Another vote for obsidian. Aspirationally my notes are structured as per "Building a second brain" by T. Forte, but in reality things have gotten messy!
I pay for Obsidian sync having found it a lot more straight forward to keep things synced between 3 computers and a smartphone than the git sync client (occasionally would get git sync errors)
Does anyone know how the full width of the carriageway gets surfaced in this setup? Perhaps lane closures on the left/right side (sequentially) after the centre portion has been resurfaced?
The bridge itself is wide enough to resurface one lane. But its wheels can move in any direction. So instead of driving forward to do the next section you can also drive three meters to the left or right to do another lane instead.
In general the entire bridge is as maneuverable as a 230m structure can be. The individual segments are designed to articulate. So once it's set up you can move it around to any other patch of road surface in the area.
Android supports Ethernet over USB-C, but a quick Google search seems to suggest that performance is lacking. I found this odyssey of some developer trying to reach someone at Google to get it fixed, but they keep giving him the ol' runaround. Works fine on Apple devices though.
When I "quit my startup" that involved making several people redundant, letting down customers, and announcing that I'd been able to make it work.
I was also fearful of the potential that my name would be tarnished in the local tech scene as being unreliable, or unlikely to follow through with future projects. Think of Google's reputation when it comes to new products getting axed after half-assed efforts, but applied to a founder.
How others label you does matter when it comes to operating in a society IMHO, even if that could be classed as coercion.
It's on my to-do list for some time to try out editing my jeykll based blog in obsidian directly - especially with obsidian properties editor now being available ("properties" being yaml based front matter).
Then it's just a git commit away from publishing. You could probably even just use git sync from obsidian if you're disciplined with the published flag
I use Quartz* for my personal site, and just edit it directly in Obsidian. One push to GitHub and it's deployed, with very little effort. It's like Obsidian Publish, but much more customizable.
Before this, I felt the same as the linked post - there was too much friction for me to ever publish anything.
I have a few Jekyll blogs including my personal one and I haven't had to touch the Jekyll part for quite a while (it takes a while to compile). I just write in Obsidian and then Github takes over.
I also maintain two VitePress[1] sites. Once I setup it up (I still use Sublime Text), I do the writing on Obsidian.
What I write and see in Obsidian is good enough that I have just done away with looking at how the site looks after I change/add/edit the text. I sometimes do but just to check build and if the sitemaps are generated, etc. -- routine hygiene.
It's way above my head mathematically as to if this is even possible, but it is hilarious how screwed so many things would be if sha256 was discovered to have a means to more quickly reverse at least a partial hash. Just off the top of my head:
- SSL
- Bitcoin (bonus: unlimited money hack if you can keep the discovery under wraps)
- Signed updates for devices
Goodness only knows what I am missing, but that first one along is enough to cause an unmitigated disaster.
I assume these tweets are effectively brute forced given the fairly short prefix though and we're all safe
Is brute forcing a hash not "more quickly reversing at least a partial hash"?
What do you have in mind for "more quickly", then?
Also even if you figured out a way to make sha256 a few orders of magnitude faster, that would not affect SSL or signing and bitcoin would adjust as soon as several people know the secret.
Scanning through the comments, I was really surprised not to see the one thing that was ultimately the cure for bad sleep for me (in addition to the basics of "caffeine hygiene" and getting some exercise):
1) Get up at the same time every day. 2) don't nap
I may be reading this incorrectly, but in the article, the 65% appears to be authors confidence in the statement that attention spans appear to be declining, as denoted by the sub-script. Whereas in the HN title it reads as if it's saying a "65% decline in attention span".
Various other assertions in the post also have sub-script confidences associated e.g. "my guess: yes90%".
I could totally believe that there has been a 65% decline in attention span. "Stolen Focus" by Johann Hari certainly makes 65% seem conservative!
1. It will definitely rain, on 75% of the relevant area.
2. It will definitely rain, for 75% of the relevant time period.
3. It will rain with an intensity of 75% of the maximum our instruments can measure.
4. Three out of four meteorologists think it will rain.
5. It will rain on 75% of the population.
6. It will rain on everyone, but 75% of the population forgot their umbrella.
7. It will rai
8. 25% chance of dry.
9. 25% chance of snow.
10. When you become trapped in a Groundhog Day-type loop and are forced to repeat today three more times, then a subsequent analysis will show that it rained on exactly three of the four total days. Probably.
For related reasons, I like the blog's claim that much of the difficulty in establishing whether the proposition is true or not is because none of the wealth of literature on attention span was in the form of long term studies. Perhaps the researchers got bored and moved on to something else!
(I'm not sure if you were joking or not and I know it's probably not in the same spirit you intended it here / a bit OT but...) I've been using literally that exact expression for a while to describe the situation in which, during somewhat complex discussions within a group, in order to not be perceived as jerks participants are forced to follow an unnecessarily long, repetitive, trivial and most often also completely pointless "line of reasoning" just to have their own attention completely derailed from any productive/actually-interesting argument anyone was trying to make, often ultimately resulting in giving up because recalling those lost mental threads is by then even more difficult and there is only so much mental energy (for you and collectively) to dedicate to that discussion.
Just saying, imho it's already a thing (with different incarnations in different contexts).
This is definitely a thing, but at least in my experience, it is also a thing that narcissists do. They can dig up emails and examples from the dark caverns where you were just having a water cooler chat, and they somehow took it as very serious and something you should have meant to defend if it left your lips.
Reordering and paraphrasing what they actually wrote:
I've been using that expression when giving up on participating during discussions.
Other people's line of reasoning are unnecessarily long, repetitive, trivial and most often also completely pointless. This derails my own productive/actually-interesting argument because I only have so much mental energy.
Thanks for this comment, yes this title is wrong and should be changed. The article's conclusion is:
> It seems likely to me that individual attention spans have declined (I’d give it ~70%), but I wouldn’t be surprised if the decline was relatively small, noisy & dependent on specific tests.
Context since this has now been fixed: the original title as submitted was "Have attention spans been declining? – Yes, 65%". The bit after the dash was erroneously added by the submitter and was not part of the article's actual title.
But as OP mentions, the 65% as printed in the title conveyed the false impression that there's been a 65% decline in attention spans, whereas the actual tl;dr should have been this sentence from the end:
> It seems likely to me that individual attention spans have declined (I’d give it ~70%), but I wouldn’t be surprised if the decline was relatively small, noisy & dependent on specific tests.
Disagree. Article titles on the web are often very bad. Often this is for clickbait reasons, but also frequently just because the author was not writing for the HN front page as their audience. Almost always, I prefer the rewritten headlines on HN. However, this seems labor intensive to accomplish, and there is usually a delay before the edited title appears. What I wish is for article submitters to consider the use case, and rewrite the headline to conform to HN guidelines on submission.
Well, it's a balancing act. The original title may represent the article more accurately than the submitter's title, or it may be misleading clickbait and the submitter is trying to improve that. The policy here seems to be the best middle ground we can do, mostly go by the original title but also be ready to edit away from clickbait (which of course is subjective.)
There are some good reasons this isn't the case. Often the submission title itself has something wrong in it, or is click-bait-y, or just needs some pointless fat trimmed from it to get to the point.
But if the source can't get the title right in a clean and objective sort or way, isn't that a signal for "there's got to be a better source"? For example, how many times have we've seen a click-bait-y title followed by content or narrative reflective of that mindset?
It would be nice if they either did or didn't. The current system where submitters are encouraged to carefully choose a title and moderators are encouraged to stomp on it is the worst of both worlds.
Thanks for mentioning that book. I am trying to decide if it's worth reading. The negative reviews agree with the main premise of the book but say it's short and superficial. Is there information in there worth reading beyond the usual tips ie keeping your phone in another room, avoid news first thing in the morning, no screen time 2 hours before bed, long cardio workouts, etc?
I certainly wouldn't recommend it as a practical title, though there are a few practical tips along the lines you mention, the point of the book is more about the societal problem than the individual. But as someone who gets highly frustrated with my inability to focus on occasion, I would say it's reasonably cathartic.
You develop the skill of quickly determining what deserves your attention and what does not. Having a long attention span doesn't imply you give everything your full attention.
My point is the effect feel-good, whether it is achieved by avoiding fluff, by (over-)simplifying, by some special content that can only be shown in short form or by feeling more knowledgeable. If you can read more of them, you feel better. I just wondered whether this is the reason few develop the skill - it is mostly not worth the time with no one around usually caring (whether you are superficial or not).
And another: I did have access to plugins (but not web browsing), but the list of plugins would not load. I seem to have been reverted to what looks more like the May 3rd release now (other than it no longer has the deprecated GPT-3.5 model available)
RAM Doubler or something like that was an actual working thing back in the days, that worked by (IIRC) transparently zipping/unzipped data on its way to/from memory.
On the other hand, SoftRam 95 took the driver kit paging driver and claimed to compress data, but actually didn't. All you got was a small buffer in memory where pages would be paged to before they actually got paged to disk.
I pay for Obsidian sync having found it a lot more straight forward to keep things synced between 3 computers and a smartphone than the git sync client (occasionally would get git sync errors)