Best I can do is

"\ude41🙂".split("").reverse().join("")

returns "\ude42🙁"

Ah yeah I don’t know how I would do that easily on a phone. Do those in my example above render for you? You should probably be able to just copy/paste them on a phone if they do.

I can’t find a keyboard with them, or a copy/pastable line where they’ve been typed

Maybe use combining diacritical marks?

I’m using 0x326 (Combining Comma Below), but you may need the CGJ in there to render correctly in all contexts

e.g.

Foo!̦ Bar?̦

Edit: Combining grapheme joiner, not zero width joiner

Relevant XKCD

I use a hard G when pronouncing gif, and the inventor using a hard G is a good enough reason for me. But the argument that the G stands for graphics being the reason for it is a garbage argument. There are plenty of acronyms that are pronounced differently than the letters that make up those acronyms. For example the U in SCUBA is pronounced as a long U as in rule or June, but stands for underwater, which is pronounced as a short U.

Yes, you are correct in that a single individual’s action will make no difference, just like your single vote makes no difference either. However if everyone does their part it can make a massive difference.

While your individual contribution makes no difference, you still should try to do your part. Yes, change takes work and a bit of sacrifice. Just like how it takes time out of your day to do research on candidates and go to the polls.

If you don’t do the work, it doesn’t make you smart or clever, it just makes you an asshole taking advantage of others.

If I super heat a metal and it turns visibly red what is happening? Was it already emitting infrared and as it gets hotter the frequency shifts up? Or is it still emitting infrared but has a wider band of frequencies it is emitting as well (i.e. is it emitting frequencies below infrared as well as visible red)?

Yeah I’ve played with git-issue and agree it’s not ideal. Have you checked out Sourcehut? It is entirely email based but with some pretty great tooling around it to make it more accessible.

I agree that in a perfect world we have a separate open protocol for all of the non-repository related workflows/data, that has all the features we need. But the nice thing about email is it’s decentralized, and everyone already has it. And in my opinion, with the right tooling built around it, it can get pretty close to the same quality of life as a github PR, but also degrade gracefully without it.

The problem isn’t the version control itself. Obviously git continues to function and I can commit things offline in a plane. What I can’t do is create/review PRs or read/open issues. That’s easy to brush off, but the most egregious thing is the fact that this used to be federated over email!

All we needed was more user-friendly tooling to make it easier for new college grads to start contributing to FLOSS, but instead of better email based tooling we got the centralized trash that github is today.

There’s no way of knowing, which is the whole problem with their model and why a lot of us self host things in the first place. Even if they super duper promise not to use the data, they could be lying. And if they are actually true to their word today, that could change tomorrow.

The way I remember the order is that the parentheses around the link would make grammatical sense outside of markdown (the goal of markdown is to still be fully readable even when looking at the raw source).

For example if I were posting on a forum that didn’t have markdown support which one of these would make more sense:

1. You can find that on this lemmy instance (https://lemmy.world).
2. You can find that on (this lemmy instance) https://lemmy.world.

Option 2 makes no sense grammatically. Then you just need to use the square brackets (which rarely show up in non-markdown text) to denote the link range.

Alternatively, if you still have a hard time remembering the order, you can use reference-style links which make it even more readable outside of markdown rendered contexts (note that there are no parentheses in this version, nothing to get confused):

[Here is a link][1] and [here is another link][2].

[1]: http://example.org
[2]: http://example.com