Search Ideas

I’ve asked Gemini to explain it:

1. Auto-Closure (Insertion State)

When the user inputs an opening delimiter, the system immediately injects the corresponding closing delimiter and places the caret (cursor) between them.

Input: (

Buffer State: (|)

Logic: insert(openingchar) + insert(closingchar) + move_caret(-1)

2. Type-Through (Escape State)

If the caret is positioned immediately before a closing delimiter that was autopaired, and the user types that specific closing delimiter, the system suppresses the character insertion and instead advances the caret.

Context: [text|]

Input: ]

Buffer State: [text]| (Not [text]])

Logic: if (nextchar == inputchar) { movecaret(+1); preventdefault(); }

3. Atomic Deletion (Regression State)

If the caret is between an empty pair of delimiters, a backspace event deletes both the opening and closing characters simultaneously, returning the buffer to the pre-insertion state.

Context: (|)

Input: Backspace

Buffer State: |

Logic: if (prevchar == open && nextchar == close) { delete_range(caret-1, caret+1); }

4. Selection Wrapping (Transformation State)

If a text range is selected (highlighted) and an opening delimiter is typed, the system wraps the selection rather than replacing it.

Context: |selected_text|

Input: [[

Buffer State: [[selected_text]]

Logic: surroundselection(inputpair)

5. Markdown-Specific Heuristics

Obsidian applies context-aware logic for Markdown syntax (e.g., * or _). It often checks word boundaries to determine if the user intends to bold/italicize or use a bullet point.

Context (Start of line): | + * + Space -> Bullet list (autopair disabled/consumed by formatting).

Context (Middle of line): word | + * -> word | (autopair enabled for italics).

I haven’t used Obsidian, so I don’t understand what you are requesting. Is it that, whenever you open a bracket, you want the closing bracket to appear automatically?

It would be nice if I could collapse the 'submit top-level idea' form. It currently takes up a third of my screen when I scroll on PC.

Obsidian autopairs markdown syntax and brackets. I like it a lot and would like Veritula to have something similar!

@dennis-hackethal see the revision chain on #3164. Revision 5 improved the content but I accidentally removed valuable comments. Revision 6 (a revision of revision 4) brought back the comments but I failed to include the content improvement in revision 5. I then made revision 7 to have both the comments and the improved content.

Maybe it should be possible to amend which comments apply to an idea without needing to make a whole new revision. This could behave weirdly in some edge cases, but it’s food for thought. If you think the way it currently works is going to be best, that seems fine to me.

This is done as of 9b5788c but it’s still free for now. Will make it a paid feature after some more testing and polishing.

The Effective Altruism forum has an interesting way to react to posts.

There’s an ‘Agree’ button and a ‘Disagree’ button. Those are apparently anonymous. Then separately, there’s a button to ‘Add a reaction’ of either ‘Heart’, ‘Helpful’, ‘Insightful’, ‘Changed my mind’, or ‘Made me laugh’. And those are apparently not anonymous.

I wonder why they chose to make some reactions anonymous but not others. I don’t think I’d want a ‘Heart’ or ‘Made me laugh’ button, they seem too social-network-y. Also, ‘Heart’ seems like a duplicate of ‘Agree’. But ‘Insightful’ and ‘Changed my mind’ seem epistemologically relevant. Maybe ‘Helpful’, too.

If I did decide to go with ‘Agree’ and ‘Disagree’ buttons, I wouldn’t make them anonymous, though.

The activity feed already shows updates to discussions. Could just include changes to the privacy setting there. And, whenever the privacy setting does change, notify participants of the change.

On second thought, the reason for the privacy change may well be related to the reason for any changes to the title or about section, so doing it in the same notification might actually be clearer for users.

The activity feed already shows updates to discussions. Could just include changes to the privacy setting there. And, whenever the privacy setting does change, separately notify participants of the change.

The activity feed already shows updates to discussions. Could just include changes to the privacy setting there. And, whenever the privacy setting does change, separately notify participants of the change.

A change to the privacy setting is notable enough that it requires a dedicated notification independent of any changes to a discussion title or about section.

The activity feed already shows updates to discussions. Could just include changes to the privacy setting there. And, whenever the privacy setting does change, notify participants of the activity.

The activity feed already shows updates to discussions. Could just include changes to the privacy setting there. And, whenever the privacy setting does change, notify participants.

How would you notify participants of changes to the privacy setting?

Preview links of discussions should show the name of the discussion being linked.

See eg https://x.com/agentofapollo/status/1991252721618547023

h/t @benjamin-davies

Good call. I made the pagination ‘sticky’ as of 1e7a85d. Archiving this but let me know if something isn’t working right.

In later implementations, I could maybe implement a ‘soft’ delete or grace period. Or I could keep the associated records and rely on authorization rules to prevent access. But as of right now, that’s a premature consideration.

If the discussion owner accidentally removes someone and then adds them back right away, it sucks if all the associated records are still gone.

Those could be deleted when the user is removed.

What if they still have subscriptions or bookmarks in that discussion?

Need a search form per discussion.

Please add a ‘first, previous, next, last’ navigation thing to the top of the activity feed page and similar pages. Currently I need to scroll to the bottom to go to a different page.

This functionality is pretty standard across apps. You can be removed from Discord servers, Telegram channels, etc without warning or reason at any time. People generally know and accept this. If they still put in effort, that’s on them.

That depends on a bunch of factors, including their relationship with the discussion owner, into which Veritula has no visibility.