I don't know if you've tried Obsidian, but it's just a tool that sits atop your pile 'o Markdown files. No vendor lock-in or special databases. I use Syncthing to sync the files between devices and git to periodically back them up to a private repo.
I've had to be careful to steer clear of all the plugin nonsense that's tempting to dive into as a distraction from actually using the tool, but Obsidian is surprisingly awesome right out of the box.
I use the daily note template tool to generate a structured agenda for each day, which removes the friction that used to keep me from daily journaling and second brain stuff. Now I can't live without it. It's been life-changing for me, as a person previously crippled with ADHD and perpetually living in a state of intense anxiety.
If you have any questions, I'm happy to help out. I was also an Evernote (and Joplin, and...) user for years and was never satisfied until I made a list of my requirements and discovered that Obsidian ticks all the boxes. Haven't turned back since.
Reach out to the NWCDC (https://nwcdc.coop/) or NCBA (https://ncbaclusa.coop/) for resources on how to draft bylaws and structure a worker-owned business that meets your needs. In my experience, they're extremely passionate, knowledgeable and helpful.
I'm a little surprised that there are so many takes like yours in this thread. I don't mean to pick on you, but you seem awfully certain the briber is more ethically in the right here.
I wonder, would you feel the same if this was a meat packer or kindergarten or dairy or hospital who was bribing inspectors?
Building inspections are deadly serious, and when corrupt developers (who, in this case as in all cases, have the capacity to offer life-changing wealth to otherwise underpaid public bureaucrats) pay to cut corners, innocent people die.
It took two to tango, here. The rich asshole paying to circumvent safety regulations is at least as culpable as the motion bureaucrat who accepted the bribe.
> you seem awfully certain the briber is more ethically in the right here
No, I'm not. I don't advocate for bribery and the developer should be charged, although the prosecution's priority should always be on the person accepting the bribe, in my opinion. People are barking up the wrong tree because it's easier for some people to hate a rich guy than someone working for their preferred political party's government.
That being said, how many fewer housing units would exist in SF without this rich asshole bribing his way into making the new housing complexes? And where is the evidence that there was something wrong with the structural plans that was causing problems getting the permit? If you knew anything about SF, you would know that having a perfect plan does not get a building approved. The problem is with the approval process. By being a rich asshole and unethically aiming to help only himself, he objectively improved the city more than most, because the regulatory process he was circumventing is horribly flawed. Can you rectify that with your black and white worldview?
> would you feel the same if this was a meat packer or kindergarten or dairy or hospital who was bribing inspectors?
This isn't a story about a meat packing plant -- this is a story about a city with one of the worst housing shortages in the world, and the worst homelessness crisis in the country.
Some people have it so ingrained in their brains that evading regulation for personal benefit is bad that they fail to evaluate the possibility that the regulation is bad.
Both can be true! One can be more important! Which one is more important can depend on the specific circumstances!
But it really doesn't. What it has is a lot of industry-funded "research" muddying the waters with ambiguous or misleading results.
When I worked at Monsanto, the mantra was that __the burden of proof was on those alleging harm__.
I don't know about you, but I expect a higher standard from the system that regulates the food I put in my body.
Broad spectrum pesticides are terribly complex to test and it should take years if not decades to properly prove them safe for agricultural use and human consumption.
Only if you define "the maximum" as a 14 year old narcissist boy's fantasies.
He didn't really get to know the joys of adventure or a loving relationship. By all accounts, his life was actually pretty empty, a hole he tried to fill with material objects and anonymous sex.
The FDIC insurance won’t make the rest whole, the bankruptcy process will. The assets are not fundamentally toxic and someone will buy them, with a haircut.
Those numbers at the bottom of a cheque? Yeah, they include your account number.
There's no inherent information risk to giving out an account number that justifies an outdated paper-based system. Especially when one considers the accompanying fraud risk thereof.
The instant I moved to Europe, I realized just how far behind consumer banking is in the US. It's pitiful.
Not in Europe it's not, which is
monodeldiablo's point: there's no inherent risk to giving out your account number. It's only the primitive US system which makes it a risk.
>> Those numbers at the bottom of a cheque? Yeah, they include your account number.
> Yes, as well as the routing number.
>> There's no inherent information risk to giving out an account number …
>Of _course_ there is. In the US, the account + routing number is sufficient to perform a ACH transfer, write checks against that account, etc.
The risk is enormous.
So… how does writing a check remove this risk then? That was the original point, that writing a check is safer than giving out your account number.
I've known way too many lawyers, doctors, tech bros, and finance bros to believe in these silly platitudes.
It might have once been the case that reward correlated closely to risk, but the economy has fundamentally changed faster than our attitudes.
We believe that the US is still the meritocracy it was when we were young, but loads of economic studies show the US has steadily declined in this regard. More than ever, money circulates among the well-connected and wealthy.
The real secret to getting rich today is to be born rich.
The system doesn't have to be completely fair for it to work. Of course being born rich means you are likely going to be rich. However, if you're trying to climb the ladder, the advice you reject as a platitude is fundamentally true. Being an employee you're accepting a limited compensation and getting certain benefits in return, including safety. If you have marketable skills, nothing stops you from building up a business to sell these skills directly, at greater risk but also increased compensation if it succeeds. This is true for an enormous variety of fields, but especially tech.
If you claim that, how about your own comment? And with
> nothing stops you from building up a business to sell these skills directly
you pretty much completely ignore what OP wrote. Sure, you can claim "technically correct" because indeed nobody is stopping you. You just leave out the statistics about the result. What is stopping people is looking at their actual chances, so sure, you can technically claim they are stopping themselves. Only that it's highly misleading.
I left awell-paid software job in the US and returned to Germany, opened a small business with a friend after looking around. We barely managed to sell it off at cost, leaving the next person to find out it really did not work (he saw everything but thought he could do better). Then I did freelance jobs, very highly paid. Also extremely unsatisfying. The especially well-paying corporate jobs especially so, more often than not what I had worked on was discarded after I left, because of company merger or internal politics leading to a stop on the project.
Now I'm in a business started by a former CTO of a famous successful startup, where he made lots of excellent connections and also has the brand name recognition now. I only do tech now. And no, you can't just easily connect to the right people. Some few one-in-ten-thousand people can do that. Most people have the necessary connections through birth or from previous employment. Creating them from scratch is incredibly hard.
When giving general advice about something and not to somebody specific for a specific situation, I suggest to
always scale your advice, from "works for anyone" to "works for everyone". Many of those suggestion fall apart right then and there.
How about if we already are in a situation where everybody does their very best? It's just that the equilibrium created from that is what we have now. Because the system does not work when "everybody" does it. You get a dynamic equilibrium with lots of losers and a lot of effort just not being worth it. Despite starting out with everybody highly motivated and adventurous. So "try harder" IMO has already happened long ago and we now are in a much later state of the dynamic system. What happens in the "everybody works hard" phase is a lot of pain and the winnings going to a few winners who sit at key points in the network.
You mentioned statistics and provided anecdotes. Also, ironically, you perfectly exemplified the risk/benefit trade-off: you took some risk with the idea that you could make more profit, but ultimately that failed - which is why being an employee is sometimes a good deal for those who would rather have peace of mind. Your example of your current boss, who both founded and worked for another successful startup, is precisely the other side of the coin here.
Let's look at statistics then. In the US, it seems that about 30% small businesses are successful enough to last over 10 years [1]. Your personal failure in one particular venture is not out of the norm, but your rant against entrepreneurship is totally wrong.
By the way I don't think anyone is arguing that the system is fair, that people who don't start businesses are lazy, or that everybody can make it. I don't know where you came up with these arguments. All that has been argued is that trying to start a business on your own is a risk/reward trade-off strategy that can pay off, and often does.
And “successful enough to last ten years” says nothing about whether they actually make more than median wage in the US or how much capital they put in to start their business.
Most “independent business owners” who own franchised locations for instance have owners who work 50-60+ hours a week, and have spouses and their children providing free labor.
If you look at the net income of most franchise locations, they average around $60-$70K berz
The question is not whether they make more than median wage actually, if you want to nitpick. It's whether they make more than they would as an employee. Yes you need capital and that's part of the risk. Also reducing the argument to be about "franchise owners" is a strawman.
Is it really a “success” as a business owner to make less than the median wage and have to put capital at risk? No serious investor would settle for less than average return and not have a risk premium.
If you work at a bakery and earn minimum wage but somehow save enough to open your own shop, the fact you may now earn less than median wage is not relevant. Do you understand now or would you like me to draw you a picture?
How much does it cost to start a bakery? What would be the future risk adjusted cash flows of opening a bakery compared to just putting the money in risk free inflation adjusted bonds? What’s the relative risk of putting the money in an index fund?
And no I’m not just throwing out financial terms. I’m a proud MBA dropout (undergrad in CS)
How would that have turned out if you invested that money in your own store and opened it in February 2020? What happens if you open your store next to a store like Walmart or in a mall next to one of the major chains and they closed or moved reducing foot traffic (saw that plenty of times)?
If you can save up enough money to open a store, you can also save up enough money to go to technical school and learn a trade that is a lot less risky.
If you are a CS major, can successful “grind leetCode” and get an offer at any of the major tech companies, you can get an offer in the mid $100s minimum. In five to seven years you can get $350K+.
Realistically, what are the chances of your own business having that income trajectory?
The article was not about only tech, and the parent mentioned many other fields as well. I also don't think your imagined career path reflects the reality of even 0.1% of tech workers in the world today.
I've had to be careful to steer clear of all the plugin nonsense that's tempting to dive into as a distraction from actually using the tool, but Obsidian is surprisingly awesome right out of the box.
I use the daily note template tool to generate a structured agenda for each day, which removes the friction that used to keep me from daily journaling and second brain stuff. Now I can't live without it. It's been life-changing for me, as a person previously crippled with ADHD and perpetually living in a state of intense anxiety.
If you have any questions, I'm happy to help out. I was also an Evernote (and Joplin, and...) user for years and was never satisfied until I made a list of my requirements and discovered that Obsidian ticks all the boxes. Haven't turned back since.
reply