could specify a custom ordering that works best for them? (Currently the workaround is to copy all the tag names, remove them all, and re-add them in the desired order, but this is obviously annoying.)  Thoughts? Notation for intervals I have frequently encountered both $\langle a,b \rangle$ and $[a,b]$ as notation for closed . I have mostly encountered $(a,b)$ for open intervals, but I have also seen $]a,b[$. I recall someone calling the notation with $[a,b]$ and $]a,b[$ as French notation.   What are the origins of the two notations?  Is the name French notation correct? Are they used frequently in France? Or were they perhaps prevalent in French mathematical community at some point? (In this  Bourbaki is mentioned in connection with the notation $]a,b[$.)      Since several answerers have already mentioned that they have never seen $\langle a,b \rangle$ to be used for closed intervals, I have tried to look for some occurrences for this. The best I can come up with is the article on , where these notations are called Czech notation and French notation. Using $(a,b)$ and $[a,b]$ is called English notation in that article. (I am from Central Europe, too, so it is perhaps not that surprising that I have seen this notation in lectures.) I also tried to google for  or . Surprisingly, this lead me to a  where this notation is used for open interval. What are the best textbooks to read for the mathematical background you need for modern physics, such as, string theory?  Some subjects off the top of my head that probably need covering:   Differential geometry, Manifolds, etc. Lie groups, Lie algebras and their representation theory. Algebraic topology. What is the difference between a "link function" and a "canonical link function" for GLM What's the difference between terms 'link function' and 'canonical link function'? Also, are there any (theoretical) advantages of using one over the other?  For example, a binary response variable can be modeled using many link functions such as logit, probit, etc. But, logit here is considered the "canonical" link function.