This is "MSC:CV RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Trial Setting"

This is: Berners-Lee, Tim. “World-Wide Computer.” Communications of the ACM 40, no. 2 (February 1997): 57–58. https://doi.org/10.1145/253671.253704

This is:

Torvalds, Linus torvalds@klaava.helsinki.fi. Reply to "What would you like to see most in minix?"; Google Groups 2005 November edition. Message-ID 1991Aug26.110602.19446@klaava.Helsinki.FI. comp.os.minix, Usenet. 1991 August 26.

This is:

Malone, Thomas W., Keh-Chiang Yu, and Jintae Lee. 1989. “What Good Are Semistructured Objects? : Adding Semiformal Structure to Hypertext.” Working Paper. Cambridge, Mass. : Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/49393

This is:

Caplan, Priscilla. Support for Digital Formats. Library Technology Reports 44, 19–21 (2008). https://journals.ala.org/index.php/ltr/article/view/4227

I'm having trouble determining the source of this purported error. This PDF appears to have copied the content from the version published on kurzweilai.net, which includes the same "erratum". Meanwhile, however, this document which looks like it could plausibly be a scan of the original contains no such error: https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/dod/readingroom/16a/977.pdf

I wonder if someone transcribed the memo with this "amd" error and that copy was widely distributed (e.g. during the BBS era?) and then someone came across that copy and inserted the "[sic]" adornments.

This is:

S. Mirhosseini and C. Parnin. “Docable: Evaluating the Executability of Software Tutorials”. 2020. https://chrisparnin.me/pdf/docable_FSE_20.pdf

NB: the footnote at the end indicates that this was originally published in Byte Magazine (October 1990). By a reasonable guess, the 2004 date here is when this online copy was published to drdobbs.com?

visible-web-page looks to have been published and/or written on 2022 June 26.

I emailed Omar a few weeks earlier (on 2022 June 7) with with a link to plain.txt.htm, i.e., an assembler (for Wirth's RISC machine/.rsc object format) written as a text file that happens to also allow you to run it if you're viewing the text file in your browser.

(The context of the email was that I'd read an @rsnous tweet(?) that "stuff for humans should be the default context, and the highly constrained stuff parsed by the computer should be an exceptional mod within that", and I recognized this as the same principle that Raskin had espoused across two pieces in ACM Queue: The Woes of IDEs and Comments Are More Important Than Code. Spurred by Omar's comments on Twitter, I sent him a link to the latter article and plain.txt.htm, and then (the next day) the former article, since I'd forgotten to include it in the original email.)

This one, it looks like: https://blog.khinsen.net/posts/2017/01/13/sustainable-software-and-reproducible-research-dealing-with-software-collapse/

@03:06:54:

Blow: I mean I have a whole speech about that that I can link you to as well.

Should that be necessary? "Links" (URLs) are just a mechanical way to follow a citation to the source. So to "link you" to it is as easy as giving it a name and then saying that name. In this case, the names are URLs. Naming things is said to be hard, but it's (probably) not as hard as advertised. It turns out that the hard part is getting people to actually do it.

Okay, so the original source seems to be Proteus (A Journal of Ideas). ~~Specifically, vol. 3, iss. 1.~~ (Thanks to Nikos Katsikis by way of Neil Brenner for helping track this down.)

Available here and here:

• https://www.w3.org/History/1989/proposal.html
• https://cds.cern.ch/record/1405411/files/ARCH-WWW-4-010.pdf

citing in rstudio

WC page? Citing images?