1030
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
1030 points (97.4% liked)
Funny
6669 readers
124 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 1 year 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
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.
"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 😅