You don't generally have to. There's a package or environment somewhere that lifted that restriction or force it by trying to do something else. LaTeX is 100% deterministic. Someone, you perhaps unknowingly, told it to put that text there while trying to achieve something else.
Remember that LaTeX is about setting rules then letting it arrange the text in a way that follows those rules. If you try to meddle into the typography by hand, forcing specifics that break the rules, you will break its behavior. If it is putting text over the margin, it is because it determined that is the only way to fulfill the totality of your instructions.
If you're trying to do something on LaTeX and you find yourself wrestling with the software or writing TeX commands. Take a step back and reconsider. The reason the software is fighting you is because you are trying to make it do something it is not meant for or you're actively asking it to do the opposite of what you stated earlier you wanted to achieve. Thus creating a contradiction of intent.
Obvious examples are using the article template to write a book, or using the book template to write a letter. It is akin to using Excel as a game engine, possible, but not easily. You're trying to use a hammer to unscrew a bolt. Of course the tool is gonna fight you.
If you're trying to do pixel adjustments of figure position and changing it breaks something, you missed the point of the software package and/or are doing something horribly wrong and unsupported.
Suit evolution is quite an interesting topic. The first known card decks were usually made of several hundreds of cards and were not standardized, some didn't even have suits. Symbols, images and shapes varied greatly as they were usually hand painted. This European suits are offshoots of Islamic suits. Most likely, each of these suit styles was an attempt to standardize some game or production at different historical points in time and through the interpretation by entirely different artists. The common theory for French abstraction is that they are much simpler symbols which are faster and easier to reproduce in large quantities. Particularly easy to engrave on the first woodwork prints for mass production.
Well, you see. Those in charge want that apple there. Because when push comes to shove that apple will also kill activists, protestors and political opponents without asking questions or refusing orders. He will keep fellow apples in check and keep them from speaking up as well. They like that apple.
Libre Office has a mobile app. The one called LibreOffice viewer is only a file viewer but works perfectly if you only look at documents, it is developed by the same foundation that develops LibreOffice. If you want to edit, Collabora is the name of the app, it is based on LibreOffice and is officially approved by The Document Foundation. It is developed by one of their certified collaborators. Both are available on Android and iOS.
Both qbittorrent and 7zip are FOSS projects that are perfectly available on Linux. There's actually very few software packages that aren't also on Linux, but they have a strong pull. Like AutoCad, Photoshop, video editors, DAWs, etc. Is specialized niche software, not everyday software that usually stop people. Also, they are unfamiliar with a workflow to do certain things on Linux's DEs.
This is because tech bros only read pop-psy without any regard for context or nuance. So they read a bit about Flow state and ranking for gamification, and as usual they just botched it. Most ranking is typically calibrated for engagement, not fun. Mind you, they are two different characteristics. If you graphed difficulty and skill, flow is a band, not a point, of difficulty, in the middle. The idea is that when you are challenged slightly over your skill, there is something in you brain that stimulates you to keep going under the promise that overcoming the challenge will be rewarding. Too high and people rage quit, too low and people get bored. The problem is that they want maximum engagement and for that the difficulty has to be on the higher end of the band. A frustrated person will return, a bored one most likely won't.
They also want to keep people engaged with random and variable reinforcement. The other psychological theory that drives game design, much how behavioral scientist cheat pigeons to keep them engaged pulling a lever or pushing a button. Mix both theories poorly together and you get the awful implementation we see on multiplayer. People are tricked into believing that just because their brain chemicals are screaming at them to keep doing something, it means they are having fun. But that is obviously not true, just nobody ever occurred that those pigeons might be having a awful time. Ask most people on ranked MP or grinding for builds on MMOs if they are having fun and they have no idea why you're asking them. It has nothing to do with fun, they just want the carrot being dangled in front of their nose.
I just don't do online MP anymore because of this. 99% of the time, I'm not having fun. Now if I want to play with my friends or other people, we play tabletop board games. Infinitely more fun and far more satisfying than any online game ever.