That's interesting... and slightly dismaying, to be honest, that such a relatively minor detail could cause a runaway error like that, though I guess that's just how coding is wont to work.
The robustness of code depends mostly on what type of code it is... HTML, which BBCode is based on (BBCode is basically like extremely simplified and restricted HTML), is actually
incredibly robust, which makes it especially odd that the BBCode parser here is as finicky. HTML ... if you're fine with the formatting applying till the page ends or when anything overrides it, nothing happens if you outright neglect the closing tags ... it won't care about nonsense in tags, multiple closing tags, tags which span multiple included files, closing tags before opening tags, indefinite amount of nesting, replicate object IDs ... it will work. It won't necessarily always do what you wanted, but it'll work, and not even grumble at you.
XHTML will yell at you, but few actually like XHTML. Also,
please don't actually abuse HTML, for the sake of your own and everyone else's sanity... Because you can doesn't mean you should, but you should be permitted to regardless, especially with things like markup languages. It's not like you even
can, say, write onto a memory segment that belongs to something else and break everything with those...)
- These types of things aren't generally called 'runaway' errors, by the way... Runaway errors are something pretty much endemic to TeX.
(DropBox is fairly reliable when it comes to backuping things like text documents in general ... the chance of both the cloud and whatever local devices sync with it failing at the same time is low.
For future instances - deleting files only unlists them - if nothing has been written on the same segment since, they're still there (the table which says where things are just no longer has an entry for them; if you go and tell the computer to read the "empty" areas, you'll still pick whatever's there up). Reformatting
likewise only unlists the files. There's a fair amount of free software for recovering from those kinds of errors.)
I figure that the reason that I tend to replay incomplete versions of songs in my head is that I don't remember the songs as much as I try to reconstruct it from what memory I have.
It was not so much the incompleteness as such which caught my attention, but rather how the songs are incomplete. As far as I know, if people only remember a part of a title, it's more commonly a vertical
segment of it (and generally a more distinctive segment) - say, the chorus, or the opening, or some particularly powerful bit -, rather than a horizontal
layer of it as what you wrote seemed to imply (like only the guitar, or only the vocals). To me, this implies that your brain interprets the music as consisting of separate components that just happen to be simultaneous as opposed to it being a whole ... or, well, rather does it more than the brain of the average person, as much as some distinguishing happens with everyone.
(In some cases, such filtering can be useful... Such as I know speech in particular is frequently separated from other background, presumably because it has a much higher chance of being important information than, for example, the exact pattern of the moderate gusts of wind disturbing nearby trees. ...Now when I think of it, it might also have to do with why I seem to have a strong preference for pure instrumentals and titles in which voice is used
as an instrument, as opposed to ones with strongly distinct spoken vocals ... I think I've mentioned I somehow seem to find vocals distracting in a different way than any instrumental can manage ... eh.)
- And just in case you forgot: what is it you generally mean when you refer to thinking?
Noctis
Izurich
sandstorm
Alfhedil
Tuujaimaa