3 ms·

The plain old paper notebook works for me. Treat it as a linked list, each node (page or section) being the root of a possible tree or graph, which is develope

The plain old paper notebook works for me. Treat it as a linked list, each node (page or section) being the root of a possible tree or graph, which is developed elsewhere (if at all). I'm not sure about the practical utility of following in the footsteps of some of these suggested 'giants in the field'... we're supposed to learn Kenneth Iverson's APL? https://dev.to/awwsmm/20-intriguing-unusual-and-goofy-programming-languages-238f#apl https://dev.to/awwsmm/20-intriguing-unusual-and-goofy-progra... I fear I am not worthy, nay, not even to wash the laboratory glassware in the facilities of such a genius. Donkeys must pull carts, while wizards fly through the sky above.

fluidcruft 4y ago
I sort of agree but it's so easy to see how a digital paper artifact could be drastically superior. For example imagine your piece of paper has hyperlinks. Or revision history. Annotations that can be toggled on and off and swapped. Generally my problem with digital paper right now is I need many of them and they need to interact with each other seamlessly. The advantage of paper is you can spread it out over a large area and see twenty or so pieces of paper when necessary. And you can easily sort and shuffle them and process stackd. This sort of thing has been extremely difficult to reproduce with digital artifacts. But it's not insurmountable. If your entire desk surface were color e-ink, say and you could trivially stuff papers into a portable contraption. Anyway to me it seens more that the tech isn't there to reproduce "space". Something like today's reMarkable is ultimately tiny as hell and can't actually be used like paper. I got a Boox a while ago and the fiest thing I realized (unexpectedly) was that I need at least two. One to read and annotate and another to jot working notes. And they would need to be in sync with each other.

fluidcruft 4y ago

I sort of agree but it's so easy to see how a digital paper artifact could be drastically superior. For example imagine your piece of paper has hyperlinks. Or revision history. Annotations that can be toggled on and off and swapped. Generally my problem with digital paper right now is I need many of them and they need to interact with each other seamlessly. The advantage of paper is you can spread it out over a large area and see twenty or so pieces of paper when necessary. And you can easily sort and shuffle them and process stackd. This sort of thing has been extremely difficult to reproduce with digital artifacts. But it's not insurmountable. If your entire desk surface were color e-ink, say and you could trivially stuff papers into a portable contraption. Anyway to me it seens more that the tech isn't there to reproduce "space". Something like today's reMarkable is ultimately tiny as hell and can't actually be used like paper. I got a Boox a while ago and the fiest thing I realized (unexpectedly) was that I need at least two. One to read and annotate and another to jot working notes. And they would need to be in sync with each other.