erganemic

Off the top of my head, all PKMs make trade-offs on discoverability, portability, maintainability, and ease of recall. Broadly, "discoverability" is how likely you are to stumble on something you'd forgotten (just recently, I found a file in my "taxes" directory listing all the documents I needed last year, which was a big help, and which I did not remember writing), "portability" is how resistant the system is to a company shutting down/project being abandoned, "maintainability" is how easy to keep your system consistent with its principles (including inserting a new note), and "ease of recall" is how easy it is to find something if you know you're looking for it.

When thinking about a lifelong PKM, I feel like I value portability more than most; something highly tied to a particular company like Notion is right out for me, and I'm leery of stuff like Obsidian or even org-roam, since even if the entries in those systems are just text, I just know that someday the logic that ties them together will stop being developed/maintained and I'll have to migrate.

I feel confident in directory structures and text files as long-term mediums though, and so JD is appealing to me, but its maintainability (specifically the cognitive load around inserting a new note) is such a stumbling block for actually creating content for it. Not to mention the primary thing it trades maintainability off for (ease of recall) is almost entirely solved by search functionality, leaving discoverability as the only benefit over just chucking everything in a flat "notes" directory.

I do something PARA-adjacent now, and I might just commit to that, although denote is interesting as an Emacs user for a slightly more portable tagging- and search-based option.

That's interesting! My wife and I both pictured him as masculine. In my case, as a cis, bi man who's honestly evaluated how I play my gender, it was because a lot of the way Murderbot feels about being amidst humans is IMO just dead-on how a lot of men feel being amidst women?

Like "everyone here is a little wary of me, and I can't even really blame them for it, because I just categorically am a more threatening presence."

Contra to a lot of what's being said in this thread, I think a lot of smart people get stuck in the trap of overvaluing quality of input relative to quantity of input. Put another way: the bitter lesson applies to the AI inside your skull too.

People aren't angry/worried because they don't have a competitive advantage any more--people are angry/worried because they sense (I think correctly!) that AI will eliminate the part of their work that they find enjoyable.

Artists, by and large, don't do art because they enjoy having art--they do art because they like /the process/ of producing art. If that process can be done faster and better by AI, then yeah, sure, they /might/ be able to still do art for a living (some artists will be able to leverage their experience to maintain an advantage; other, less flexible ones will lose work)--but the work they do will likely not be commensurate to the work they were doing before, and will likely be less enjoyable to them.

The thing that worries people about AI is that it'll make all creatives into middle-managers.

I'm really impressed with the strides Emacs has made recently: native compilation, project.el, eglot, and now tree-sitter?

As a user who hadn't kept up with development news until recently, I'd always mentally sorted Emacs into the same taxonomy as stuff like `find`: old, powerful, with a clunky interface and a stodgy resistance to updating how it does things (though not without reason).

I'm increasingly feeling like that's an unfair classification on my part--I'm genuinely super excited to see where Emacs is in 5 years.

I adopted GTD right before I left college, and I sometimes wonder how I ever would have managed to adapt to the explosion of tiny, attention-grabbing tasks that adult life supplies without it. Admittedly, it feels a little clunky and "enterprise-grade" in places, but the underlying principles are so rock-solid and obvious-in-hindsight it feels magical.

Plus, org-mode really helps to make the over-engineered parts more frictionless--I run my life off of org-agenda now, where creating a new project, capturing tasks for it, and refiling them as needed are only a few keystrokes away. Keeping with the theme of hyped productivity books, I also take inspiration from Deep Work to tag certain actions as being ":deep:", so that after clocking into those tasks, I can look at a clock report at the end of the day/week to understand how many hours I actually spent working on "important" stuff. It's very motivating to make that number go up!

I know not everyone feels the need to be so intentional about their productivity landscape--indeed, a lot of very naturally productive people I know explicitly /don't/. But for those of us who aren't one of those magicians, I highly recommend putting some thought into at least a bare-bones system.

"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us."

- Ecclesiastes 1:9-10, KJV

Think of the distinction between "over the board" and "online" as kind of like the distinction between "NBA game" and "pickup game". Even that might be understating it. The levels of importance are radically different.

Also, think about how much harder it would be to cheat over the board. You might use hidden devices, accomplices, secret signals--compare that to an online game where all you need to do is switch over to another tab to check the engine. Cheating OTB requires a significantly greater degree of forethought, planning, and commitment--a persistent and repeated willingness to cheat that is way less acceptable than an online player getting tilted and looking at an engine. Still cheating, yeah--but at least it's not premeditated.

I can second the comments that a solid E ink device makes reading pdf/epub stuff a lot more enjoyable, and I greatly prefer it to reading on a traditional screen.

That said, for exactly the class of books (didactic/reference) that your question calls out, there's no substitute for physical books. For me, so much of reading a book meant to instruct involves flipping back quickly to an earlier chapter to refresh my memory on the exact definition of a concept, or paging rapidly through a section to see what headings it covers, or switching from a page in one part of the book to a page in an entirely different part so I can compare their content. There just isn't a frictionless analogue for this, even with E ink devices: and when you're trying to learn stuff, a solution with friction is barely a solution at all.

I used Corpspeak pretty much exclusively for the year I spent as an entry-level analyst at a consulting firm, because--as a consequence of all the points mentioned in this article--it was cognitively easier. If writing is like creating a painting from scratch, Corpspeak is like a coloring book. Instead of mixing your own paint, you pick from a finite number of predefined crayons. Instead of needing to decide on a subject and composition, you just need to pick what image you want to fill in.

Corpspeak abounds in places that value "being in motion" over "getting results", since when you use Corpspeak, you don't actually have to think about what the best course of action is--the best course of action is always "organizing a connect with the relevant subject matter experts to draft action items for a discovery yada-yada-yada". This requires zero thought--it just requires knowing a list of buzzwords and being able to string them together. This is really easy to do! When promotion season came around, I was asked to write a report of why I deserved one, and I wrote 1200 words in a half hour--that's 40 wpm, about the average typing speed of someone just copying text! And I was complimented on the thoroughness and perspicacity of what I wrote. I got the promotion--just in time for me to find a better opportunity and bounce.

Nevertheless, I do believe there's value in Corpspeak. The reality at most companies (even ones you care about) is that a lot of the communicating you do is more-or-less inconsequential, and doesn't actually need to have a lot of care and thought put into it--and being able to let your eyes glaze over and engage in the conversational equivalent of cruise control saves cognitive resources for stuff that actually matters.

I'm not sure how you read my previous comment and concluded my objection was to people having fun in a way I don't like. To be super reductive: I think it's better to not play D&D at all if the only way you can see to have fun with it is by lying to your friends in order to provoke a certain emotional response in them.

The relation this has to my top-level comment is that both anecdotally and through "actual play" media, I've noticed that DMs who don't care about the /systems/ of D&D made to enable player choice instead care about using the /vehicle/ of D&D to tell their own story, and that they're willing to steamroll the agency of the characters to do so. I believe /the essential promise/ of D&D is player choice--no one would agree to meet up if they knew you were just going to read your unfinished fantasy novel at them for three hours, they come because they believe they'll get to make choices and have those choices affect things. As such, I'm leery of DMs who (in my experience) are willing to shove mechanics that enable player choice to the side in order to tell the story they want to.

I don't think this is an unreasonable perspective, and I'm a little confused since it seems like you didn't engage with my previous comment at all?

The specific person I'm talking about was telling their players that the stakes were real: they were calling for rolls (not attack rolls or saving throws, mind: those are too complicated, just anonymous rolls that were immediately ignored), whittling down the party members until they're just on the verge of death, and then--a miraculous recovery! Victory snatched from the jaws of defeat!

Yeah, they might be having fun in the moment, but someone in that thread asked whether their party knew that all their triumphs were predetermined, and the OP replied in the negative. "You should really either fess up to it being railroaded or try to make it less so," someone advised. "Otherwise, they're gonna find out, feel like morons for getting emotionally invested in what's basically a puppet show, feel like double morons for believing you all the times you assured them that their miraculous victories were real, and never want to play again."

The OP took immediate offense to the idea that people are sensitive to having their emotions manipulated via lies, and went on a multi-paragraph rant that basically amounted to "my players are idiots who don't know what they want and will never find out, and even if they did they'd thank me for my awesome storytelling, and basically when you think about it I have to take away their agency because otherwise they might mess up my plans."

Moreover, I maintain that lines of reasoning like that are more common amongst people who want to play D&D while ignoring all its systematic, rules-based elements. "I should be able to control my players at my whim" and "it's unnecessary to have objective ways to resolve a success or failure except through my fiat" are complementary beliefs, and a person attracted to one is more likely to be attracted to the other.

That's why I say (maybe too tersely) "That's not D&D." Because the fundamental element of D&D--the thing that separates it from a book or movie!--is player choice. And if you have decided that a version of the game where you can enforce your will randomly--beholden to no rules--is the one that aligns with how you want to DM...well, it's not impossible to do that right, but I'm leery of any decision that makes it easier for you to stomp on player choice.