Prereading note: while writing a different post,1 I ended up needing to deeply nest some statements. I realized2 that I had spent around equal time setting up the prereading note to actually writing the post, so I decided to just turn the note into its own post. As a result, that’s Draft 0. Also, since I needed to make sure my3 footnotes parsed, I relabeled Draft 2 as 2/3, since it’s unclear which is the correct term.4 Draft 4 remains as such.
Like many bad authors,5 I rely a lot on gimmicks.6 Also like bad authors,7 I blatantly stole my gimmick from someone else.8 If it isn’t clear from the eight9 footnotes I’ve already used, my gimmick is footnotes, and nested ones in particular. As I mentioned in a previous post,10 I can’t have nested footnotes.11 Instead, I12 use nested sets of punctuation.13 So, when I had a chance to expand the list of nested parentheticals14 I use, I was happy.15 So, my list of nesting symbols16 now goes: footnotes,17 parentheses,18 square brackets,19 then angle brackets.20 Unfortunately, after that, there are no more brackets21 that I can find,22 so23 I used short and long dashes,24 then two asterisks25 when I needed26 to go one layer deeper in my nesting.27 I don’t28 like the way that they look,29 so I hope I don’t need to nest my footnotes more than five30 layers deep.31 And, as I read through this draft,32 I did find that the different punctuation helped me to parse the statements slightly more easily. However, long and short dashes don’t quite look different enough for me to parse at first glance, so it’s a good thing I33 won’t need to use them often. Anyways, the 86 footnotes34 of the piece contain a total35 of 1415 words within its footnotes. That’s nearly 70% of the entirety of the words written.36 Whoops.
Like many bad authors,37 I rely a lot on gimmicks.38 Also like bad authors,39 I blatantly stole my gimmick from someone else.40 If it isn’t clear from the six41 footnotes I’ve already used, my gimmick is footnotes, and nested ones in particular. As I mentioned in a previous post,42 I can’t have nested footnotes.43 Instead, I44 use nested sets of punctuation.45 So, when I had a chance to expand the list of nested parentheticals46 I use, I was happy.47 So, my list of nesting symbols48 now goes: footnotes,49 parentheses,50 square brackets,51 then angle brackets.52 Unfortunately, after that, there are no more brackets53 that I can find,54 so55 I used two asterisks56 when I needed57 to go one layer deeper in my nesting.58,59 I don’t60 like the way that they look,61 so I hope I don’t need to nest my footnotes more than three62 layers deep.63 And, as I read through this draft,64 I did find that the different punctuation helped me to parse the statements slightly more easily.
Like many bad authors,65 I rely a lot on gimmicks. Also like bad authors,66 I copy my gimmick from someone else.67 So, when I had a chance to expand the list of nested parentheticals68 I need, I was happy.69 So, my list of nesting70 now goes: footnotes,71 parentheses,72 square brackets,73 then angle brackets.74 Unfortunately, after that, there are no more brackets75 that I can find,76 so77 I switched to using two asterisks.78 I don’t really like the way that they look,79 so I hope I don’t need to nest my footnotes more than three80 deep.
Prereading note: Yay! I finally used more nesting.81 It now goes: Footnote,82 parentheses,83 square brackets,84 then angle brackets.85 Unfortunately, after that, there are no more brackets that I can find.86
which will be posted (and rewritten) next time that the situation is valid↩
about ten minutes in↩
nested↩
and I already have far too many footnotes↩
and hopefully some competent (since that’s a bar I’m not sure I would consider this post at) authors (writers?)↩
or at least one gimmick↩
as the title suggests, my father’s “Daily Musings”↩
nine including this (assuming no more drafts)↩
no, I have no internal consistency for which words are hyperlinked. In all honesty, it’s what feels right as I type the command↩
i.e. a footnote that has a footnote as its referent (the thing that sends you to the note [I think?]) or its reference (the thing you get sent to [or switch this explanation with the one above, if needed])↩
as mentioned in the linked post↩
which before today was limited to ([])↩
which isn’t really the right term, because I use more than parentheses↩
yes, the nesting of strings (references? I’m not really sure what the right word is here) is actually something I feel joy about↩
since I find a string of parentheses in in succession hard to read (like the example here(see (if not do you see yet?) how hard it gets?)(hopefully) demonstrates), but different shapes in succession (like this [or this]) easier (still not always easy though) to read↩
Like this! (ooh meta)↩
seen in the footnote above’s “ooh meta,” or in most of the prior (or the following [with some exceptions]) footnotes↩
I think they’re called square brackets (although they aren’t square [unless by square we mean Merriam Webster’s first definition <which, oddly, refers to the tool, not the shape>])↩
which makes no sense as a name (since all brackets have angles [other than parentheses I guess <although it could be argued that they just have a lot of angles -but that feels like needless pedantry –although I guess all pedantry is supposed to be needless **because of the word “excessive”**– that I don’t know enough math for->, but they’re not too important <unless you actually follow the convention of parentheticals -but not the convention of avoiding their usage->]. Wikipedia calls them “pointy brackets”[which is kind of funny], so maybe I should too) in my opinion↩
that I know (or at least strongly believe) are supported on the platforms I write and publish my work (if you can call it that)↩
maybe there’s a reason for that↩
as you might have seen↩
I know one of them is an “em dash,” but I’m not sure which↩
astereces? Given that it comes from Latin asteriscus, maybe not. CS people allegedly call them stars, which is much easier↩
read: wanted↩
if I were a bird, I would be so warm↩
didn’t, and likely will not↩
mostly because I feel like two asterisks feel less like a divider and more like two arbitrary characters↩
not including the footnote itself↩
wow five feels so much more freeing than three↩
hopefully↩
that number was changed at the very end of the (writing of the) piece to reflect reality, and does not include nestings↩
as above↩
ibid↩
and hopefully some competent (since that’s a bar I’m not sure I would consider this post at) authors (writers?)↩
or at least one gimmick↩
as the title suggests, my father’s “Daily Musings”↩
seven including this (assuming no more drafts[which was wrong])↩
no, I have no internal consistency for which words are hyperlinked. In all honesty, it’s what feels right as I type the command↩
i.e. a footnote that has a footnote as its referent (the thing that sends you to the note [I think?]) or its reference (the thing you get sent to [or switch this explanation with the one above, if needed])↩
as mentioned in the linked post↩
which before today was limited to ([])↩
which isn’t really the right term, because I use more than parentheses↩
yes, the nesting of strings (references? I’m not really sure what the right word is here) is actually something I feel joy about↩
since I find a string of parentheses in in succession hard to read (like the example here(see (if not do you see yet?) how hard it gets?)(hopefully) demonstrates), but different shapes in succession (like this [or this]) easier (still not always easy though) to read↩
Like this! (ooh meta)↩
seen in the footnote above’s “ooh meta,” or in most of the prior (or the following [with some exceptions]) footnotes↩
I think they’re called square brackets (although they aren’t square [unless by square we mean Merriam Webster’s first definition <which, oddly, refers to the tool, not the shape>])↩
which makes no sense as a name (since all brackets have angles [other than parentheses I guess <although it could be argued that they just have a lot of angles **but that feels like needless pedantry**>, but they’re not too important <unless you actually follow the convention of parentheticals **but not the convention of avoiding their usage**>]. Wikipedia calls them “pointy brackets”[which is kind of funny], so maybe I should too) in my opinion↩
that I know (or at least strongly believe) are supported on the platforms I write and publish my work (if you can call it that)↩
maybe there’s a reason for that↩
as you might have seen↩
astereces? Given that it comes from Latin asteriscus, maybe not. CS people allegedly call them stars, which is much easier↩
read: wanted↩
if I were a bird, I would be so warm↩
and no, I will not use em dashes, since I still don’t know whether ems are the long or short dash (- or –), or how long and short dashes differ. If I ever learn, I may incorporate them (whoops, the draft above disproves this)↩
didn’t, and likely will not↩
mostly because I feel like two asterisks feel less like a divider and more like two arbitrary characters↩
not including the footnote itself↩
or I can learn to use dashes and em dashes (ooh I could use both of those to get two more layers free [shoot I’m writing another draft])↩
and hopefully some good ones↩
as the title suggests, my father’s “Daily Musings”↩
which isn’t really the right term, because I use more than parentheses↩
yes, that is actually something I feel joy about↩
since I find a string of parentheses in order hard to read, but different shapes (like this [or this]) easier to read↩
Like this! (ooh meta)↩
seen in the footnote above “ooh meta,” or in most of the prior footnotes (or the following [with some exceptions])↩
I think they’re called square brackets (although they aren’t square [unless by square we mean Merriam Webster’s first definition <which, oddly, refers to the tool, not the shape>])↩
which makes no sense as a name (since all brackets have angles [other than parentheses I guess <although it could be argued that they just have a lot of angles **but that feels like needless pedantry**> but they’re not too important]. Wikipedia calls them “pointy brackets”[which is kind of funny] so maybe I should too) in my opinion↩
that I know (or at least strongly believe) are supported on the platforms I write and publish my work (if you can call it that)↩
maybe there’s a reason for that↩
as you might have seen↩
astereces? Given that it comes from Latin asteriscus, maybe not. CS people allegedly call them stars, which is much easier↩
mostly because it feels less like a divider, and more of just two random characters↩
not including the footnote itself↩
yes, that is actually something I feel joy about↩
like this! (ooh meta)↩
like the footnote above’s line “ooh meta,” (or like this [or any of the following explanatory footnotes])↩
I think they’re called square brackets (although, they aren’t square [unless by square we mean Merriam Webster’s first definition <which, oddly, refers to the tool, not the shape>])↩
which makes no sense as a name (since all brackets have angles [other than parentheses I guess <although it could be argued that they just have a lot of angles> but they’re not too important]. Wikipedia calls them “pointy brackets”[which is kind of funny] so maybe I should too)↩
maybe there’s a reason for that↩