I’ve been interested in Zettelkasten for over a year and have tried all of the apps (Obsidian, Notion, pen and paper, etc.) but I still haven’t found a good system for using it. I always feel like it’s either too much information or too little. Any tips?
Spent the last week's evenings researching this. Make a list of the features you need. For me, using markdown and YAML frontmatter was the best solution.
As for traversing the notes, I picked VSCode (I would have picked Obsidian but it does funny things with front matter that I didn't like, and it lagged a lot on my computer). Primarily because it has extensions that update links automatically when the filepath to a note changes, and for graph view. You can use vim inside VSCode as a text editor. That's all I need really - VSCode to traverse, vim to edit.
What's great about this system is it really does stick strictly to commonmark and YAML usage isn't restricted at all (you don't even have to use the frontmatter if you don't want to), so your notes are completely portable.
Prison reform issues always make me feel so contrasted. On one hand, a lot of the people held there did awful things. The article mentions El Chapo, mobsters, drug dealers, etc. as some of the people held there. It's extremely hard to feel any sort of sympathy for those people. They've done extreme amounts of damage to communities and have done far worse to other people.
But on the other hand, no one should be sexually assaulted and beaten to death.
I would argue that you can 1. assume all prisoners are guilty and 2. not care about their welfare (both assumptions that I disagree with) and still support prison reform on the grounds that it reduces criminality in society overall.
Look at the current state of American prisons. We crowd prisoners together and make them feel angry, scared, weak, and ignored by the law (except when it hammers them down) for years on end. That makes it much harder for them to integrate back into normal, law-abiding society.
We should be trying to make it as easy as possible for a convict to eventually leave criminal life behind. But our current system does the opposite.
When it's difficult to find any compassion for these people, keep in mind that many of them are still awaiting trial, and haven't actually been found guilty yet (a poor example, but Epstein's trial was scheduled for June 2020 - it blows my mind that you could spend a year in prison without being found guilty. Or that others may spend their year and yet be found not guilty).
Or cases like the 'Manhattan Five' (and innumerable others) where entire sentences could be spent before being ultimately exonerated.
I'm not saying it should operate like a day spa on the assumption that someone may be there improperly. But if you need to scrape up a shred of humanity, remember that the worst we have to offer may not be the only people in there.
> It's extremely hard to feel any sort of sympathy for those people
It's very easy for me. Compassion is for all people, not just those you perceive to be nice. I think the inability or extreme difficulty to have compassion towards fellow humans, as you've described here, is a major problem in America today.
We must all work towards a better future by understanding why bad people were bad in the past. This would enable us to build a better future where fewer bad things happen. But you're not going to understand why Epstein was the way he was if you hate him so much you're not going to feel any compassion to someone presumably as tortured as him. By making him into a monster that everyone wanted to die in the first place, then we'll constantly be faced with Epsteins in the future.
> But on the other hand, no one should be sexually assaulted and beaten to death.
Google is very clearly all about the money as well. It's just that they understand there is no money that will come from the "customer". Instead, it will all come from other corporations that are seeking to leverage the relationship Google has established with you. I think it is healthy to remember that companies aren't some do good no matter what it costs them. At the end of the day, all companies are trying to make money the best way possible. Frankly, I am glad that there is both Apple and Google. I think they both do well while making money.
Still, saying you're not the customer but the product is wrong. If you watch TV, you're also not the product. I'd probably classify TV audience as customers of the stations, even if the money is made with advertisement. But viewers are certainly not products.
Google isn't different from a TV station. You as a user are a customer and pay Google by consuming the ads they present you in various products.
> NPR listeners for example are also not the product just because they don't pay NPR (but instead its funded by taxes).
NPR is mostly not funded (even indirectly) by taxes, and has both actual targeted advertising on their own and platform (for digital properties), and “underwriting spots” from sponsors on its broadcasts, that while regulated more than traditional advertising and are, and have been acknowledged by NPR to be, a form of advertising by the sponsors driven by the same factors and concerns that drive traditional advertising.
Eh, I feel like this is pretty bland. It should incorporate a dictionary attack database. For example, "password" should be considered way weaker than any combination of letters. I would look at https://howsecureismypassword.net/ for inspiration.
I wish click bait was more well defined. In this case, I feel the original title summarizes the entire claim made in the article. Using the title "Claims made by..." sounds like it'll be an article summarizing the claims made by AI and Watson, rather than a push back on those claims.
I'll go ahead and define clickbait using a simplified and possibly anthropomorphized version of information theory.
First:
- The more improbable a message is, the more information it contains, assuming the message is true
- If the message is untrue it contains no information
- If a message is already known by everyone it contains no information
Not Clickbait:
If a message is surprising (seemingly unlikely or previously unknown), and true, then it contains high information, and will be very likely to be clicked. This is not just a good thing, it's the most optimal thing!
Clickbait:
If a message is surprising and untrue, it will also very likely be clicked if the user cannot easily determine that the message is untrue. The user may then be disappointed when they discover the message actually contained no information because it was false. Incidentally, false messages will always have a high probability of appearing to be high information messages, because they will often appear to have the least likelihood.
Incidentally, this is (in my opinion) the theoretical problem of fake news. It will always appear to be high information to those unable to determine if it's true or false. In other words, it will appear to be of the highest value, when really it has no value (or even negative value if you look at the system level rather than just information level).
That's actually not true in terms of the GDPR. A company, simply, only needs to have an EU citizen as a customer for the company to be regulated by the GDPR. [1]
This bothers me a lot as well. The EU shouldn't have domain over American companies. There's a reason that there isn't a ton of Tech companies in places like Germany.
Well internet is a connected place. Same things happen when US changes their policy. Foe example new net neutrality laws will probably somehow affect the whole world.
Also i think there are lot of tech companies in Germany they just target german audience.
You know, same could be said for the US, but look how that turned out for Kim Dotcom. Extradition and humongous expenses for him - all because people in a country that was unrelated to the site decided to break their copyright rules and use it :).
Can't that be a violation in the eyes of GDPR? If they don't give users a simple button, then can't that be argued to be not giving the user the ability to export data. The problem I have with GDPR is that there's so much open to interpretation.
Articles 15 and 17 (dealing with deletion and access) both contain a provision where if the request is unfounded or excessive, you may charge a reasonable fee. You cannot charge a fee for compliance with standard requests, and "reasonable" is something that would likely be argued in court.
If you have an email address you can give users for privacy requests and a promised turnaround time (we will respond to all privacy messages in 7 days) you're OK.
