Update screenshots

plain-person-text.md

@@ -82,10 +82,13 @@ Why should you bother to do any of this? Because the main person you are doing i
 
 Regardless of whether you choose to use a formal revision control system, you should nevertheless have *some* kind of systematic method for keeping track of versions of your files. Version-controlled projects are backed-up to some degree if you keep your repository somewhere other than your work computer. But this is not nearly enough. Apple's Time Machine software, for example, backs up and versions your files on your disk, or to a local hard drive, allowing you to step back to particular instances of the file you want. This still isn't enough, though. You need regular, redundant, automatic, off-site backups of your work. Because you are lazy and prone to magical thinking, you will not do this responsibly by yourself. This is why the most useful backup systems are the ones that require a minimum amount of work to set up and, once organized, back up everything automatically without you having to remember to do anything. This means paying for a secure, offsite backup service like [Crashplan](http://www.crashplan.com/), or [Backblaze](http://www.backblaze.com/). Offsite backup means that in the event (unlikely, but not unheard of) that your computer *and* your local backups are stolen or destroyed, you will still have copies of your files. I know of someone whose office building was hit by a tornado. She returned to find her files and computer sitting in a foot of water. You never know. Less dramatically, but no less catastrophic from the point of view of one's work, I know people who have lost months or even years of work as a result of dropping a laptop, or having it stolen, or simply having their computer (or "backup drive") fail for no apparent reason. Like seat belts, you don't need backups until you really, really need them. As Jamie Zawinski [has remarked](http://jwz.livejournal.com/801607.html), when it comes to losing your data "The universe tends toward maximum irony. Don't push it."
 
-
 ## Edit Text ##
 
-If you are going to be doing quantitative analysis of any kind then you should write using a good text editor. The same can be said, I'd argue, for working with any highly structured document subject to a lot of revision, such as a scholarly paper. Text editors are different from word processors. Unlike applications such as Microsoft Word, text editors generally don't make a big effort to make what you write look like as though it is being written on a printed page.[^3] Instead, they focus on working with text efficiently, while keeping it in a plain and portable format, as opposed to binary file formats like `.docx`. Text editors can also help you where word processors are not much use. If you are writing code to do some statistical analysis, for instance, then at a minimum a good editor will highlight keywords and operators in a way that makes the code more readable. Typically, it will also passively signal to you when you've done something wrong syntactically (such as forget a closing brace or semicolon or quotation mark), and [automagically](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/automagical) indent or tidy up your code as you write it. More advanced editors can work with a [linter](http://en.wikipedial.org/wiki/Lint_(software)) to more actively check and flag stylistic or syntactical errors as you go. If you are writing a scholarly paper or a dissertation that incorporates data of any sort, and especially numerical data, a good text editor can make it easier to maintain control of things. Just as the actual numbers are crunched by your stats program---not your text editor---the typesetting of your paper is handled by a specialized application, too. That tool should automatically take care of things like entries in your bibliography, the labelling of tables and figures, and cross-references and other paraphernalia. The best editors can closely integrate with the tools you use to do the various pieces of your work.
+If you are going to be doing quantitative analysis of any kind then you should write using a good text editor. The same can be said, I'd argue, for working with any highly structured document subject to a lot of revision, such as a scholarly paper. Text editors are different from word processors. Unlike applications such as Microsoft Word, text editors generally don't make a big effort to make what you write look like as though it is being written on a printed page.[^3] Instead, they focus on working with text efficiently, while keeping it in a plain and portable format, as opposed to binary file formats like `.docx`. @fig:emacstext shows an example. 
+
+![Working on part of this document in Emacs.](figures/emacs-texted.png){#fig:emacstext}
+
+Text editors can also help you where word processors are not much use. If you are writing code to do some statistical analysis, for instance, then at a minimum a good editor will highlight keywords and operators in a way that makes the code more readable. Typically, it will also passively signal to you when you've done something wrong syntactically (such as forget a closing brace or semicolon or quotation mark), and [automagically](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/automagical) indent or tidy up your code as you write it. More advanced editors can work with a [linter](http://en.wikipedial.org/wiki/Lint_(software)) to more actively check and flag stylistic or syntactical errors as you go. If you are writing a scholarly paper or a dissertation that incorporates data of any sort, and especially numerical data, a good text editor can make it easier to maintain control of things. Just as the actual numbers are crunched by your stats program---not your text editor---the typesetting of your paper is handled by a specialized application, too. That tool should automatically take care of things like entries in your bibliography, the labelling of tables and figures, and cross-references and other paraphernalia. The best editors can closely integrate with the tools you use to do the various pieces of your work.
 
 Emacs is a text editor, in the same way the blue whale is a mammal. It does the things I have just described, and rather more besides, if you want it to. Combining Emacs with some other applications and add-ons allows you to manage writing and data-analysis effectively. If it seems odd to do a bunch of different tasks inside an editor, the blogger Rekado makes a [useful analogy](http://elephly.net/posts/2016-02-14-ilovefs-emacs.html) to the way people use web browsers: