I think I’ve found a bug in the Rich Text to Markdown action.
It takes this:
<p class="text" style="background-color: rgba(227, 191, 255, 1.00); border: 1px solid rgba(34, 34, 34, 0.10); box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; margin: -12px 8px 0;padding: 8px 12px;border-radius: 4px; ">
<span class="_580f17fcb5303652">This is a really good question, and Mill makes a good point, I think. Let me throw in my answer: Thales. Thales started by asking, “What is the arche of phusis?” and later thinkers didn’t want to be satisfied with less profound answers. However, this isn’t the whole of the answer. Another, perhaps better way to put this is that they wanted to know what the ultimate nature of reality was, and were too naive, in their young (in science and philosophy) innocence, that to make enormous conclusions from limited data was dangerous. Think of them as unsophisticated children.</span><span class="_26efaf6a4335c49e">
</span><span class="_580f17fcb5303652">Let me add something to this: What were their prototypes? Who could they look to for examples? Only religion. That was their only predecessor. And what else does religion do but draw enormous conclusions from extremely limited data? Besides, it would seem paltry and small to draw *less* profound conclusions than religion does; it would seem like a trivial, subordinate enterprise, rather than a new and profound way of looking at the Universe.</span><span class="_26efaf6a4335c49e">
</span><span class="_580f17fcb5303652">It’s also kind of odd in that only a physicist would ask this question; a philosopher would not think of it. This is how philosophers *think.* I mean, this is what you *do* when you reason from first principles. Yes, they took logical leaps; they didn’t know better yet.</span>
</p>
and turns it into this:
This is a really good question, and Mill makes a good point, I think. Let me throw in my answer: Thales. Thales started by asking, "What is the arche of phusis?" and later thinkers didn't want to be satisfied with less profound answers. However, this isn't the whole of the answer. Another, perhaps better way to put this is that they wanted to know what the ultimate nature of reality was, and were too naive, in their young (in science and philosophy) innocence, that to make enormous conclusions from limited data was dangerous. Think of them as unsophisticated children. Let me add something to this: What were their prototypes? Who could they look to for examples? Only religion. That was their only predecessor. And what else does religion do but draw enormous conclusions from extremely limited data? Besides, it would seem paltry and small to draw *less* profound conclusions than religion does; it would seem like a trivial, subordinate enterprise, rather than a new and profound way of looking at the Universe. It's also kind of odd in that only a physicist would ask this question; a philosopher would not think of it. This is how philosophers *think.* I mean, this is what you *do* when you reason from first principles. Yes, they took logical leaps; they didn't know better yet.
This is really frustrating to say the least! Is there a way around this issue?