This is also the core conceit of Slow Horses, the Gary Oldman AppleTV show. An office filled with MI5 officers who screwed up and so can’t be trusted with anything important.
I haven’t seen Broadchurch, but I have seen Slow Horses and it doesn’t seem like the description applies. Sure, they are “exiled” MI5 officers, but they also save the day every season, and not through luck. They’re not completely incompetent. Take River: he was sent to the Slough House due to a mistake someone else made. Ho was sent there due to character flaws, despite being the most skilled at his job.
Except in Slow Horses, most of them are exceptional at least in some way. Many of them are too difficult to work with, yes, but they do excel at _something_. That is very different from being _all around mediocre_.
No, of course, but the issue comes in the next step. How do they put their "support" of science into practice? For some, that means supporting increased budgets for grants, education, or basic research. For others, that means "restoring trust" by adding partisan steps. "Trusting the experts is not science", as RFK said.
I find these types of survey questions almost useless - of course people will say they support science, or democracy, or freedom, or increasing support for families. The devil is always in the details.
Much like the TikTok ban this seems like something that could be handled through actually regulating what tech companies are allowed to do, rather than just picking on specific products and saying ‘stop that, it’s making us nervous’.
Federal laws about data collection and retention, export, and algorithmic usage… as well as laws about software update channels for hardware devices, eg requiring that it be possible to replace firmware yourself… all sorts of regulations could be put in place that leave the software and hardware markets open, by making it clear where the boundaries are. If DJI or TikTok are doing something bad, prosecute and fine them and enjoin them from doing it again… but make it clear what specific behavior you have a problem with.
We're too busy taking car companies' lines that it's reasonable they don't want people going to a local mechanic because "The data your car collected on you might get hacked and sent to China!" rather than asking "What are cars doing collecting this data, if it's such a risk?"
It’s easy for people to understand that if they point the powerdrill into a wall the failure modes might include drilling through a pipe or a wire, or that the powerdrill should not be used for food preparation or dentistry.
People, in general, have no such physical instincts for how using computer programs can go wrong.
Which is in part why rejection of anthropomorphic metaphors is a mistake this time. Treating LLM agents as gullible but extremely efficient idiot savants on a chip, gives pretty good intuition for the failure modes.
Presumably BBC comments also contain comments from English people who might not follow the same 45/55 split on Scottish indeoendence as Scottish people do?
And driving on the left is one of the most reasonable sides of the road to drive on, but in a country where everyone drives on the right, it’s good to accept that, though driving on the left offers just as many advantages, nonetheless you shouldn’t insist on continuing to do so.
Markdown is also one of the most reasonable markup languages to use for text, and it has won sufficient share that it should be your default choice for lightweight markup, no matter how reasonable org-mode is.
If you think you'll ever want to use third-party tools to process that markup, or if some of your private files will transform into public files at some point, then yes, considering popularity makes a lot of sense.
If they're just text files you edit raw that will never interact with anything else but your text editor, then of course popularity doesn't matter at all. But in my experience, my use cases tend to expand over time.
The article even talks about org mode's interoperability, mainly about the fact that pandoc supports it. And then bizarrely ignores the fact that it has much less ecosystem support than Markdown. So this is very much a subject the article itself brings up, and something that therefore also deserves to be critiqued.
OP here. I stuck with orgmode all these years /because/ of the interoperability.
If I'm writing in Org, I can tangle / detangle between other plaintext sources, including source code. As well as export to collaborate.
The proposition is "yes, and", not "either / or".
It's /fine/ to switch to the popular "team" standard and stay there when needed. Several of my workplace documents, including wiki entries start off as local org-mode drafts. Once I'm okay to share, I export to markdown or draft wiki page and solicit comments. After that, if the document is for shared maintenance, I let my org-text alone, and switch to the "team" format.
This is perfectly fine.
That and the many kinds of markdown. I've been bitten enough by having to look up yet another poorly maintained document on how to markdown for /this/ particular app or website or utility, that I'd rather pandoc translate between my (sane, well documented, fully extensible) org text and whatever I need to share with others, than learn edge cases of various markdowns.
Sure, but I think it's safe to say Markdown has more interoperability, no?
Yes you can always use pandoc, but conversion usually brings quirks of its own. And more generally, the less conversion steps you need, the better.
If you just stick to vanilla markup, you don't encounter incompatibilities. The "many kinds of markdown" isn't an issue if you're not using platform-specific extensions in the first place. Which, usually, you're not, unless you need to do something very specific to that application.
Yes, more interoperability at the cost of capability.
Also, yes, conversion is quirky. That is why Org works until it does, and then I trade off being stymied by markdown's more plain-ness, in favour of collaborating with others.
And with vanilla markup, the trouble is that many applications /do not/ use just vanilla markup. People /invariably/ want "one key tweak" (like, front-matter or table of contents or footnotes or some such thing), and everyone ends up doing their own thing.
Perhaps the trouble with markdown is it's /too/ plain. So yes, lots of people can do lots of lowest common denominator stuff, but it does not extend to individuals wanting "just one thing" which also adds up to a lot of people.
Edit: a real-life example... I typically run code from org-mode for interactive testing and debugging --- the kind of stuff we write small throwaway scripts for.
In this one project, I made it so that /I/ or anyone else using org-mode could do it from org, for local development, and anyone else could just use the script as-is... including the CI pipeline.
> Yes, more interoperability at the cost of capability.
Well, then why aren't you using LaTeX? Isn't that more capable?
> And with vanilla markup, the trouble is that many applications /do not/ use just vanilla markup. People /invariably/ want "one key tweak"
And, that's going to be true as someone adopts it outside of Emacs, right?
Surely, someone will decide that the way Org Mode is doing something is wrong, right? They're going to do something like say, "Hey, why don't we permit Markdown style headings, too?" or something similar.
Or are you suggesting Org Mode military police? Felony markup possession?
There's nothing special about Org Mode that makes it immune to the problems you're describing. They will happen immediately upon wider adoption.
And if you somehow do stop it, well, it's tech. If you don't have a patent on it then someone will fork the idea and you'd have Borg Mode directly competing with you anyways.
A Unix novice came to Master Foo and said: “I am confused. Is it not the Unix way that every program should concentrate on one thing and do it well?”
Master Foo nodded.
The novice continued: “Isn't it also the Unix way that the wheel should not be reinvented?”
Master Foo nodded again.
“Why, then, are there several tools with similar capabilities in text processing: sed, awk and Perl? With which one can I best practice the Unix way?”
Master Foo asked the novice: “If you have a text file, what tool would you use to produce a copy with a few words in it replaced by strings of your choosing?”
The novice frowned and said: “Perl's regexps would be excessive for so simple a task. I do not know awk, and I have been writing sed scripts in the last few weeks. As I have some experience with sed, at the moment I would prefer it. But if the job only needed to be done once rather than repeatedly, a text editor would suffice.”
Master Foo nodded and replied: “When you are hungry, eat; when you are thirsty, drink; when you are tired, sleep.”
Okay. You didn't seem to understand that that was a rhetorical question, because you didn't seem to take the next step of reflection.
So, what does your comment to me say if used in response to your own org mode vs markdown comment you made in the post I responded to? You said org mode's capabilities are the reason why you don't want markdown.
You keep making this argument that org mode is just better, but you can immediately find a counterargument yourself to your own point.
Now, it's perfectly fine that that represents how you feel about the software. You can hold whatever opinion you want. But, you're not just trying to explain your opinion. You're trying to convince people that org mode is better. You understand why you're not being very persuasive in your argument, right? You've argued in a way that the only people who will agree with you are those that already hold the same opinion as you.
Org mode's capabilities are the reason why I don't want markdown for me.
Markdown's popularity is the reason why I switch to it for other people (team / colleagues).
LaTeX is too much for day to day use. Its purpose is precision typesetting. That is a lot of work with LaTeX. I don't need to do precision typesetting on a day-to-day basis. But I've used it to format documents for people when they ask me to. Then it's worth the pain. Besides, LaTeX has none of the organisational capabilities enabled by orgmode, for my daily-drive uses.
There is a reason a Physicist---who daily-drives LaTeX, for their publishing work---went through all the trouble to build a note taking system from scratch.
So, once again, utility is contextual, and I refer back to Master Foo's lesson every time I have a problem.
Ahem. When I started with Markdown, I was regularly experiencing all the issues mentioned for years. The most popular format was Word (doc). Perhaps I should have stuck with that?
No? I’m pushing back against advocacy for broader adoption of org mode beyond personal file markup though, which is what I feel like this piece is arguing.
> note that this is not about Emacs at all. This is about Org mode syntax and its advantages even when used outside of Emacs.
One of the advantages of "going with the flow" when you can is that you benefit from numbers. You're a market of one, but by "going with the flow" the total market is huge.
Even if for me personally 185V mains power would be better, I can't buy gear for 185V, none of the electricians around here know how to work with it, the cables and sockets and everything else are defined around the prevailing systems at 220-250V here.
Maybe in my kitchen a 520mm dishwasher would be great, but alas dishwashers you can buy here are 600mm or 450mm ("slimeline") models, so 520mm isn't available.
With my poor hearing 14-bit PCM would be absolutely fine, but Sony's "Compact Disc" used 16-bit so that's what everybody uses and records by default.
If you work with Markdown, there are a lot of existing tools which are ready to use. There are tools for Org Mode, but maybe not as many.
There's definitely a sliding scale here. Refusing to use Twitter because it's full of Nazis is very different from refusing to conform to society's expectation that you wear clothes outside for example. There are people willing to spend most of their lives in jail because they refuse to wear clothes but almost all of us don't think that's a principle we care about enough to prioritise (also some of us get cold).
In my experience, not really. I'd love to use Typst, you have no idea -- but when most journals require you to use their LaTeX template, then my personal taste doesn't really enter into the equation.
GitHub has at least some support for org-mode rendering. Which is a good reminder that a lot of this stuff really doesn't have to be a stark either-or choice—a lot of standardization isn't inevitable or natural or necessary, but just a choice we happen to make, often for systemic reasons that aren't inherently justified (legibility/etc).
What if you're building a product for other people like you to use?
I think this is very common, like people building tools for trackers vs Ableton/Live/etc style DAWs, or those writing software only targeting the OS they use? Not every product is built with the goal of worldwide adoption.
Back to the specific case being discussed, I can easily export usable markdown from org. The people I share it with have never noticed it wasn't markdown since the start, so why wouldn't I continue to use org even when interacting with people who don't? It makes my private side of the exchange better for me, and it doesn't affect the public side negatively for others.
Yes, though in the case of driving, if I prefer driving on the left, I'd have to move, since I live in a country where you must drive on the right, but to use org-mode instead of markdown, I just ... use org-mode?
I'm afraid I don't understand your point here, sorry.
Markdown (subjectively) looks better than Org when it’s plaintext - postfix headers and dashed lists are annoying to parse but they distinguish sections visually. Org by comparison feels like a sea of asterisks.
I don’t like using “-“ for bullets and “*” for headings. I do love underlines for underlined text, slash for italics, and asterisks for bold. Other than that, po-tay-to, po-tah-to. Let’s all just pick one and use it consistently. I do agree with the argument that says “Markdown” is meaningless and you’re always forced to ask “What do you mean by that? Which flavor, exactly?” But that happens with anything “lightweight” as it is inevitably extended to deal with more complex demands and becomes more heavyweight in the process.
What if I told you that your analogy breaks completely if you actually consider what Org-mode is. Think of Markdown as a noun (a thing) and Org-mode as a verb (a system that does things). It's like comparing HTML and React components - it's not about "preferable side of the road to drive", we're talking about a complete different mode of transportation - i.e., in a nation where there's infrastructure and roads for cyclists - the rules change from "drive on one side and obey traffic signs..." to be something different. Similar, yet different.
That's what everyone's missing when they try to compare Markdown and Org-mode, while looking at it only through the angle of the markup structure. Markdown is a markup - pure structure, no logic, no state, no content with behavior, no executable source blocks, no embedded logic - and that's the point.
Arguing which one should be "the default choice", is like saying - "just always drive a car, cars are more popular..." - an argument that has no sense whatsoever. If people find Org-mode useful (because it is), well, there's really not much you can do about it, right? Just like you can't tell people to prefer a bike, car, moto or a boat - each has pros and cons and suits different scenarios.
Markdown is worse than other formats in many ways. It has several ambiguities, there are significant variations between implementations, fairly basic features like tables, footnotes, strikethrough, etc. are "extensions" that aren't widely supported.
The only real advantage of markdown is that it is has because more ubiquitous/popular than others, possibly in part because it is relatively easy to implement, as long as you don't care that much about exact compatibility with other implementations.
This is advice that I would have rolled with pre-Generative AI.
Today, I'm not so sure. I'm actually way used to zim-wiki syntax because that's what I started off with; and already "moving it around" is becoming orders of magnitude easier given the ability to vibe-code tons of little scripts that make it work better with everything else -- and while this might seem a bit counter to the point -- I think one can reasonably rely on the idea of "market share isn't that important anymore compared to 'you, personally, should use the thing that works the best for you because translation will get orders of magnitude easier.'"
I'm surprised nobody else brought it up - what are the pros of left-hand driving? Is it about where the controls are in relation to handedness? Some sort of safety benefit? Better visibility in certain scenarios? And are postal carriers in America who drive LLVs getting the _best_ or the _worst_ of both worlds?
I've driven both. Drove LHD for more than a decade in India. Now driving in RHD country for 2y now. Personally, I enjoy RHD more because I am right-handed and I get to do things easily with my RH. Otherwise, I realized that safety benefits comes from the driving discipline and not driving on a particular side of the road. Driving on Aus/Japan is way safer than India, despite all of them being LHD.
How does RHD make it easier to do things with your right hand?
I’m right-handed in a LHD country, and this means I used my right hand for almost everything. The gear selector, radio, climate controls, GPS… all done with my right hand. My left hand controls the turn signal, that’s about it. I think I’d have a very hard time with a RHD car where I need to be precise with buttons and touch screens using my left hand.
I mistakenly mixed up the abbreviations - it is "Right Hand Traffic"/RHT (which is "Left Hand Driving"/LHD).
Like you said, I enjoy LHD more where I can use my right hand for everything like radio/AC/GPS etc. and most of them work with muscle memory without even taking eyes off the road. Doing the same with my left hand while driving in India (LHT/RHD) is very tough.
I would ask you to read the article before writing a comment like that.
The whole point of the article is that there is no Markdown. At least not a single instance from it. So when you're referring to Markdown, you're actually referring to a few dozens of slightly different markup languages which are hard to identify and except for a few, very tedious to convert.
In my opinion, this is far from being "reasonable".
Orgdown is explicitly mentioned only as one LML that doesn't come with the listed downsides of Markdown. So if you think that my article tries to convince you to use orgdown instead, you've missed the part where I say that there are many good alternatives of Markdown that do perform better when it comes to real world processes. I just tried to use orgdown as one example among many to state my point by showing an alternative. If you think that orgdown is the only one, you did not read the article carefully enough.
Markdown can be trivially embedded in org-mode, so no need to even miss out on that which "won sufficient share":
* Org with md block
#+begin_src markdown
.....
#+end_src
Markdown may be a winner, but preferring it when org-mode exists is like tying both arms behind my back and trying to do serious things with my feet.
Yep. I wouldn't like to see the result of embedding any org of reasonable complexity in md though, while I've embedded pretty complex md in org. And performed various operations on the whole thing, but now we're going from syntax to (Emacs) features.
Org is essentially the parent of _all_ other plaintext formats, and is able to treat them specifically at the native level. So for example there's a single command to run a code block, but the code runner is correctly resolved. And multiple blocks in different languages can communicate with each other. Entire projects can be placed in a single org files and still operate as though they're separate files. Literate programming is a breeze. Organization of anything is trivial.
The argument being made is not ‘org-mode is a reasonable alternative to a filesystem for organizing textual files’, it is ‘org-mode is a reasonable lightweight textual markup language’.
The fact you can replace entire project and documentation systems with org-mode is not an argument in favor of its lightweight text markup.
Yet text markup doesn't exist in a vacuum, heavy or light. Text is marked up in the first place so it can be better processed by a computer, while keeping it reasonably readable by humans. And there are a variety of markup formats out there as some given person gets the idea that doing it X way makes it most ideal for both use cases. Org-mode is a extremely lightweight, likely more so than md, AND allows for complex levels of processing WHILE maintaining that lightweightedness. The feature variety already exist as proof, at least in Emacs.
reply