They haven't been solved on the web. Mobile phones have to authenticate themselves with the carrier to ensure someone is paying for their connectivity. Therefore they can't be anonymous. On the other hand, indeed, most of the time you don't have to identify yourself to connect to a web server — but once you have connected, you may face a paywall that requires authentication! Also, you are certainly authenticating yourself somehow with your ISP for your home internet connection.
Currently I'm getting a new “request received” or other new-support-ticket email every minute or two, from all sorts of different ZenDesk customers. It seems like I'm not the only one, and it's not limited to one particular email provider: someone I know using Gmail is getting this, whereas I'm using a well-known commercial email host with a custom domain.
I’m pretty sure there is not any realistically feasible way to ever prove your statement. But I hope a majority of people can recognize the sheer magnitude of C++ as a language and take a position that it may not be possible to master the whole thing. Rust is ‘smaller’ language using some metrics (most metrics really) than C++ is another thing I would hope most people can accept. So, given that the comparisons between the two wholes being a semi-intractable discussion I would propose the following:
When considering some chosen subset of functionality for some specified use case, how do Rust and C++ compare in the ability to ‘master’. There are wide and varied groups (practically infinite) of features, constructs, techniques, and implementations that achieve targeted use cases in both languages, so when constructing a given subset which language grants the most expressivity and capability in the more ‘tight’ (i.e. masterable) package?
I think that’s a way more interesting discussion to have. Obviously, where the specified use case requires Rust’s definition of memory safety to be implemented 100% of the time (excluding a small-ish percentage of delimited ‘unsafe but identifiable’ sections) the Rust subset will be smaller due to the mandatory abstractions required to put C++ anywhere near complete coverage. So it may make sense to allow the subset to be defined as not only constructs in the base language, but include sealed abstractions (philosophically if not in reality) as potential components in the constructed subsets.
I may have to try and formulate some use cases to pose in a longer something to see if any truly experienced devs can lay out their preferred language’s best candidate subset in response. It would also be fascinating to see what abstractions and metaprogramming would be used to implement the subset candidates and figure out how that could factor into an overall measurement of the ‘masterable-ness’ of the given language (i.e. how impossible a task is it to be able to rely on a subject matter expert to implement any proposed subset for any given use case).
The Raspberry Pi probably still has the advantage of an actually robust firmware/software ecosystem? The problem with SBCs has always been that the software situation is awful. That was the Raspberry Pi's real innovation: Raspbian and a commitment to openness.
Fragmentation in the non-x86 world really hurts adoption. RPi presents a very well documented configuration that can be used as a target for development.
RISC-V is going through this exact same problem right now. All of the current implementations have terrible documentation, and tailoring Linux for each of these is proving to be difficult. All of these vendors include on-board devices that have terrible doc and software support.
ARM has a mitigation for this called SystemReady. It's basically "does your board support UEFI enough to usefully boot a battery of generic ARM Linux images". The Raspberry Pi can be made SystemReady, and Radxa also makes SystemReady-compliant SBCs you can buy.
RISC-V would do well to adopt and promote a similar spec.
This goes over my head a bit, but I suppose they are discussing the concept of something like a personal wiki; if so, https://wiki.xxiivv.com/site/about.html is my favourite.
Yes, and PKMs in general. Like labeling your emails by topic in Gmail. The problem is that the 'toil' keeps piling up, while the value gained is increasingly hard to see.
No, but I haven't been following the space. (I suspect that with Claude Code-level coding agents, you should be able to do something amazing that thoroughly obsoletes Obsidian/Roam/org-mode, but I don't actually know of anything.)
I've been focused on creative writing, with poetry as my test case, to see what the bottlenecks are to truly amplifying myself through LLMs (as opposed to helping my boss automate away my job or spamming the Internet more efficiently).
I haven't tried using agents to make a full editor, but Claude Code and Gemini CLI are actually quite good at writing Obsidian plugins, or modifying existing ones. You can start with an existing one that's 90% of what you want (which tends to be the case with note-taking/PKM systems: people are so idiosyncratic that solutions built by others almost work, but not quite) and tweak it to be exactly right for you.
My own Obsidian setup has improved quite a bit in the last couple months because I can just ask Claude to change one or two things about plugins I got from the store.
Writing or tweaking plugins is great, but it's not a paradigm shift (and risks a lot more toil because now you have to be your own PM or deal with patches/merges, on top of being a reference librarian and copyeditor etc). I feel like if you have a quasi-superintelligence in a box which can run your PKM for you, and you were designing from the ground up with this in mind, that Claude Code is only going to et much better & cheaper, you would not be settling for 'write or modify an Obsidian plugin'. You would get something much different. But 'write a plugin' is basically at 'horseless carriage' level for me.
What I have in mind is something far more radical. There's an idea I am calling 'log-only writing' where you stop editing or rearranging your notes at all, and you switch to pure note taking and stream of conscious braindumping, and you simply have the LLM 'compile' your entire history down into whatever specific artifact you need on demand - whether that's a web of flashcards or a blog post or a long essay or whatever. See https://gwern.net/blog/2024/rss + https://gwern.net/nenex , combined with the LLM reasoning and brainstorming 'offline' using the prompts illustrated by my poems.
That's fair, I guess when I hear "radical overhaul" when discussing PKMs I immediately start worrying about the overload and burnout that doomed my first attempts at Obsidian (see my sibling comment), whereas right now I have a system that works very well for me, especially now that I can just ask Claude to scan the whole directory if I want to ask it questions. But if you do come up with some new blue-sky vision for PKMs, I'd love to at least take a look.
This is the way. If you symlink the .claude directory (so Obsidian can see the files) then you can also super easily add and manage claude skills.
I've spent 20 years living in the terminal, but with claude code I'm more and more drafting markdown specs, organizing context, building custom views / plugins / etc. Obsidian is a great substrate for developing personal software.
I'm also not sure if I fully get what the author is going on about, but at least part of it seems to be "don't over-taxonomize and over-architect your note-taking and knowledge management systems, locking yourself into an inflexible format/schema too early just kills it in the long run."
If I'm correct that that's part of the thrust of the article (and I may not be), then I definitely agree with the author. The first time I tried to use Obsidian I burned out because I went all-in on the bi-di linking, tagging, knowledge graph, etc., and it quickly killed my motivation. Now I just dump text in and rely on search to find what I need, only adding links in retrospect once they are needed, and now I actually use it and get value from it.
I had this same issue early on when trying to adopt Obsidian. I was overwhelmed by all the "systems" and I was worried I was creating a headache for myself later on. Now I just focus on dumping text in, using search, and linking only as needed. Basically don't overdo it.
>Now I just dump text in and rely on search to find what I need
This is basically what I ended up with as well. They key for me to make it work easier than anything else, is before I leave the note, pausing a moment to ask myself “if I was trying find this among my other notes, what keywords/tags would I try to search for”, and add those to a comment and/or the filename to make it more unique.
Goldman Sachs was new to consumer banking and it has long been apparent that Apple outplayed them with the Apple Card deal, causing them to lose a lot of money, and so they have been wanting to get out of it: https://appleinsider.com/articles/23/10/16/goldman-sachs-reg...
This is impressive because whenever I hear Goldman Sachs, this line by Matt Taibbi comes to mind:
The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.
I don’t really get why it’s a bad deal for GS or how “Apple outplayed them” based on that article. Just seems like a frayed partnership cause they didn’t hit their numbers.
Does that mean that this new partnership will be better because Chase is better at consumer banking than Goldman Sachs, or Chase negotiated a deal that will not cause them to lose a lot of money?
If it's the latter, does that mean that the card rewards for Apple Card will get worse?
> If it's the latter, does that mean that the card rewards for Apple Card will get worse?
Can it really get worse? All they do is a 2% cash back if you use Apple Pay, and 1% if you use the physical card. Ok if you buy directly from Apple it’s 3% back but that’s hardly “good” - you get a couple of bucks for buying an AirPod.
> Does that mean that this new partnership will be better because Chase is better at consumer banking than Goldman Sachs, or Chase negotiated a deal that will not cause them to lose a lot of money?
The partnership between Apple and Chase is not new, even though this particular credit card product offering is. There is another quite popular form of payment Apple has supported for years which necessitated this partnership to be established.
> does that mean that the card rewards for Apple Card will get worse?
the card rewards for AC were pretty awful in the first place. It's only useful as a store card that offers 0% financing.
the deal is probably more in favor of chase when it comes to the fee schedule and various issuing bank and interchange fees (ie, the ~2-3% that card networks charge to merchants)
You'll be happy to learn that Unicode does not have one codepoint per national flag. It has 26 codepoints that form a special alphabet that two-letter country codes can be written with, and those are conventionally rendered as national flags.
I could give a shit about codepoints. Multilingual text is hard enough as it is. The icons-with-combiners were an unnecessary complication. The site we are commenting on rejects them, and rightly so.
