<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
     xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
     xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Artyom Shimanski – Blog</title>
    <link>https://shimanski.dev/blog/</link>
    <description>Notes on building SaaS products, browser extensions, and games from a developer with 15+ years in software engineering who now ships his own products.</description>
    <language>en</language>
    <copyright>Copyright 2026 Artyom Shimanski</copyright>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 02 Aug 2026 09:00:00 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://shimanski.dev/blog/rss.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    
    <item>
      <title>How LinkedIn Text Formatting Really Works (It&apos;s Not a Font)</title>
      <link>https://shimanski.dev/blog/how-linkedin-text-formatting-works/</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">https://shimanski.dev/blog/how-linkedin-text-formatting-works/</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 02 Aug 2026 09:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <dc:creator>Artyom Shimanski</dc:creator>
      <category>Engineering</category>
      <description>LinkedIn has no bold button. Every formatter swaps your letters for Unicode look-alikes. How the trick works, its real trade-offs, and how to use it well.</description>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Every “LinkedIn font” you've ever seen is the same trick wearing a different hat: Unicode characters that merely look bold or italic. After building a formatter myself, here is exactly how the trick works, what it costs you in accessibility and search, and the formatting rules I actually follow.</p><p><a href="https://shimanski.dev/blog/how-linkedin-text-formatting-works/">Read the full article on shimanski.dev</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
