I would suggest you read the Gates report. I'm not sure how much to engage here, except to say emphatically that Gates said nothing of the sort. TL;DR - health and development funding should be considered as a more marginally impactful form of foreign and domestic government investment, but only because of the rapid (and ongoing) progress already seen in emissions reduction.
Here's a quote:
> To be clear: Climate change is a very important problem. It needs to be solved, along with other problems like malaria and malnutrition. Every tenth of a degree of heating that we prevent is hugely beneficial because a stable climate makes it easier to improve people’s lives.
Reducing sprawl is plainly a good strategy to reduce transportation and infrastructure needs, and preserve wildlife.
To me, this article demonstrated the value of knowing your domain and its particular constraints, as well as a good understanding of prior art. Together with the only 1000 line demo it took to produce (which I suppose could have been aided by an LLM), I did not finish reading with any specific appreciation for AI.
I highlight as a way to categorize my annotations. I highlight in Zotero as I go, and in the highlight's comment section briefly jot down why (e.g. something to follow up on, or whether this reminded me of something else it contrasts with). I dedicate a certain colour to "background references I should have", another to ~ "things I disagree with" etc., which I find useful when coming back over the paper to type up my notes.
In a sense the highlighting is just a way to localize my thoughts to a particular passage of the text, and the colours (or even highlighting at all) are secondary.
There's some considerable duplication of effort (notes in Zotero, then I type up notes in Obsidian, then also extract out some of those ideas into their own files). But, much like the recent posts about "outsourcing thinking" and GP noting that people sometimes do nothing with their highlights, I find that the work is useful for understanding and remembering.
Out of interest, why have you been considering Logseq?
> Out of interest, why have you been considering Logseq?
Primarily because it's FOSS; I love Obsidian (I even pay for it) but I have to consider the possibility that they'll be bullshit and start charging for stuff or start restricting things arbitrarily. If Logseq becomes bullshit then I (or someone else) can fork it and maintain/grow it. It's also written in ClojureScript, so legally I have to kind of like it :).
I've also kind of grown to like the way that the "unit" of Logseq is the "block" instead of the "page". Pages are more about aggregation than "units" of information, and as a result of this I find that the graph view is actually useful, instead of just something pretty in Obsidian.
There are some things I really don't like about Logseq (the lack of proper Vim keystrokes being a big one for me), but one of my biggest pet peeves is when people try software for five minutes, make zero effort to understand what the application is actually trying to do, give up, and declare the software as "bad". I felt like that's what happened with Gnome Shell, for example.
I will likely eventually go back to Obsidian, but I figured that I should give Logseq a fair shake, and it's different enough from Obsidian that I felt it's only fair to spend a few weeks properly learning it.
I tried Logsec for a few hours, prolly should work with it more. It looks like a great tool, but I don't like nested bullet lists as a way to organize information. I'll check out your blog.
The bullets don’t bother me, since I outline a lot already, but there are other annoyances, like the poor performance, and an inability to split the screen.
I am still using it for a bit just to give it the fairest shake, but honestly I am kind of counting the days before I am back to Obsidian.
I've been gradually updating this post [1] if you want to follow along. It's in a fairly rough state (all good blog posts require multiple rewrites and I haven't done that), but you are welcome to follow along as I compile stuff.
Just looking at the language myself, but it seems that it treats out-of-bounds array access as a non-recoverable bug and panics [1, 2], whilst map access returns Option [3]. Exceptions are a language construct only to enable Java compatibility and not recommended otherwise [4], but that's not to say you couldn't implement your own try/catch using the effect system. `r` is a region variable as the sibling comment says.
I agree with OP that this seems a little unfortunate, even though it's pretty par for the course.
"Bugs are not recoverable errors" is such a fuzzy idea. On the one hand, indexing an array with an out-of-bounds integer could just be considered a program bug. On the other, the point of making the indexing operation return an optional value is to force the program to handle that scenario, preventing it from being a bug. One of the examples they give of a "recoverable error" is illegal user input, but in the case of "the user enters an index and it might be invalid", the language does nothing to keep the recoverable error from turning into an unrecoverable program bug.
It does seem to depend highly on the context in which the array is used. Strictly defined algorithm with an off-by-one: bug. User-defined indexing as you say is a counter. I suppose it is hinging on arrays being used in less dynamic contexts where you're likely to know the length, so to save you from handling all the Nones. I think I'd prefer a parallel api that returns Option, so you don't need to duplicate the bounds checking.
It's good to read this while being in one of those nothing-months myself. I have extended the deadlines and my goals are not clear.
Incidentally, I have a supervisor who felt the exact same way when he was doing his PhD and fled to industry. Evidently he found that there was something to be enjoyed in the freedoms of research and returned.
How do you manage having thousands of tags? What is your use case? I quite quickly moved away from them because I couldn't have a strict/normalised system for it. E.g., I would end up with #a, #as, #<synonym of a>, #parent/as, etc. After a while of this, it would either reduce to nothing better than keyword search, or the effort of keeping track of existing tags and the "right" tags would prevent me from tagging at all.
Well I try to make sure each topic/page has a unique tag, and then I tag keywords within that. So within a page I will tag with consistent generalizable tags like #docker, #blog, #security, #auth and then underneath those I will have more specific tags like #repository_name #author_name #equipment_name.
Its more of a tiered tagging style where there are more generalizable tags are parents of more specialised tags.
It might not be the best for everyone but my brain works well with it. I can usually derive what the parent tag would be from whatever topic I'm searching back up and then find the children notes/tags from there.
It is essentially keyword search that just somewhat organized.
Here's a quote:
> To be clear: Climate change is a very important problem. It needs to be solved, along with other problems like malaria and malnutrition. Every tenth of a degree of heating that we prevent is hugely beneficial because a stable climate makes it easier to improve people’s lives.
Reducing sprawl is plainly a good strategy to reduce transportation and infrastructure needs, and preserve wildlife.