Fixing some formatting

diff --git a/Pandoc/templates/cs-6x9-pdf.latex b/Pandoc/templates/cs-6x9-pdf.latex
index ce44c5eecbec969bcb03f1fe2c2db880066442d2..3c9ca93f648d9ba56f03113f2a714150c54a78de 100644 (file)
--- a/Pandoc/templates/cs-6x9-pdf.latex
+++ b/Pandoc/templates/cs-6x9-pdf.latex
@@ -210,12 +210,18 @@ $endif$
 \usepackage{textcase}
 
 %% Set Main Fonts
+%\setmainfont[
+  %Ligatures=TeX,
+  %ItalicFont={Linux Libertine O:style=Italic},
+  %BoldFont={Linux Libertine O:style=Bold},
+  %BoldItalicFont={Linux Libertine O:style=Bold Italic},
+%]{Linux Libertine O}
 \setmainfont[
   Ligatures=TeX,
-  ItalicFont={Linux Libertine O:style=Italic},
-  BoldFont={Linux Libertine O:style=Bold},
-  BoldItalicFont={Linux Libertine O:style=Bold Italic},
-]{Linux Libertine O}
+  ItalicFont={Linux Biolinum O:style=Italic},
+  BoldFont={Linux Biolinum O:style=Bold},
+  BoldItalicFont={Linux Biolinum O:style=Bold Italic},
+]{Linux Biolinum O}
 
 %\setmainfont[
 %  Ligatures=TeX,
@@ -258,8 +264,14 @@ $endif$
 
 \usepackage{libertine}
 \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
-\newfontfamily\primaryfont[Ligatures=TeX, Numbers=OldStyle]{Linux Libertine O}
-\newfontfamily\titlefont[Scale=1.75, Ligatures=TeX]{Linux Libertine O}
+% \newfontfamily\primaryfont[Ligatures=TeX, Numbers=OldStyle]{Linux Libertine O}
+%\newfontfamily\titlefont[Scale=1.75, Ligatures=TeX]{Linux Libertine O}
+\newfontfamily\setmainfont[Ligatures=TeX, Numbers=OldStyle]{Linux Biolinum O}
+\newfontfamily\primaryfont[Ligatures=TeX, Numbers=OldStyle]{Linux Biolinum O}
+\newfontfamily\idtitlefont[Ligatures=TeX, Numbers=OldStyle]{Linux Biolinum O}
+\newfontfamily\headerfont[Ligatures=TeX, Numbers=OldStyle]{Linux Biolinum O}
+\newfontfamily\normalfont[Ligatures=TeX, Numbers=OldStyle]{Linux Biolinum O}
+\newfontfamily\titlefont[Scale=1.75, Ligatures=TeX]{Linux Biolinum O}
 
 %\setmainfont
 %\renewcommand{\sfdefault}{URW Gothic}

diff --git a/chapter01.md b/chapter01.md
index fd3a6fe4290d7ceacdf8de921bbdc860d26a7cbe..56ae6ab89056f5cfc6c457d9a7f4a1ae837342eb 100644 (file)
--- a/chapter01.md
+++ b/chapter01.md
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-# The Journey of the mediocre programmer
+# Journey of The Mediocre Programmer
 ## How we got here
 
 You have your own unique story of how you got here as a programmer. You might have found out about programming as a curious child who wanted to see what the computer could do. Or you could have arrived as an adult who heard about these things called computers that you could program. Whatever the case, you had a journey to get to this point, and you learned a certain amount to get here. You spent your free time learning how to code, or you were fortunate to be able to work on programming as part of your job. You went to school to learn more about programming or you took training classes. You bought books or read articles online to learn more about programming. Whatever path you took you began your journey as a programmer.

diff --git a/chapter02.md b/chapter02.md
index 42ef70ce11bbf2305d5b41d93a87ca7331191cad..2b8e9eef3f3b73a3b7fc791f9d59703f5cb0cab2 100644 (file)
--- a/chapter02.md
+++ b/chapter02.md
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ The post-mortem can be a fascinating look into the development of a project. I'v
 
 A post-mortem also has the benefit of hindsight. Decisions that were clear and definite at the time might not make much sense when viewed with data obtained later in the project's lifespan. There's also an issue with "selective memory" where something might not be remembered with the same clarity, or may be conflated with other events. Confident statements like "We knew this one thing wouldn't have worked" might actually have been "We weren't sure if this would work so we tried several things. They all didn't work.". Consider anyone writing about their past as an unreliable narrator. True, they may be the best and most knowledgeable narrator we have, but they do not have an objective perspective on whatever they were creating. They have their own biases and reasons for the stories they present in a post-mortem. Treat a post-mortem like you would treat an auto-biography of a famous person: a primary source with an agenda to show the subject in the best way possible.
 
-There's nothing wrong with reading a post-mortem about a project -- we can learn a great deal about how a project is run (or shouldn't be run) and what pitfalls to be aware of if we go down a similar path, but understand that you're reading one account (whether by one person or one team of people). They have the perspective of someone deep in the conflict. You're looking at their recollections of tactics, not the overall strategy that brought that them to the place.
+There's nothing wrong with reading a post-mortem about a project --- we can learn a great deal about how a project is run (or shouldn't be run) and what pitfalls to be aware of if we go down a similar path, but understand that you're reading one account (whether by one person or one team of people). They have the perspective of someone deep in the conflict. You're looking at their recollections of tactics, not the overall strategy that brought that them to the place.
 
 ## Ranking programmers