It would be really useful if there was a HIDE_ON_VIEW option for sublime.view.add_regions as I would like to highlight a region in the minimap but not in the view.

This feels like some low-hanging fruit that would dramatically improve the user experience.  It's mega frustrating to have to flip back and forth between the user settings and the default settings, just to check the name of some setting or its allowed values, etc.

I think this is a win all around.
-alex

(this is the point at which you tell me it's existed since v2 ... heheh)

Doc's please guys help us help ourselves provide us with documentation. It reflects very poorly when the "Unofficial" doc's site has more detail then yours. 
Also by this stage can we not have interactive running of program's /scripts 
I write a python script and it bomb's out because I read keyboard input !!!! Please it's a great editor and that's why I bought it but help on these basic things 

super+shift+s default key binding for "save_as" on OS X (adding to key bindings file doesn't seem to work). This makes it consistent with most other OS X apps.

I am very grateful that I found the dream job I wished for with their help and assistance.
I am very much stable with the job I have now.
I wanted the automatic email alerts to stop now, I no longer want to receive updates of future job postings.

Behavior of pressing ^K^K is a bit odd — it joins lines. 

I can sort-of see logic behind this — killing the \n — but I think forward Delete at end of the line is the typical and safer way to achieve that.

May I suggest making ^K executed at end of a line to behave like Shift ^K? (as if the cursor was after \n, not before \n)

That would be similar to what nano/pico editors do.

The New American - Moments after the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) released a summary of its latest global-warming report on September 27, top climate scientists and experts were already reading through it and trashing the methods, findings, claims, and more. In fact, based on leaked drafts of the controversial report, critics had been debunking and ridiculing the UN’s climate claims for weeks prior to the official release. Once the summary report was officially released in Stockholm, the deluge of criticism accelerated, with more than a few top scientists calling for the UN IPCC to be disbanded entirely.

In this corner: Global Warming Scam, A $14 Trillion Extortion

The latest climate document claimed that despite more than 16 years of essentially no increase in global temperatures in defiance of UN theories and predictions, politically selected IPCC experts were more certain than ever that humans were to blame for global warming — 95 percent sure, to be precise. While it is not entirely clear how the IPCC calculated the “percent” certainty, the claim has confused some of the world’s most respected climate scientists. “How they can justify this is beyond me,” noted Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

Indeed, aside from attempting to downplay the lack of warming, the UN has essentially boxed itself into a corner with its latest climate report. “IPCC has thrown down the gauntlet — if the pause continues beyond 15 years (well it already has), they are toast,” Professor Curry noted on her climate website in an analysis offering her initial thoughts about the UN’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). “Even though they still use the word ‘most’ in the attribution statement, they go all out and pretty much say [the temperature increase] is all AGW [anthropogenic, or man-made, global warming].”

In another commentary about the report, Dr. Curry said it was time to shut down the whole IPCC. “The diagnosis of paradigm paralysis seems fatal in the case of the IPCC, given the widespread nature of the infection and intrinsic motivated reasoning,” she explained. “We need to put down the IPCC as soon as possible — not to protect the patient who seems to be thriving in its own little cocoon, but for the sake of the rest of us whom it is trying to infect with its disease. Fortunately much of the population seems to be immune, but some governments seem highly susceptible to the disease. However, the precautionary principle demands that we not take any risks here, and hence the IPCC should be put down.”

Numerous other prominent scientists — even many who have worked with the IPCC and accept some of its global-warming theories — have been equally critical. Meteorology Professor Richard Lindzen at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who served as a lead author with the third IPCC report, for example, told Climate Depot that he thought the UN body had “truly sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence” with its latest assessment. “They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase,” added Dr. Lindzen, who has published hundreds of scientific papers.

The UN-promoted theory about the missing warming being hidden somewhere in the ocean, Lindzen continued, is really an admission that its climate models do not accurately simulate natural internal variability in the system. Because the claim that human activity is responsible for global warming depends on the models being able to do just that, the IPCC is essentially admitting, “somewhat obscurely,” that its crucial assumption is unjustified, the MIT expert explained.

Meanwhile, climate experts Patrick Michaels and Paul "Chip" Knappenberger with the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute were calling for the UN report to be “torn up and tossed out” along with “the entire IPCC process which produced such a misleading (and potentially dangerous) document.” In analyses of the report published in various media outlets and on Cato’s website, the two experts lambasted the report with extremely harsh comments, blasting it as “an embarrassment of internal inconsistency,” “beyond misleading,” “entirely self-serving,” and more.

Dr. Benny Peiser with the Global Warming Policy Foundation had harsh words for the latest IPCC report, too, saying it was based on flawed models that cannot accurately predict future temperature changes.  “The IPCC are gambling that temperatures will rise soon. My own reading of the report is it's more a political message than a scientific one,” he explained. “They ignore the fact that their models have a problem, and they are unable to say when the temperature will start rising again. That is a gamble.”

In media comments, Dr. Peiser blasted the leaked version of the report as a “staggering concoction of confusion, speculation and sheer ignorance.” He said the IPCC appeared to have run out of answers to explain away the “widening gap” between its predictions and reality — a fact that even most of the establishment media have started to notice. In the last 16 years, there has been essentially no increase in temperature, he explained, and before 1980, the world saw some three decades of cooling. Indeed, since 1950, there have only been 20 years of warming, Dr. Peiser noted, adding that nobody knows when temperatures will start rising again.

Climatologist Dr. Roy Warren Spencer, who serves as principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and formerly worked as a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, was equally critical of the latest UN report. Probably the “biggest omission of the report,” he said, “continues to be the almost total neglect of natural forcing mechanisms of climate change.” Overall, Dr. Spencer said the IPCC summary report released last week “reveals a dogged attempt to salvage the IPCC’s credibility amidst mounting evidence that it has gone overboard in its attempts to scare the global public over the last quarter century.”

Other experts criticized a variety of major omissions in the report, too. Executive Vice President Ken Haapala with the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), for example, compared and contrasted the IPCC report with another major climate report that takes a more realistic approach. Produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), the “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science and the Summary for Policymakers” paints a very different picture using many of the same studies cited by the UN.

Among other major concerns cited by Haapala and other experts is the fact that the sensitivity of the climate to increases in carbon dioxide is missing from the IPCC report. “Yet, this is the entire political issue,” he noted. “Is the climate sensitive to human emissions of CO2 or not? Does an increase in the molecules of CO2 from 3 to 4 per 10,000 parts of air make a difference in climate?” The UN does not know. “Further, the report glosses over the fact that there has been no statistically significant rise in surface temperatures for over 16 years,” Haapala continued, echoing criticism worldwide about the UN effort to downplay the elephant in the room. “Instead, it asserts a greater certainty in its work than prior reports. It reduced the uncertainty from 10% to 5%, with no empirical basis.... The purpose of a physical science is to describe nature, and to understand how it works. It is becoming increasingly evident that IPCC science does not describe nature. Yet, the IPCC intensifies its certainty in its work?”

Finally, scientists all over the world are now openly saying that this IPCC report should be the last — even some who support its theories and calls for a global carbon regime. Professor Myles Allen with Oxford University’s Climate Research Network, who has worked extensively with the IPCC but has blasted many of the anti-carbon schemes pursued by governments as a waste of time and money, said the AR5 ought to be the final UN IPCC report. “Its cumbersome production process misrepresents how science works,” he was quoted as saying. “The idea of producing a document of near-biblical infallibility is a misrepresentation of how science works, and we need to look very carefully about what the IPCC does in the future.” At this point, the number of independent experts calling for an end to the largely discredited UN panel and its reports is growing fast. Some prominent voices in the climate discussion have even been calling for the “climate scamsters” to be prosecuted and jailed as a way to deter future scientific fraud. Much of the establishment media continues to parrot UN climate scaremongering, but it appears increasingly likely that, unlike the growing polar bear population, the IPCC is standing on thin ice. 

For files from within directories configured for the project, it'd be nice if Goto Anything could show paths relative to these directories, or the directory of the project file, or some other directory configured as the project root, so that they would get shortened that way and become more readable, especially that Goto Anything is really narrow in multiple column layouts (or at the very least make the overlay wider).

For an engineering design firm to make a mark online, it’s first and foremost tool to use to reach the millions out there who have not heard of it is through an attractive and interesting website. Not to mention a completely appealing and engaging one.

The way it appears now, the website still needs a lot of work. As in A LOT! First of all, not a single photo is up to show in a split second what the text is talking about. Secondly, minimalism can be restful and pleasing; but in trying to gain readers to stay online, one must not only use photos, animation, color variety but even the counter-intuitive use of negative space. Too much white space with only a small splattering of black-and-white text can be deadening. It may bring out a certain effect; but not when the font is too small against the wilderness of snow.

Another point is that, engineers in general, are well-known as soft-spoken, tacit, uncluttered and even self-deprecating. Those who have been through years of engineering schooling rarely see flamboyance in appearance and character among the lot. Hence, the appearance of Cruse’s website plays tribute to this reputation among engineers. But there is nothing wrong with trying to be different from what you have portrayed yourself to be in life as well as in business.

Cyberspace networking dynamics, however, requires basic visibility standards which require the use of such things already mentioned here. One cannot be a singer without the essential desire to perform in front of people. So, for a company to stand at par with others, whether they are financial consultancy firms, online journalists or sellers of books or shoes, it must present itself beyond the formal black suit and uncolorful tie ensemble. Alright, those will do at times; but at least, use some gold cuff links, two-tone shoes, pastel-colored dress shirt and, perhaps, subtly dyed hair.

Ultimately, appearance counts a lot in Internet visibility. SEOs can do a lot to help a firm gain that in a matter of time. But the time could be greatly shortened through the use of certain website design features already mentioned, and many more out there. It reminds us of the traditional conflict between engineers and architects: the former being more concerned with strength and stability while the latter with aesthetics or appearances.

Being an engineering firm, Cruse may not have the obligation to appear like an architectural firm. But great strides can be gained if they could show that aside from inner integrity, it also has outer appeal and beauty.