1032
I can't believe it tastes different
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
1032 points (97.4% liked)
Funny
10367 readers
1133 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
|----------|-----------------------------------| | Substituting applesauce | 8/10 | | One-starring the recipe because it didn't work out | 0/10 |
Lemmy supports tables? Damn, never seen one here in the comments. Good to know!
For me it looks like this (thunder app btw):
Which client is that? I'm using Connect and can't see the table
Tables are supported on the web page (Lemmy.world using the default UI); they just didn't do it right (for the default UI).
Example:
Markup used to construct it:
Note that it's entirely possible that different Lemmy clients have different, mutually incompatible, Markdown implementations. I've already noticed one such difference: in the Lemmy.world default web UI,
~x~does a subscript, but in my Voyager Android app, it does a strikethru.You must be using a really old version of voyager. This was fixed a while back
Could be. I'm using the F-Droid version, which tends to lag behind the Play Store version because of all the extra vetting they do.
Can you check the version in "Settings -> About"? Some users have reported issues with F-droid auto update. F-droid should be up to 2.9.1.
F-Droid had notified me to update Voyager to 2.9.1, but I hadn't bothered to do it yet.
Thunder renders a table, but it uses a library for most of markdown (except lemmy-specific like spoilers)
I was just winging it and it worked out!
Except "one-starring the original recipe because the modified recipe didn't work out"
Because otherwise it looks very reasonable instead of very not reasonable
"It” refers to the substitution, not the recipe.
I see your point now. For me it doesn't really read like it, because you have it in another cell of the table which gives it too little weight as a possible context for dereferencing the pronoun, while also having a valid noun preceding the pronoun begging to become referenced by it.
Yeah, I must be fun at parties, I know 😅
I see your point. If you view the cells as separate contexts, then it would be necessary to specify that "the substitution" is the thing that didn't work out.