If it helps, I thought it was funny. Silly-ass British (Australians are just desert British) spellings. You’d think the group that seems to cut half the letters out of the pronunciation of any given place name wouldn’t also be the group adding fucktons of unnecessary letters to words since they won’t say them anyways.

Then again, French exists.

Australian spelling is colour.

Nahhhh, you gotta think outside the box. You can tell people section 3, subsection 2, etc. even without pages. I’m addition, check this out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML_element#Anchor Click that. See the little but at the end? #Anchor? We can already use URI fragments to link to specific sections.

“But JackbyDev, I’m not linking to a specific section of something in an outline, I need to link to a specific part of long form content, like a novel. I can only do that with pages.”

That’s a good point, but modern browsers have a way to deal with that too. This is where text fragments help: they allow the link author to have full control over what text to link to, without requiring any special markup in the target document. You can use #:~:text= to link to specific blocks of text.

Edit: Lemmy is reformatting that for some reason and makes it not work. Try copying and pasting the below for a working example.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/URI/Reference/Fragment/Text_fragments#%3A%7E%3Atext=This+is+where+text+fragments+help%3A+they+allow+the+link+author+to+have+full+control+over+what+text+to+link+to%2C+without+requiring+any+special+markup+in+the+target+document.

Edit 2: Apparently Lemmy reformats links in preformat snips. Amazing. 🫩 Maybe slap this into the URL bar en-US/docs/Web/URI/Reference/Fragment/Text_fragments#:~:text=This%20is%20where%20text%20fragments%20help%3A%20they%20allow%20the%20link%20author%20to%20have%20full%20control%20over%20what%20text%20to%20link%20to%2C%20without%20requiring%20any%20special%20markup%20in%20the%20target%20document. after pasting https://developer.mozilla.org/ Nothing more frustrating that trying to show people a very cool and useful feature of browsers only for a different tool to just ruin it.

Even easier, for a markdown (text) file, you could just tell someone the line to go to.

If people used markdown instead, then everyone would have nice text editors installed which would make this easy.

Not to mention how much faster searching through a text file is compared to a word doc (eg, you could ctrl+f the headings name and have a result instantly).

If stuff like this was adopted, integrations could be very nice (with easier solutions than saying “go to x page and look for x header”, I could even imagine links being a thing assuming this feature is developed).

You find PDFs easy to edit? Also, there’s no reason why you can’t make a single HTML file the way you make a single PDF file. It’s not done in the web for organization and optimization reasons, but it’s still possible.

Also, what do you mean about resizable? Open a web browser, adjust the width. Look at the text. Watch as it moves. Do that with a PDF, absolutely not the same. PDFs have a static size.

Form filling with HTML is easy too. https://www.w3schools.com/html/html_forms.asp

Alternatively, if the business world can already handle PDF, then they can surely handle markdown. They’re already easy to open, and just like a PDF is easy (???) to edit as long as you have the right software, Markdown’s easy to get predictable printing out of even with the right* software. I think the PDFs are probably slightly easier for forms, but that’s about it. Everything else is just a matter of familiarity, and imo, it’s easier to get familiar with Markdown.

*If this somehow doesn’t work out, they could surely make do with a standard print preview.

Are you an accessibility remediator? I feel like they are the ones who like PDFs the most.

Obsidian is nearly perfect. My biggest gripe is the link format it uses, even when using Markdown style, doesn’t use the full relative path to files, just the name of the file. So you can’t click them in say, VS Codium and have them work.

My perfect tool would be something like Obsidian but uses the GitHub Pages approach while not being tied to GitHub. (The GitHub Pages gem fails in a few ways if the repository doesn’t have a GitHub remote.)

I just wish that obsidian would let me self host a server with their software.

Unless they’ve open-sourced it in the last year or so, Obsidian isn’t open source. That being said, it does have big vibes of open source. Like, there’s more to open source than simply the source code being available — it’s also about the general ethos of openness. When I was using Obsidian, I felt reassured that my notes were my own, and they would still function mostly the same if Obsidian went under. It’s a big part of why I switched to it from Notion

Nah Ctrl+F is “Finden”. Bold (“Fett”) ist Ctrl+Shift+F

Wait till you hear about localized Visual Basic

deleted by creator

It’s only half localized though, the actual path is still called program files. It just displays the localized name. Which is somehow even worse.

No, your revisionist history is wrong. By the time AOL acquired it, Microsoft’s damage had already been done. Its stock price had fallen 50% from its peak value.

The reason AOL didn’t know what to do with Netscape is that it was no longer a viable business due to the interference from Microsoft. Up until Microsoft started giving away Internet Explorer for free as part of the OS, the plan for Netscape was to charge for the browser. That was perfectly normal. People charged for every piece of software up until then. But, when they had to compete with Microsoft’s price of free, they had no real business model anymore.

That’s the whole reason that Microsoft was charged with violating antitrust law. They leveraged their operating system monopoly to enter a new business and destroy their main competitor. Even with their falsifying evidence and Bill Gates lying on the stand, it was an open and shut case.

Outlook is unmatched by anything else? What do you mean? Any email client you take is as good in my experience.

WordPerfect was the leading word processing program under DOS. When Windows was released Microsoft screwed with them by not giving them full access to all the Windows APIs (something Microsoft was notorious for). Surprise, surprise, at the same time Microsoft was not giving WordPerfect the API info they needed, they were releasing their own competitive word processor in Word.

But, once WordPerfect got access to the APIs, they produced a word processor that was superior to Word. The only reason that Word took off is that Microsoft aggressively bundled it with everything.

As for Outlook, I’ve never met anybody who actually likes it. The only thing it has going for it is that it’s available by default and it’s the only thing compatible with emails from other Outlook users. There’s a reason its nickname is “outhouse”. Outlook did the same things that Microsoft did with HTML and HTTP: embrace, extend, extinguish. They took de-facto and de-jure email standards and modified them so that only other Outlook users could use the email properly. They made sure that if you tried to use anything other than Outlook with Microsoft Exchange, that it wouldn’t quite work right.

With Microsoft it’s always about taking their monopoly in one area and squeezing another area, driving their competitors away. It’s what they’re now doing with developer tools, like github and visual studio code.

There is currently* nothing Microsoft Office does that I can’t happily do in LibreOffice

MS Word is significantly worse than WordPerfect. Reveal codes FTW.

You prefer feudalism?

Plenty of nice things in capitalism