Unless I'm missing something, this map might be pretty or impressive that it can be made, but it is entirely meaningless. Meaningless in that I don't know of significant meaning of breaking down the globe into 10° chunks whatsoever. This doesn't tell you anything about the cities shown, nor the area in which those cities exist. There is zero meaning in this map because no meaning can be derived from the filter process. The constraints have no relation to the data.
The article is cool that it takes a dive into the "odder" boxes and finds a flaw or two. The author also recognizes the arbitrary nature of the map. I imagine that almost any other filtering would be more interesting to geek out over though.
I am somewhat surprised by the popularity of this post here and on reddit, but then again that is sometimes how popularity works. The piece is presented well, just meaningless.
That's a fair point I respect. It does seem that it would be easy to have this fun in a way which is also useful, with literally any filtering system which had a relationship to the data. Equal work, equal fun, more than zero use.
its an interesting problem. for the longest time, openstreetmap hid Philadelphia pretty much until you got down to the rooftop level and it annoyed the crap out of me. Its still not very good at what cities to show; Its a hard problem and I appreciate the article shining light on this issue.
This is an interesting thread and I appreciate both you and bananabreakfast for it. America has a unique perspective of the wild among western countries. The way this manifests itself is that the American wild is furnished at an absolute bare minimum, as opposed to the European wild with huts, villages, towns and resorts around every bend. The European property is not owned by the government in the same way it is owned by the government in the United States. This is likely a result of incredibly low population density of the United States as whole, especially of wild places in the United States, and also the result of the near extinction of native peoples by colonizers and awful control by the subsequent American government.
Property and ownership also has a unique definition for the United States, and the "wild" referred to in this conversation is owned by the government, plain and simple. With this perspective it should be clear why individuals cannot just go out and "do whatever they like" even if this is a hypothetical argument. There is no un-owned place in the United States. There are positives and negatives to this reality, but it is reality and should help to ground the conversation.
I wonder what another model that could fit the massive expanses of space set aside in the Unite States; certainly one with a less consistent hierarchy of responsibility would be worse than the current system. It is also important to realize how artificial the "wild" is in the United States given the American philosophy of individualism and property ownership, especially given the status of the population as exceptionally empowered by rights, wealth and technology. I say artificial because without the organization that protects the wild spaces, they would not exist as they do today.
It would be interesting to discuss the meaning of "the wild" or its equivalents in other cultures, as I imagine we would see an incredible variety of meaning. I, however, have mainly experienced and philosophized about the American and European wilds.
I deeply resonate with the sentiment expressed by the Alaskan ranger in the top level comment. As a guide of private and commercial expeditions I am constantly amazed at the alternate realities of understanding and respect people have about wilderness and I cherish my role, however small, as an ambassador to the wild.
I know a few Search and Rescue workers, volunteers and Rangers, they regret their job as babysitters for the incompetent but command respect by outdoorsmen. They are essential to the wild as we have it in the United States.
I used the word unique in this piece too much, but there are a number of special things about the United States and the American psyche that are central to this conversation. I do not claim these perspectives are right or correct or ideal, but it is how I see it today.
I've been following Ronin and the author for a few years now from a distance. As I have said in other threads on hn about this work, the theme and ethos are so consistent and thorough they just slap you in the face. You know exactly what is going on with Ronin, Oscean, Orca and it is a pleasure to see such clear manifestation of intent.
Ronin in particular is the most fascinating piece of this network to me. I was hooked by the (broken) version 1.0 when I first found it a couple years ago and played around a bit with fixing it. It played well with a few other key influences in my life and I've been playing around with similar--albeit prototype--systems ever since.
To name one stand out feature. I have been playing around with generative design/creative coding/coding art for a while now and I seem to be on an edge of the domain. My work lately has been increasingly taking a set of starter points, so to speak. I have shapes or layouts in my head that I want to run through the generative process, but I am distinctly starting with these hard coded values.
Ronin provides direct manipulation on the canvas with `$` prefixes in the code. If you type `$point`, then click on the canvas, "$point" is replaced with code representing that point. The simplicity of this interface for writing code that heavily involves numbers in context (ie on their domain) is an inspiration. There are probably a couple of names for this connectivity, but one might be bi-directional evaluation. Manipulations in code yield the canvas, and manipulations on the canvas yield code.
There's a lot going on here, xxiivv.com
And some fun to be learned by poking through git commits. If you know Orca, (was popular here a while back) it didn't start as a music generation system.
There is a plan9 and acme demo on YouTube which is eye opening. One idea that has captured me is the idea that end users ought to be able to create custom UIs. This appears to be a foundational principle of plan9, the way all text is able to be executed. Another avenue for this idea are ZUIs as originally envisioned. Individual clipboard state can be reified as buttons in the UI, any formatting or pens or fonts can also be manifested in the interface and selected with something along the lines of the "eyedropper" tool present in many applications.
I agree, thanks for pointing me to that info page. I would bet that keys representing functions probably evolved simultaneously with the first computer typewriters, they've been around forever and are "obvious" to some degree. Making functions apparent in menus is also probably synonymous with the first non text-based GUIs. I don't know enough about the history of toolkits, but as far as I can tell that area of development is nowhere near mainstream today.
I have been reading Sutherland's Sketchpad thesis, and it struck me that no aspect of the system was unavailable to the user. By itself, this isn't entirely unusual, I think the same could be argued for emacs or linux in various ways or even of software when code is available etc. The unique aspect of this universal control with regard to sketchpad is that it was a graphical system. Controls for the graphics and viewport were essential, and reflected by the development of the first oop principles of master/instance and recursive expansion of arbitrary material in the workspace. Of multiple viewport movement controls (physical dials too!) and focus-selection zooming.
It is easy to imagine extensions of sketchpad with graphical macros. Of savable viewport state, of non-euclidean jumps between locations on the digital "paper".
It's funny to me that most clever things I enjoy about vim seem like they could fit right into a graphical system like sketchpad. `mkview`, marks, folds, repeat operations, contextual movement or selection like accessed via combinations of `[{(`.
Infinite canvas artboards are fantastic workspaces, but lack even the basic "focus shifting ability" of a few stacks of paper on a desk, taped on a wall, or strewn across the floor.
The thing I like about the best parts of vim and emacs is how much it feels like a conversation with the computer. Such that it natural lends itself to interacting with completed things. Indeed, "ciw" only works if you have a completed "word" to change.
Notebooks are usually tons and tons of fragments. Such that a precise dialog with them feels very difficult. I agree it would be awesome, but I have yet to see something that doesn't just harken to the ultimate failures of graphical programming languages. Neat for performance style programming. But needing a ton of rehearsal to get a performance.
It sounds very cool, but I hit a brick wall almost immediately when I tried to use it: how do I run a script? The tutorial video says you type cmd-R but that just reloads the page when you're running it in Firefox.
It's probably fair to say this software isn't the most user friends as a result of its continuous change. In chrome and firefox Control-Enter runs the web app version I find here: https://hundredrabbits.github.io/Ronin/
The author is a reasonable person. The community is as poisonous as hell. Two people in the slack group made many to leave. Nothing has been done yet. A few years ago, they removed a friend of mine. Because the two men turned their eyes on them like the malicious Sauron.
The output is interesting. Remove yourself as far as possible from the community.
I think rather than trying to get org mode outside of emacs, you want to change the mechanics of entering emacs. In my head this looks like a subset of emacs (in the same way you can imagine notepad a subset of word, or contenteditable a subset of codemirror). If there were an emacs-lite application that just surfaced simple org mode functionality and bindings like moving the cursor or paging removed behind a settings wall, I think adoption of emacs would rise due to the lower barrier of entry.
Are there in-place macro tools that could be similar to this?
Examples:
- italics in a live markdown editor usually hides the asterisks after you've closed the pair, but can get them back if you backspace with your cursor at the 's'.
- [[]] style links in similar live editors hide/show content as the syntax has been designed to do.
These examples do it for me, the author, not just in publication.
Other examples include CAD software array-style duplication as a single example. Draw one thing, give a command like "copy 10 times" and then move the piece and see 10 copies laid out.
I can imagine using something like that `define` example in m4 and wanting the instruction to propagate throughout my text file, yet retain the command as a sort of undo/toggle option. Again, all for me the author as I think through my work in this editor, publication isn't really the point in these thoughts.
The workflow for applying formulas to org mode tables is fantastic. I'm still an absolute novice, but I can keep an array of TBLFM formulas[1] below my table which I write and execute at will (C-c C-c or ,,) and can retain as a sort of history of the table state. There seem to be an endless variety of hooks I can tap into for these kinds of table editing sessions.
I'm thinking about this in the context of the process of doing research and writing. When my thoughts are not concrete, I do not have a formal document I'm writing but I'm learning and thinking and connecting information. I am in the process of auditing a whole load of these tools and I want a tool that is the superset of all functionality I see, not sacrificing the awesome transclusion of TiddlyWiki or internal links in org mode for the drawing abilities of OneNote.
I think what I want is an exceptionally powerful "viewport" for lack of a better term. I take great inspiration from ZUIs and wonder how to apply the fantastic text based tools I know to a semantically zooming canvas. I don't like directories, I do like juxtaposition of disparate thoughts and projects. Can I have an AutoCAD/OneNote/orgmode? I want one. m4 seems inspires me towards this goal, even though I realize that's not exactly it's intention.
As an example, Dropbox Paper supports a number of keyboard-text[1] to formatting capabilities.
- The markdown goodies (bold, italics, line break, headings, quotes, etc)
- Dropbox Paper specific items like +LinkToDocument, @Person, #tag
- Digital Paper functionality like stylized tables /note red, creates a red box and puts your cursor inside it
- literally just two commandline tools /date, /time
These are all much more convenient than clicking GUI buttons to get these formatting options yet incredibly limited. There are on the order of tens of these capabilities in any similar application. Notion, Slack, TiddlyWiki, etc.
I can think up hundreds of keyboard-text -> computer-things. Sure they are basic and understood processes, but unless they are built by a developer for a walled garden application you can't really have them. In general, this is one of the reasons I primarily use vim/emacs and linux, so I can build my own interface for my computer. But I'm interested in bringing that textgrid customization into a canvas application that supports more media types than text. vim + repl + powerpoint. Keyboard driven, mouse driven, stylus driven and as powerful as a computer can be.
- I can highlight 3 paragraphs and type /column to make a three column layout.
- I can type /tabs to create tabs in my document ala tiddlywiki tabs.
- I can link statusbar like information into a document with /uptime and document how much time this document has been open.
I would like these capabilities in a shared document system to be able to work collaboratively on a higher level than text, and with more programmatic options than the tens that these applications provide.
I think I can't express this well and I'm really at the beginning of thinking about it, thanks for taking the time to read it. Maybe there's nothing here and this is just a manifestation of my frustration of using a computer.
[1]: things I can type on my ~80 or ~100 key keyboard.
I used OneNote every day for a month. It's a toy application not meant to be used seriously. It has no navigational tools beyond its hierarchy of files and search. Import a 78 page pdf to read and annotate? You can't set bookmarks or even jump to the bottom.
Searching the text of pdfs just failed in 3/3 tests I tried going through my old notes to find a document.
You can use hyperlinks as a navigational tool as well. You can get a link to any paragraph on any page and paste anywhere else. You can also use tags and "tag summary pages."
I'll have to look more into this, thanks for the tip. I have found it incredibly difficult to figure out how OneNote was intended to be used. The in-app tutorials are basic in the extreme (describing only the visible UI) and I couldn't seem to google-fu it well. There are endless YouTube videos and reddit fluff posts but even the technical looking channels just have a 10 min video where the main content consists of a stylized "Science is cool" header with some vectors or bio notes.
As I said I used it in my full class load for a month then entirely gave up on it. Too many papers and too many large documents of notes, I have much more reusability and ease of access and searching my pile of md documents next to a pile of PDFs (I write `zathura path/to/paper`) at the top of each section in my markdown doc that I edit in vim, then when I want it open I put my cursor on it and hit `gx`. This beat out any OneNote workflow I could figure out in a month of daily use.
Why is it impossible to build a new Windows 10? Shouldn't that be an area of great interest to Microsoft? What other endeavor would give Microsoft as great a leap forward as a ground up rebuild of the operating system?
It's not impossible, but it will take an enormous amount of effort to replicate. Consider the ReactOS project, which strives for compatibility with Windows Server 2003. I use it occasionally in a VM and it is roughly at par with Windows 2000/XP, but this project has been going on for over two decades (granted, the target has moved over the years; originally it targeted Windows NT 4.0 if I remember correctly). It will take years of work for ReactOS to reach compatibility with Windows 10.
I don't fully understand the argument that a long piece of work will leave you behind when you're done. What if you've qualitatively moved the field forward while the "competition" simply made incremental progress? Aren't you ahead then?
You can do that! but referencing history, it's a rare thing to happen.
Regis McKenna made a point at 4:30 "The span from the first transistor to the first microprocessor is going to about a third" he was discussing product innovation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z13NI0SuyA&t=2912s
---------
“There will be certain points of time when everything collides together and reaches critical mass around a new concept or a new thing that ends up being hugely relevant to a high % of people or businesses. But it’s hard to predict those. I don’t believe anyone can” -Marc Andreessn
Wow, this is the real deal. First time I've heard of this work and I've got some more digging to do. Has all the right language and some great references with pretty awesome related work on digital tools should anyone want to keep digging.
Low floor, high ceiling is the best case for that framework, and should be every toolmakers ideal.
The Airbnb story reads like a sign of the times. Platforms can do as they like, users just have to conform. PCs and the internet promised the kind of programmatic control described here(I wonder if there is a better term than "programmatic" control?), end users should be able to come up with arbitrary representations of the data they query on the fly and realize them as quickly as possible.
Web UIs are stupidly underpowered, table based queries for flights as presented here seem much more usable. Michel Beaudouin-Lafon has a few great ideas to explore here, "One is Not Enough" which he described in a different context but I think can apply to the desire for composability between multiple tools here (Airbnb + walkability) and "software is not soft" describing the boundaries placed on software users. I have many tools for manipulating strings or sorting numbers, why can't I use them on the Airbnb table listings, served up on my computer?
Controllable constrains. Tiling wms give you more hooks than anything else, so more control than anything else. I often have more than 4 or more workspaces in i3 and I love being able to swap between them with ease. Many users of tiling wms have specific hotkeys that grab windows or workspaces or populate workspaces with a predefined layout. Its nice to have programmatic control over the interface to your computer.
E:
> That even control freaks like Apple, who like to think only they know what's best for their consumers, doesn't use a tiling only WM in their OS is telling.
I don't think so. Like any other pro tool it has a learning curve which without a little time investment renders the tool useless. I think the only telling thing about Apple's choice of window management features is that they shoot for the lowest features possible so that users can learn them all as quickly as possible. On-boarding > user control for Apple.
I think the GUI that Apple ships is successful in so far as all of its features are literally visible. You literally have a mouse and a clickable pad, you always have maximize/minimize buttons. Any more advanced software has "hidden" features in that they hide behind menus and hotkeys. Though everything that is hard about "modern" computational interfaces is that discoverability is shit, see [1]
If we're making this a little bit of a surface line conversation: I'm absolutely amazed at how bad the latest Microsoft Surface Pro 7 is. I bought it for OneNote and as a second computer to my main laptop.
The pen regularly is not recognized, the entire computer freezes for 2 seconds when rotating including stuttering video and audio. The entire computer freezes for 1s when opening the keyboard which happens for me two or three times every five minutes of active work in OneNote. I've done about 20 hours of work in OneNote now and couldn't recommend it to anyone for any workflow, not formal design work, not annotating PDFs, not drawing, not storyboarding or wireframing or writing by hand. I only keep using it hoping I'll stop hitting it's fail cases by learning it all and that has yet to happen. I plan to try out the iPad next week. Any other recommendations for a thinking workspace with digital pen?
I have a list of 10-15 OneNote peculiarities that seem insane to have made it into production, and that OneNote is almost unusably laggy on Microsoft's latest device is wild to me. They center around the virtual keyboard and non-ink object selection and manipulation, of which there are zero official Microsoft tutorials or manuals. There is no way in OneNote on the surface to "exit" an action, selection or keyboard. Any tap will open the keyboard, cycling the 2x 1s freeze for opening and closing the keyboard. It's maddening.
Interesting. I received an SP7 for christmas from my wife after I made one too many comments about the crummy battery on my XPS 13. I didnt expect to like it as much as I do. Your issues with 1N are not thinks I encounter regularly myself but for my use it's an amazing machine.
I have both a Surface Go and an iPad Pro, and while using the pen on the iPad Pro on its own offers a satisfactory experience, I find that it's not nearly as good as the Surface Go when it comes to accurately recognizing the correct input method when quickly switching between pen and touch inputs.
My iPad Pro very often would treat my finger as a stylus and start drawing when I meant to use my fingers to scroll around, while on my Surface Go I honestly can't even recall that happening even once, and it's a night and day difference in terms of ergonomics for me. I think Microsoft's much longer experience in handling hybrid pen & touch input in OneNote for Windows still gives it an edge at the moment.
That literally never happened to me, not even once. I vaguely recall there’s a setting in one note to never accept touch as pen input, so all touches are navigation and all pencil input is drawing. Give it a try?
I think I'll give that a shot. I'm just greatly disappointed with OneNote's organizational features. In that they don't exist. I have notebooks > sections > pages but nothing within pages. No portals, no tools in place (leaving a pen or two in the canvas where I'm switching often). In portrait mode it takes me 3 taps to get from highlighter to pen when I'm reading papers. The PDF import as a stack is almost useless for anything larger than 30 pages. I could go on for a while. I want to try a formal design application and maybe I can make use of layers to save on the "miles" of scrolling I do in OneNote.
The article is cool that it takes a dive into the "odder" boxes and finds a flaw or two. The author also recognizes the arbitrary nature of the map. I imagine that almost any other filtering would be more interesting to geek out over though.
I am somewhat surprised by the popularity of this post here and on reddit, but then again that is sometimes how popularity works. The piece is presented well, just meaningless.