Creating my first static site with the goal of learning to code and to write more.
Currently learning how to use AI in a constructive tutoring way, rather than give a fish way.
My notes are basically like Smeegol's precious ring, and to burn them is unfathomable.
But initially these notes they were garbage, I initially got into all these PKM systems and used a stripped down Zettelkasten, but then realised that I was focused on creating the system not the outcome.
My wonderfully linked notes were never being seen, the notes I was taking was not connected to my current focuses. They were virtually all "maybe I'll use this in the next 10 years" type notes.
I changed my goal away from following a system to focusing on getting meaningful changes in understanding from notes. This means having the ability to recall information, not rely on a second brain.
I spent a fair chunk of time reducing my inputs to notes which are focused on my current goals: metacognition, mental health and business.
If the note does not fall in these category it is not noted, I still read things for pleasure just noteless.
The value of applying what I read in the short-term outweighs notes for possible futures. As possible futures are everchanging and so the likely value of these notes are heavily weighted down.
I do have troves of notes which will be transformed when I need them, but these notes have a very high chance of being seen and are related to my goals, but not applicable currently.
I delayed transforming these troves until I am applying them, as I will get the most value out of my notes when they are being applied
Not someday dreams, but in reality never to seen again notes of yesteryear.
Relying on a second brain is not the same as understanding concepts and applicable learning.
An example:
When you read an article and come across a word you don't know it stops your train of thought, going to you PKM to find the definition doesn't help. When you know the word it allows you to chunk info and think deeper thoughts about said article.
That requires understanding, which you won't get from these PKM systems which focus on input with little concern for output.
By having deeper understanding it reveals further planes of thought previously impossible.
Adding a note feels good, it feels like work but it really isn't. PKM has sprung up about making feel good systems but have rarely leads to any meaningful changes or outcomes, such as this blog.
To get to deeper thought requires way more than creating a note which is literally one of the first parts in my understanding chain. PKM systems focus on this, but spend very little on the other end- meaningful output.
My "learning stack" - fleeting ideas go into Todoist, ideas are encoded/transformed and go to into Obsidian, at the same time these ideas go into Anki, which I go through multiple times a week. These ideas are further elaborated on and changed in Anki. My pkm is a single step in developing understanding not the destination.
The final stretch is not the same as the first 90%. You don't know what you don't know at the start, you don't have formed ideas or boundaries to butt up against and so progress is easy. As you create, you have gained more knowledge and now have to consider you surroundings, the problem space becomes less open.
The closer you get to completion the less space to work in, you likely have greater taste, ideas which are good enough for the first 90% are no longer good enough.
So better taste and far less acceptable solutions due to increased dependencies.
You also can see parts which were previously acceptable as now not so.
To top it off you have the emotional and ego side at play near the finish line. Is this good enough? This could be done better, etc.
I think that mixture of better taste, more dependent parts and ego make the last part the hardest. I also feel that the finish line being close isn't a strong of a motivator as ego is a demotivator. Whereas, at the start ego has no effect as you don't know anything, you can't be mad because you're new, it's all one big playground.
This is exactly it! The triple whammy of the work getting harder, expectations getting higher, and coping with potential failure once you call it "done".
Exactly, the end is a definitive point, different metrics and variables need to be considered for this end point versus the earlier additive points.
When you're creating you evaluate how close to completion you are and that's a useful gauge of productivity and keeps the project ticking along, ego isn't a part of the equation here.
When the end is in sight how close to completion you are isn't useful as ego plays a bigger part and so needs to be factored in. Percentage completion becomes a non-useful metric as it doesn't help you get to you objective of completion, if anything it's harmful as I tend to beat self up for lack of progress. As to what that metric is useful at the end point I don't know. But closeness to completion doesn't help me finish.
I use ego as a substitute but some human factor needs to be accounted for.
The education model at high school and undergrad uni has not changed in decades, I hope AI leads to a fundamental change.
Homework being made easy by AI is a symptom of the real issues.
Being taught by uni students who learned the curriculum last year, lecturers who only lecture due to obligation and haven't changed a slide in years.
Lecturers who refuse to upload lecture recordings or slides.
Just a few glaring issues, the sad part these are rather superficial easy to fix cases of poor teaching.
I feel AI has just revealed how poor the teaching is, though I don't expect any meaningful response to be made by teaching establishments.
If anything AI will lead to bigger differences in student learning.
Those who learn core concepts and to critically think will be become more valuable and the people who just AI everything will become near worthless.
Unis will release some handbook policy changes to the press and will continue to pump out the bell curve of students and get paid.
And yet all the people who created all the advances in AI have extremely traditional, extremely good, fancy educations, and did absolutely bonkers amount of homework. The thing you are talking about is very aspirational.
There's some sad irony to that, making homework easier for future generations but those generations being worse off as a result on average. The lack of AI assistance was a forcing function to greater depth.
Outliers will still work hard and become even more valuable, AI won't affect them negatively.
I feel non outliers will be affected negatively on average in ability to learn/think.
With no confirming data, I feel those who got that fancy education would do so in any other institution. Just those fancy institutions draw in and filter for intelligent types, not teach them to be intelligent as it's practically a pre-requisite.
I don't see a future that doesn't involve some form of AR glasses and individual tuned learning. Forget teachers, you will just don your learning glasses and have an AI that walks you through assignments and learning everyday.
That is if learning-to-become-a-contributing-member-of-society doesn't become obsolete anyway.
I feel the same about being drained with noises.
I use white noise too. But make sure to only use white noise when I want to focus, as it feels like I've conditioned myself to be focused when it's on.
Previously, I had it permanently on and I found the effectiveness dropped
I 2nd focusmate. I feel like it creates an unwritten contract with my partner when I state my goals for the session. If I get distracted I'm disappointing more than myself.
The more I work with a partner the easier it is to work with focus too. Though I feel it can be double edged sword in some instances where I feel like I owe people progress. Though I feel that's probably a me problem.
Once you've got a few regular partners Focusmate blossoms.
Thanks for the writeup I found similar difficulty parsing all of the software and firmware.
The expectations of prior or "basic" knowledge throughout was frustrating.
what's EEhands? or which bootloader? what's a bootloader?
I'd estimate 10 hours to build and 30 to get the software working which surprised me as I thought the software would be the easy part going into the project.
A great learning experience though, and let me dip my toe into hardware development which was a nice side bonus.
While the concept of slow work has merit, the ideas in this manifesto are deeply flawed and lack nuance. Also the application of this manifesto to the tool above is similarly flawed.
The tool helps save time in non thinking work e.g faster representation of information.
Slow works happens after the representation of notes. Rarely during the creation of notes, creation of notes being the goal of this Stempad.
The original idea of this notebook is a new system which can reduces bad time usage e.g. writing A x A x A x A x A. becomes A^5
The tool allows representation of ideas quicker. This means there's more time for important work, more time for slow work mentioned in the last paragraph of that manifesto.
Points in regards to the flaws of this manifesto:
To use the same framework of the initial statement to show flaws in thinking:
>We are scientists. We don't blog. We don't twitter. We take our time.
We are experts. We don't reflect online. We don't communicate online. We take our time.
If the quote said:
We are scientists. We protect our time to focus on important work. We choose to not engage in shallow discourse. And value depth over speed even at the cost of time. We believe speed for speed's sake comes at a cost.
Then there is a leg to stand upon to protect "slow work".
>Slow science was pretty much the only science conceivable for hundreds of years; today, we argue, it deserves revival and needs protection. Society should give scientists the time they need, but more importantly, scientists must _take_ their time.
Slow science is not defined in any way, and so prevents discussion and debate.
Something being the only conceivable option does not mean it was the best option. Nor does the time span it existed give the process extra value. For millennia humans used 2 legs for our primary mode of transport.
There is no movement to protect the usage of slow transport -
"Walking was pretty much the only transported conceivable for hundreds of years; today, we argue, it deserves revival and needs protection. Society should give humans time to walk to destinations, but more importantly, humans must take their time"
I agree science does need time to think, explore and discuss, but it does not need time to express ideas using AxAxAxAxA when tools such as Stempad exist to write A^5.
