This is recent behavior, but I couldn't figure out since exactly when this is happening:  % !TEX encoding = UTF-8 Unicode % !TEX TS-program = pdflatexmk \documentclass{beamer}  \usepackage{filecontents}  \begin{filecontents}{foo.bib} @misc{Fallick2004a, author = {Fallick, Bruce and Fleischman, Charles A.}, title = {{Employer-to-Employer Flows in the U.S. Labor Market: The Complete Picture of Gross Worker Flows}}, url = {http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/researchdata/feds200434.html}, year = {2004} } \end{filecontents}  \usepackage[     backend=biber,     style=authoryear-comp,     natbib=true ]{biblatex} \bibliography{foo} \begin{document}  \begin{frame} \citet{Fallick2004a} \end{frame} \end{document}   Output:  Fallick and Fleischman, (2004)   This happens for all sorts of references, but only textcite and citet, not citep. I tried re-installing   sudo apt-get install texlive-full   to no avail.
I've been using the biblatex package for a while, and since updating my TeX installation (post-el capitan upgrade) I have been experiencing the following.   If the following is typed:  Such and such has been said \citep[111]{citekey}.   The following text is displayed:  Such and such has been said (Author, 2016, p. 111).   And if the following is typed:  \citet[111]{citekey} has said such and such.   The following text is displayed:  Author, (2016, p. 111) has said such and such.   The citep command is working as I want it to, but I do not want a comma placed after the author's name when using the citet command. I would like it to display as follows:  Author (2016, p. 111) has said such and such.    If I use the \citeyearpar command, it is fine, but I would rather not have to type the author's name in manually.   Here is the command placed in the preamble:  \usepackage[backend=bibtex, style=authoryear-icomp, url=true, isbn=false, natbib=true, sortcites=true, block=space, pagetracker=false, loccittracker=constrict]{biblatex}   Here is an example of an entry in my bib file (made using BibDesk):  @article{poldrack2006, Author = {Poldrack, Russell}, Journal = {Trends in Cognitive Sciences}, Number = {2}, Pages = {59--63}, Title = {{Can cognitive processes be inferred from neuroimaging data?}}, Volume = {10}, Year = {2006}}   I have also tried changing the entry to the following:  @article{poldrack2006, Author = {Russell Poldrack}, Journal = {Trends in Cognitive Sciences}, Number = {2}, Pages = {59--63}, Title = {{Can cognitive processes be inferred from neuroimaging data?}}, Volume = {10}, Year = {2006}}   The bibliography entry appears as follows, and is fine:  Poldrack, Russell (2006). “Can cognitive processes be inferred from neuroimaging data?” In: Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10.2, pp. 59–63.  Thank you for any help that can be offered.
Conformal Maps onto the Unit Disc in $\mathbb{C}$ How does similar_text work? I am trying to really understand why the gradient of a function gives the direction of steepest ascent intuitively.  Assuming that the function is differentiable at the point in question, a) I had a look at a few resources online and also looked at this   , a popular question on this stackexchange site. The accepted answer basically says that we multiply the gradient with an arbitrary vector and then say that the product is maximum when the vector points in the same direction as the gradient? This to me really does not answer the question, but it has 31 upvotes so can someone please point out what I am obviously missing?  b) Does the gradient of a function tell us a way to reach the maxima or minima? if yes, then how and which one - maxima or minima or both? Edit: I read the gradient descent algorithm and that answers this part of my question.  c) Since gradient is a feature of the function at some particular point - am I right in assuming that it can only point to the local maxima or minima? Laptop using 14.04 won't get past login GUI Removing Katoolin from Ubuntu 14.04 Book set in contemporary times about a travel writer who is inducted into the world of the supernatural Projectile/orbital motion over very long distance We know the optimum angle for greatest horizontal displacement when launching an object with projectile motion is 45 degrees.  How to solve the angle when it is real long distance around the earth where we cannot assume that gravity is constant but is given by $F=\frac {-GMm}{r^2}$. I use differetial equation to solve it and obtain 45 degrees.   First, for the vertical distance $y$, change $v=u-gt$ to $y'=u-y''t$. Then solve it to obtain a function $y(t)$. When $y'(t)=0$ we have the time for maximum vertical distance. Then insert the value to horizontal equation.   Can anyone guide me through this problem because I am not confident with my working Does there exist a function such that $\lim_{x \to a} f(x) = L$ for all $a \in \mathbb R$ but $f(x)$ is never $L$? Does there exist a function $f:\mathbb R \to \mathbb R$ such that $\lim_{x \to a} f(x) = L$ for   all $a \in \mathbb R$ but $f(x) \neq L$ for all $x$?   I found such a function in $\mathbb Q \to \mathbb Q$, where $f(\frac{p}{q})= \text{first p+q digits of }\pi$ satisfies the above condition. However, I have not been able to extend it to reals. So, is such a function possible, and if it is, is there any explicit example preferably related to the above function in rationals? Differences between Verb + to be + adjectives and Verb + adjective What should main() return in C and C++? Finite multiplicative group of matrices with sum of traces equal to zero. Let  $G=\{M_1,M_2,...,M_k\}$ be a finite set such that $ M_i\in M_n(\mathbb R)$ and $(G,\;\cdot\:)$ is a group with matrix multiplication. If $\sum _{i=1}^k \operatorname{tr} (M_i)=0$ then how to prove $\sum _{i=1}^k M_i=0$ ? STM32 send from UART3 and receive on UART2 I thought to create a simple test to send and receive a buffer via UART. I succeeded in sending bytes from my PC to the nucleo bord and receiving them in blocking and non-blocking mode. But for some reason I can't succeed to send data from UART3 and receive the bytes on UART2.  I have a nucleo-f103rb and have the following pins setup:   UART2: tx=PA2;rx=PA3 UART3: tx=PB10;rx=PB11   And then the following code:    while (1)   {     /* USER CODE END WHILE */     /* USER CODE BEGIN 3 */     if (HAL_UART_Transmit(&amp;huart3, send, 2, 1000) == HAL_OK)     {         if (HAL_UART_Receive(&amp;huart2, receive, 2, 1000) == HAL_OK)         {             HAL_GPIO_TogglePin(GPIOA, LD2_Pin);         }     }   }   All the boiler plate is generated using cube mx. So the UART 2 and 3 are all default, same for the button pins.    I connected the transmit pin of uart3 to the receiving pin of uart2 I connected the receive pin of uart3 to the transmitting pin of uart2 (while not used in this trivial example though)   What am I missing here?  Update  As comments and answers suggested, I shouldn't be using the blocking mode approach. So I rewrote it slightly to rely more on interrupts.  I attached a callback to the nucleo blue button  void HAL_GPIO_EXTI_Callback(uint16_t GPIO_Pin) {     if (GPIO_Pin == B1_Pin)     {         HAL_UART_Transmit_IT(&amp;huart3, (uint8_t *)send, 2);     } }   And I added a callback for receiving stuff over uart  void HAL_UART_RxCpltCallback(UART_HandleTypeDef *huart) {   /* Prevent unused argument(s) compilation warning */   UNUSED(huart);    /* NOTE : This function should not be modified, when the callback is needed,             the HAL_UART_RxCpltCallback can be implemented in the user file    */       // Toggle the pin to see some proof that I received something      HAL_GPIO_TogglePin(LD2_GPIO_Port, LD2_Pin);       // Resubscribe uart2      HAL_UART_Receive_IT(&amp;huart2, (uint8_t *)receive, 2); }   In the main function I call the interrupt so that the callback is active.  while (HAL_UART_Receive_IT(&amp;huart2, receive, 2) != HAL_OK);  __NOP(); while (1) { }   Again, when debugging through I do end up in the button released callback, but the callback on the uart receive isn't triggered. When I send stuff from the PC, it does. So it seems that sending stuff via uart3 isn't working. So I guess that must be the wiring.     But I really can't see what I am missing here, the pins are clearly defined in the pinout here: .  I hope the photo is clear enough, but this is how I connected them. Using TP4056 module to charge battery while load remains connected Who built the fortress of Dol Goldur, and when was it built? And was it always a place for evil, or Sauron just occupied it?  Despite the fact that Mordor is much better fortified; artificially by the old fortifications,  and geographically, as it is surrounded by the mountains. Also considering the presence of mount doom that seem to enhance Sauron's power, Sauron chose to start his campaign from Dol Goldur, despite Mordor being ready for quite some time.  Why did he choose this enigmatic fortress, and not go straight for Mordor or even go earlier? I'm using Ubuntu Maverick and Virtual Box 3+. I have Windows 7 Ultimate. The problem is that it doesn't detect USB drives in Windows 7, but USB peripherals (mouse + keybord) are working.  I followed , but I can't find the user group vboxusers. How can I continue? I would also like to upgrade to the latest version without any risk (without losing my virtual hard disk drive). Change edit approval threshold to (# approve − # reject ≥ N) Currently, the threshold for approving or rejecting a suggested edit is , whichever is reached first.  This means that, when  or just  edits get approved, it's often with a vote count of something like 1 reject / 2 approve (or 2 reject / 3 approve on SO).  Typically, these edits manage to get one or two very quick approve votes from, um, , after which it's very hard for the slower and more careful reviewers to accumulate enough votes to catch up before the edit is approved.  Conversely, when a valid edit gets wrongly rejected, this very rarely happens unanimously either.  More often, you'll see something like 3 votes to reject / 2 to approve, but that single last vote, no matter how well or poorly considered, is enough to tip the scales.  So I'd like to propose a simple change to the approval / rejection threshold:        Suggested edits should be approved when S = (# of approve votes &minus; # or reject votes) &ge; N, where N = 3 on SO and N = 2 on other sites.   Similarly, suggested edits should be rejected when S &le; &minus;N.      No, this change is not going to magically fix all the problems with suggested edit review.  But I believe that it would be a simple and conservative improvement over the current behavior:   For obviously good or bad edits that get approved / rejected unanimously, this suggestion would not change the current behavior in any way. For edits that get one mistaken or careless reject / approve vote (as happens pretty often), an extra approve / reject vote would be required to balance it.  This would slightly slow the review process for such edits, but not excessively so.  Further, I would argue that these are precisely the kind of edits that deserve that little bit of extra attention to make sure the eventual decision will be correct. Edits that are truly controversial, and for which the reviewer community is nearly exactly 50&ndash;50 split between voting to approve and reject, might stay in the review queue significantly longer (maybe twice as long on average) than under the current system.  However, this is a trade-off for the increased likelihood that the eventual decision will actually reflect the majority opinion among reviewers, rather than mere random chance.  In any case, even if reviewers are exactly 50&ndash;50 split, the  under the proposed scheme is only N&sup2;, i.e. 4 votes for other sites and 9 votes for SO.  Even a slight bias in the voting will further reduce this.  Besides, the longer the suggestion remains in the queue, the more likely it gets that someone will short-circuit the process by casting a binding vote (mod / post owner) or by choosing to improve the edit.     Ps. If it is felt that there's an issue with , a simple further chance to address that could be to make each reject vote count as, say, &minus;2 rather than just &minus;1 approval votes (and change the rejection threshold to S &le; &minus;2 &times; N to compensate).  This still wouldn't help with bad edits getting unanimously approved (which isn't really something that can be fixed, except maybe by slugster's cattle prod), but it would mean that each reject vote would now effectively cancel out two approve votes, titlting the balance for disputed edit suggestions in favor of rejection and making it easier for more careful reviewers to counter the "robo-approvers". C# compiler error: "cannot have instance field initializers in structs" How can I add a bookmark in my nautilus folder explorer In Ubuntu 11 I just dragged the folder there.  This seems to be not possible on my new Samsung ultrabook with Ubuntu 12.04   I've tried Ctrl+D and using the top menu but nothing happens and no error messages, just nothing.  How can I add a bookmark? Delete or remove all history, commits, and branches from a remote Git repo? Calling a function in main