I've reproduced this behaviour in different communities, so it's very likely to be a general problem. I'm using Google Chrome in both Android and Windows 10. When the question has a big list of tags, we then become able to scroll to the sides as well. Take for example  In Windows 10 using Chrome's Toggle device toolbar option in Galaxy S5 (the same happens in other devices like Pixel 2, iPhone X, ...)  In Android using Chrome
This appears to be a css bug which (I think) has recently been introduced. It's most visible when viewing questions on Stack Exchange sites using mobile devices (the full site with responsiveness, not the mobile site) but can easily be reproduced by resizing a browser window on a question where the combined width of the tags is large. A couple of example questions show this behaviour:  On Meta Stack Overflow:   On Meta Stack Exchange:     Using the Meta Stack Overflow question to demonstrate (as the total width of the tags is larger):  At 1100px, the tags just about fit into their containing div.     At 800px, the tags appear on top of related questions:     At 450px, the tags are now wider than the view (the last tag is completely off the screen), causing scroll bars to appear:      This doesn't happen to lists of questions - the tags flow onto multiple lines:     Reproduced on: { Firefox 81, Chrome 84, Edge 84 } on Windows 10, and Chrome 85 on Android 11.
How can I say this? How can I get a brace on the right, not the left, to group cases, using cases? (I know actual cases look better with the brace on the left, but the items I need to group are not literally cases. They are a set of steps in an algorithm which I want to consider as an item.)  The following puts the brace on the left. All I need to do is to flip it to the right.  \begin{align} \begin{cases} a&amp;=bbb\\ c&amp;=ddddddd\\ e&amp;=ffffffffff \end{cases} \end{align}   Thanks for any help with this! How can I publish my thesis? I have a written thesis, as my Final year project. I have submitted in university.   but now i want to make it professionally mine.   I want to publish it some where but i don't have such kind of experience before. I am total Rookie in this field.  Any Expert Opinion?  Note: Thesis in About "Handwriting Recognition " I have got a template class as follows:  class MyClass&lt;T&gt; {     T field;     public void myMethod()     {        field = new T(); // gives compiler error     } }   How do I create a new instance of T in my class? What constitutes protons? When I see pictures, I can't understand. Protons are made of quarks, but some say that they are made of 99% empty space. Also, in this illustration from Wikipedia, what's between the quarks? I hope to receive my PhD in Mathematics in May of 2015, so I am currently applying for jobs.  Due to life circumstances, I'm fairly certain that I will only be staying at my next position for about 2 years.  Does this mean I shouldn't even try to apply for tenure-track positions?  Will a hiring committee not even consider me for the position if I'm not willing to commit to staying with them for a certain amount of time?  I would love to get a teaching/lecturing position at any institute of higher education (4-year research university, liberal arts school, community college), but as I look for openings, a lot of them are tenure-track assistant professor positions.  Should I go through the effort of sending in an application, or will that be a waste of my, and the committee's, time?  Thanks for any advice you have!  Edit (to address Nate's comment):  My wife is currently applying for 2 year graduate degree programs in various cities in the US, so I'm applying for jobs in the same cities.  When she finishes her program, we plan to move outside of the US (Africa or Southeast Asia), where I do hope to remain in academia, teaching mathematics to college-aged students. Fast(est) and intuitive ways to look at matrix multiplication? Difference in sentence meaning between present continuous and simple present constructions I installed Ubuntu 12.10 and entered a password in SeaHorse. I would like to remove the password of "Default" but I get this error :  GDBus.Error:org.freedesktop.Secret.Error.NoSuchObject: The collection does not exist   Is there a fix or a way to bypass modify the password ? If I'm logged in to a system via SSH, is there a way to copy a file back to my local system without firing up another terminal or screen session and doing scp or something similar or without doing SSH from the remote system back to the local system? I have been thinking about the following formulation of the Axiom of Choice.:     For any relation $R$, there is a function $H$, which is a subset of $R$, and such that $\operatorname{dmn}H=\operatorname{dmn}R$.   At first, it seemed surprising to me that this did not follow from Comprehension (i.e., from the schema  $\forall x_1, x_2, ..., x_n \forall C\exists B \forall x ( x \in B \Leftrightarrow x \in C \land \phi )$, where $B$ does not occur free in $\phi$).    I thought that for any relation, it seems that we should be able to define a subset of it with the same domain meeting a "functional condition".  But when I tried to do this, I couldn't.  However, I felt like I was getting close when I let $B$ be free in $\phi$, i.e., when I let myself say that $w$ is in $R$ and also anything in $H$ meets such and such conditions, where $H$ is the set (function) whose existence I'm trying to prove.    But my understanding is that Choice does not even follow from Naive Comprehension.  So, I wondered if someone could explain the following precisely.   Why does the above formulation of Choice does not follow from regular Comprehension? Why does it not even follow from Naive Comprehension (assuming that it does not)? I was working on a Beamer presentation, and noticed that, if I open a group scope and use a \tiny, the font size will bet set, but there will be a large space between lines. However, if I issue a \par at the end of the paragraph, it works as intended:  \documentclass[t]{beamer} \newcommand{\shortlipsum} {Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Ut purus elit, vestibulum ut, placerat ac, adipiscing vitae, felis. Curabitur dictum gravida mauris. Nam arcu libero, nonummy eget, consectetuer id, vulputate a, magna. Donec vehicula augue euneque. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Mauris ut leo. Cras viverra}  \begin{document} \begin{frame} \shortlipsum  {\tiny \shortlipsum\par   % &lt;--- removing this \par will break line spacing } \end{frame} \end{document}   Here's a comparison between not using and using \par:    Am I doing it the right way? Why is \par the right way? Totally ordering the power set of a well ordered set. Let's say I take a set $S$, where $S$ can be well ordered. From what I understand, one can use that well ordering to totally order $\mathscr{P}(S)$.  How does a body actually use the well ordering of $S$ to construct a total ordering of $\mathscr{P}(S)$?  Perhaps construct is too strong a word. Is there a way to prove that a total ordering of $\mathscr{P}(S)$ just exists, no need to explicitly state what it is, since that might be very difficult. Best practices for catching and re-throwing .NET exceptions Every time I go to install a new app, I get the message "Insufficient storage", and an unable to install anything!  I am using Samsung GT19060 my internal memory is 8GB. I have not downloaded anything but anytime I try to download something it will tell me low memory space. How can I animate an object fading out? I used the Import Images as Planes addon to import an image. It works fine but how do I change the transparency? I want to animate the plane so that it fades in and out. Here is my current node setup: How can I install Ubuntu without removing Windows? Why does  get a pass, but I can't ask my own book recommendation question? Can I ask my own book recommendation question in a way that is acceptable to the community, like the C++ book list question? How did Dumbledore gain the loyalty of Fawkes? How did Dumbledore find Fawkes. Did Dumbledore have Fawkes even when working as a Transfiguration teacher or acquired it after having Headmaster position. They both have a very strong bond between them. When did Dumbledore gain this. Update: Dumbledore says that Ollivander wrote to him when Harry's wand was purchased; if Dumbledore did not have Fawkes before 1938, he would not know about the two feathers being in the wands, so Fawkes and Dumbledore must have met and bonded before 1938  “My wand's feather came from Fawkes?” Harry said, amazed. &quot;Yes,” said Dumbledore. “Mr. Ollivander wrote to tell me you had bought the second wand, the moment you left his shop four years ago.” -Harry Potter and the Goblet Of Fire, Chapter 36-The Parting Of the Ways.  Update 2: JKR says that Dumbledore was the only owner of Fawkes. So it is to be believed that Fawkes was a wild Phoenix before its bonding with Dumbledore.  Peter Humphreys for BBC Newsround: Who did Fawkes previously belong to and will he play a vital role in the next book? JK Rowling: I am not going to answer about the role in the next books, which probably gives you a big clue, and he has never been owned by anyone but Dumbledore. You will notice that when Harry goes back in the Pensieve in this book, Fawkes is never there, and ­­ no, I am sorry, not in this book, I take that back. When Harry has previously seen the study with a different headmaster he saw it with Dippet and Fawkes was not there then. Fawkes is Dumbledore's possession, not a Hogwarts possession. Suppose we want to define a first-order language to do set theory (so we can formalize mathematics). One such construction can be found . What makes me uneasy about this definition is that words such as "set", "countable", "function", and "number" are used in somewhat non-trivial manners. For instance, behind the word "countable" rests an immense amount of mathematical knowledge: one needs the notion of a bijection, which requires functions and sets. One also needs the set of natural numbers (or something with equal cardinality), in order to say that countable sets have a bijection with the set of natural numbers.  Also, in set theory one uses the relation of belonging "$\in$". But relation seems to require the notion an ordered pair, which requires sets, whose properties are described using belonging...  I found the following in Kevin Klement's,  (pages 2-3).  "You have to use logic to study logic. There’s no getting away from it. However, I’m not going to bother stating all the logical rules that are valid in the metalanguage, since I’d need to do that in the metametalanguage, and that would just get me started on an infinite regress. The rule of thumb is: if it’s OK in the object language, it’s OK in the metalanguage too."  So it seems that, if one proves a fact about the object language, then one can also use it in the metalanguage. In the case of set theory, one may not start out knowing what sets really are, but after one proves some fact about them (e.g., that there are uncountable sets) then one implicitly "adds" this fact also to the metalanguage.  This seems like cheating: one is using the object language to conduct proofs regarding the metalanguage, when it should strictly be the other way round.  To give an example of avoiding circularity, consider the definition of the integers. We can define a binary relation $R\subseteq(\mathbf{N}\times\mathbf{N})\times(\mathbf{N}\times\mathbf{N})$, where for any $a,b,c,d\in\mathbf{N}$, $((a,b),(c,d))\in R$ iff $a+d=b+c$, and then defining $\mathbf{Z}:= \{[(a,b)]:a,b\in\mathbf{N}\}$, where $[a,b]=\{x\in \mathbf{N}\times\mathbf{N}: xR(a,b)\}$, as in  question or  on Wikipedia. In this definition if set theory and natural numbers are assumed, then there is no circularity because one did not depend on the notion of "subtraction" in defining the integers.  So my question is:     Question Is the definition of first-order logic circular?   If not, please explain why.   If the definitions are circular, is there an alternative definition which avoids the circularity?   Some thoughts:   Perhaps there is the distinction between what sets are (anything that obeys the axioms) and how sets are expressed (using a formal language). In other words, the notion of a set may not be circular, but to talk of sets using a formal language requires the notion of a set in a metalanguage. In foundational mathematics there also seems to be the idea of first defining something, and then coming back with better machinery to analyse that thing. For instance, one can define the natural numbers using the Peano axioms, then later come back to say that all structures satisfying the axioms are isomorphic. (I don't know any algebra, but that seems right.) Maybe sets, functions, etc., are too basic? Is it possible to avoid these terms when defining a formal language?