Command + P worked for me in Firefox, but Command + Shift + P did not.
Further, because I don't type in QWERTY, I noticed that _some_ shortcuts seem correctly mapped in my layout, but others are not. The Option+N shortcut for a new note just starts the "˜" combining character (expecting a following character like "n" to form "ñ") when using the "n" key in my layout. However it works if I use the physical "n" key (which is my "k").
I feel like that explanation is pretty poor, but yeah basically some shortcuts seem bound to the physical key location whereas others seem bound to the mapped key. I wonder if they are declared differently?
> My biggest complaint is that asterisks map to <strong> and underscores map to <em> (in HTML terms). This is not backwards-compatible with Markdown where (asterisk)foo(asterisk) gets you <em>foo</em>, and it feels objectively backwards, if that makes sense. I wonder if there's any chance they could reverse that.
Interesting. I suspect something like this will always be subjective, but I find the opposite to be true. *bold* and _italics_ make the most sense to me and is always what I wished Markdown did.
Probably, this is because I was familiar with Textile[1] before I used Markdown, and this is what it does.
Today, Slack also uses this convention instead of the Markdown convention (though I believe it _used_ to use the latter).
> Interesting. I suspect something like this will always be subjective, but I find the opposite to be true. bold and _italics_ make the most sense to me and is always what I wished Markdown did.
Yeah… After posting that message, I remembered that _foo_ in Markdown also results in <em>foo</em> - so the underscores are backwards-compatible. But I've just always used asterisks so I completely forgot about it. So I guess they were bound to make some people upset no matter which one they made <em> and which one they made <strong>, and I'm on the losing side. :P
Whatever. If this ends up taking over the world as Markdown did (and I hope it does), I'll just get used to it, I suppose.
Incidentally, how did you "deactivate" HN's parsing of the asterisks in your reply?
> Has to anyone asked ChatGPT to refactor existing horrible code?
I'm not sure if "horrible" but I did experiment with getting it to refactor some code. I also gave it code with a bug and asked it to fix it (I described the bug), which it was able to do. I didn't test very complicated scenarios though. In the bug fix case, it was code to wrap, indent, and prefix a block of text.
Looks like the new 2.0 guides doesn't have anything regarding views and templates yet. Is that a documentation gap or is it like some of the closer ROM integration, where it will be 2.1 where that is functionally fleshed out?
Yes the view layer will be introduced in 2.1. We have hanami-view ready but we need to build hanami-assets and hanami-helpers + add integration code to the main hanami gem.
I wish Mozilla had been able to keep pushing harder with their servo project. IIRC, one of the earliest upsides I remember hearing about to justify creating Rust (in order to build servo) was that the increased safety with regards to concurrency could allow a web renderer to parallelise computation across _underclocked_ cores, thereby setting a new benchmark for battery consumption.
Granted, that was more about mobile devices but it still stuck with me. Effortless and safe concurrency would tip the scales to having hundreds of low power cores instead of a dozen high powered cores. I want that world, esp for mobile devices and laptops.
Yeah I use them too. I keep meaning to set up Firefly III to try it but Pocketsmith _has_ been really good. For a period of time I had accounts in a couple of countries and it was one of the few tools which let me get a multi-currency view of all my finances across the globe. Highly recommend.
As an early adopter of actions I remember that it was wildly different in its first version (beta perhaps?) than it is today. I have no source to back this up because it was too long ago, but I feel like I remember hearing at the time that the reason it changed so much was _in part_ because of the ADO presence. So I think you're right that the vision was there before hand, but what we have today is very much because of the influence of ADO (in particular, the mandate to run actions _on_ Azure, IIRC).
Further, because I don't type in QWERTY, I noticed that _some_ shortcuts seem correctly mapped in my layout, but others are not. The Option+N shortcut for a new note just starts the "˜" combining character (expecting a following character like "n" to form "ñ") when using the "n" key in my layout. However it works if I use the physical "n" key (which is my "k").
I feel like that explanation is pretty poor, but yeah basically some shortcuts seem bound to the physical key location whereas others seem bound to the mapped key. I wonder if they are declared differently?