u/CodyDuncan1260

Hey r/crkbd,

I have repetitive strain injury in my carpal tunnel. It really only triggers when clicking my (vertical) mouse. So, ideally, the design I'm looking for is low mouse movement and moving click operations off the right index finger.

A corne keyboard and a modal text editor (helix) gets me all the way there when text editing. It avoids clicking altogether, and my wrist can stay in one stable location. Unfortunately, most of my other software engineering workflows around text editing are built for GUI use and have tons of unavoidable clicking.

So I'm ideating on how to modify or supplement a corne with a pointing device, and how to design the keyboard layout for clicking. I was curious if anyone else has been down this road and has perspective on what works and what doesn't. Like, should I use a separate large trackball? Where's a good spot to move the click keys? What's a good device + workflow that's about as fast as mousing?

I am willing to invest in time and train skills to "get good". I literally get a stab in the wrist for reverting back!

Currently I swap to a left handed mouse with some extra buttons for ctrl, shift, ctrl-c, and ctrl+v. That works ok, but it's messy. I misclick a lot.

Thanks!

This is a rule we need to implement order to make moderating easier

Rule 1.3: Mods may remove posts under discretion for review before posting.

Purpose: Give mods a subjective tool for taking a post down to ask for a more thorough review and demonstration of relevance before reposting.

--------

This is in response to a number of posts demonstrating "physics papers" and sample code that claim to represent a new field, method, insight, or idea in foundational physics.

E.G. "I've invented a new type of field equation that unifies quantum and classical mechanics.", then the paper is 5 pages long with a few basic integrals, and the sample simulation is an LLM regenerating a basic Newtonian particle simulation with all the functions and variable names dressed up in the physics jargon from the paper. The author doesn't have enough expertise in either to understand that's what they have written.

We have posts about scientific papers with new ideas all the time, so it's not too terribly uncommon to see a post with a novel idea that sounds odd but works in practice. That's much of the exploration of cutting edge graphics programming.

The problem we're having with these new types of (not-quite-research-)"paper" posts is that they're substantially more difficult to review than other posts. They *look* like those new paper posts. Because the codebase aliases all the terms against physica/math jargon, it takes a lot of work to deconstruct that it's a more basic simulation and rendering than the wording. As a result, it usually takes 30 minutes to an hour to find a verifiable proof that the implementation or paper doesn't actually implement what it says it does, in order to have an *objective* reason to take the post down.

So, in order to shortcut that process while remaining fair, we need a subjective mechanism to call for a review. That's what this rule is. A mod may use their discretion to take down a post, talk to the poster, and ask them to verify its relevance to the subreddit before reposting again or affirming the removal. This gives us a removal reason that we can use to communicate that ask for a review.

To be clear, this change doesn't take a stance for or against AI generated code, papers, or posts. It's not even technically a stance against low-effort posts. It's a more efficient for filtering "confused effort" posts to where they need to go.

If you have any questions, comments, concerns, feel free to discuss. I'll post the new rule tomorrow.

Keyboard Design for RSI