I have to wonder about the Clinton campaign's view of Sanders' campaign. It may well be that they are happy about it, and may well support it, as it could be useful for the Clinton campaign.

Unlike Warren, who may have had a slight chance, Sanders has no realistic chance of winning the nomination (see Triseult's comment, for example). At the same time, he does have a small group of very vocal supporters, has some real support behind his views, is running a mild campaign, and is actually a sane candidate. Since they share many policy positions, debates between them could allow Clinton to explain her policy positions, to a receptive audience, more strongly and widely than she would otherwise, and there may be a benefit in being able to agree with some of Sanders' positions rather than bringing them up herself. She may well be able to position herself in debates as the candidate who can take Sanders ideas and realistically implement them, drawing energy and support from the dedicated Sanders supporters without needing to build up that same level of fanatical support, with its drawbacks, for herself. At the same time, the rabid Sanders supporters who are ignoring his calls for a clean campaign and trying to bash Clinton online will make it very likely that many anti-Clinton talking points and potential scandals will already be old news by the time of the real campaign.

There was, if I recall, polling suggesting that a significant number of Democrats wanted Clinton to win the nomination, but didn't want her to do so unchallenged. Sanders allows her to have the benefits of a good challenger with comparatively little risk.

No, he is not. As others here have noted, he is polling at numbers comparable to people who aren't running. His winning the nomination with the way his campaign is currently running is all but impossible: short of a giant scandal or massive unforeseen event, his winning would be absurdly unlikely. Like Ron Paul, he has a small, very vocal group of supporters who have a very strong Internet presence, and push him very aggressively on social media.

Whether this form of campaigning can actually translate into meaningful gains in polling is, I think, dubious. I'm particularly curious as to whether such aggressive social media campaigning could end up being harmful, causing audience fatigue or even backlash; the latter, I think, may have been a significant problem for Ron Paul, with his supporters coming off as so fanatical and aggressive that even people who would have agreed with Paul's stances were driven away. The same may happen with Sanders. On snapzu, for example, despite having all politics tribes removed from my subscriptions, I still am subjected to two of these Sanders posts, and on reddit, r/politics has been taken over the extent that a majority is either Sanders puffery or Clinton-bashing. The comment here by radixius of "I tell everyone... for some reason the don't buy it" makes me wonder whether this sort of fatigue and backlash is at play in their campaigning.

This appears to be some sort of forum post that's primarily trying to make some religious statement, and as such ends up being a less than ideal source for history. In particular, it is not really correct, especially when summarized here.

Augustine's discussion of Ambrose's silent reading is of note primarily because it is the earliest direct discussion about silent reading that we have. There are many earlier references that simply don't place as much emphasis on it. Caesar, for example, was often said to read silently, and in addition to specific instances of him being described as doing so, Manguel provides examples of several other references to silent reading.

This is unfortunate, because the development of silent reading is actually much more interesting than simply someone who was "able" to read silently. The prevailing view seems to be that the shift involved changes in the way our brains processed written texts, and was facilitated by significant changes in the way texts were written: punctuation and spaces between words allow one to visually understand word flow, for example, and without them, reading silently is far more difficult, while (I have to admit I haven't tried this yet) vocalizing such a text can make the flow clear. I might speculate, actually, that this may also involve changes from tone and length to stress accentuation, and other particulars of the ways we speak. Manguel goes further than this, and speculates that silent reading was not necessarily a desired or desirable practice at many points in history, and rather than being something people strove to do unsuccessfully, was a novelty that most people didn't find useful.

While the default subs are slightly more in control now, smaller subreddits are where you really see the undesirable effects of reddit's moderator system. /r/xkcd was a great example, purporting to be about the XKCD comic, but also being used to promote the top mod's bigoted ideas, something that the comic's creator disliked but could do nothing about. The community also disliked it, but was not only powerless, but had any dissent deleted.

/r/horses was another example. To my understanding, it was originally a normal equestrian subreddit about horses. Then, owing to reddit's request policy and an inactive moderator, it was taken over by a bizarre and seemingly psychologically unstable mod who primarily modded various fetish subreddits, and seemed to see /r/horses as a subreddit for a fetish for equestrian girls. He made a number of bizarre and pointless rules, and angrily banned people for not following them, or for actually discussing horses, or disagreeing with him elsewhere on reddit, and so on. Thousands of users who had subscribed to talk about riding and caring for horses were now subscribed to a subreddit that had rules about how much nudity could be in photos. But they couldn't do anything, because one guy had noticed the mods were inactive, and took over. This went on for years, until the mod got himself shadowbanned and someone sane took over.

I seem to recall there was a huge skincare subreddit scandal too, where it came out that the mods were deleting posts and manipulating the subreddit to push products and websites that would make them money.

Oh, and /r/worldnews had some major problems, if I recall, though I don't remember the details.