But the point of the scientific method is to get us high-quality ideas. How would that cure the derangement of an idea-centered perspective?.Maybe if you removed the model-making part. Leave the primacy of observation and the utility of peer-review. Maybe.
I think that tap-hold to select text and raise context menu is a function of every text-using app I've got.
There is also the assumption of the central importance of ideas, which is a rather deranged perspective when you think about it.Don't get me wrong, ideas have high utility, for memory and language and such, but still. An idea is just a little thing, and any association between it and the rest of reality is purely contrived.
Those are rather awkward options. Standard functionaliy is preferable, even with loss of markdown.I think it's a detail that the dev just hasn't yet addressed.
I relate. I edit, then edit again. How anybody can come up with the right words the first time is beyond me. And ya, brevity is power.
You want real-ass harry potter magic? ADHD/Sperg/Autist is the gateway. I think that this is missing from the alternative. Like you have an itty bitty piece of 3d matter embedded in your 2d, flatland-living, flatland-society self.
Do you prefer a polite request with an implicit punishment-threat or an outright demand with an explicit punishment-threat? Also, why?
That is an opinion that I used to share. No more.I have offered a dozen strange ideas here. Not difficult or complex, just strange. They are not received well.
A kind of politics-flavored smalltalk. Yes, that is the local dialect.Believe it or not, I have discussed subjects that matter deeply to me in online forums. But lately it's just fruitless fishing.I think we have a thousand mob-squawks posing as niche communities. Different flavors, same conversations.Completely open and popular forums are not entirely a good thing.
"Should" is arguable. (For example you might be fishing for the few in the crowd) .But yes, your choice of topic. That's what I'm talking about. Sometimes it looks pretty narrow.And if you do. Well, that carries with it it's own bucket of implications.
I am not talking about better communication. If I was then I would have said "use a clearer style of speaking" or something like that.I am talking about limiting what you discuss to the popular and easily-digested.
But the point of the scientific method is to get us high-quality ideas. How would that cure the derangement of an idea-centered perspective?.
Maybe if you removed the model-making part. Leave the primacy of observation and the utility of peer-review. Maybe.