3 ms·
Something tells me you felt clever posting this. If you're open to a different perspective: The underscore makes your text worse to read, IMO. Same with the MD
by rmbyrro 2y ago
Something tells me you felt clever posting this. If you're open to a different perspective:
The underscore makes your text worse to read, IMO. Same with the MD anchor syntax.
HN supports italicizing by wrapping an expression with asterisks *. Why insist on a foreign standard?
HN commenters use the [{i}] notation all the time for footnote referencing. Which can be used for links, declutttering the main text.
Why add a ^?
- Terretta 2y agoCertainly, italics in asterisks, but underscores are valid too in plain text, double either to get bold. I wanted the _underscore_ since I was talking about plaintext and didn't want it disappeared, though I *suppose* this works too. ^ means superscript, as footnote numbers are in publishing, but more importantly, https://github.blog/changelog/2021-09-30-footnotes-now-supported-in-markdown-fields/ https://github.blog/changelog/2021-09-30-footnotes-now-suppo...