What's better than posts about note taking apps and note taking methodology is meta posts about note taking apps and note taking methodology!
More seriously though, it's a very central topic to the software world since many things in this world deal with how to work with information. And note taking is a very central thing when working with personal information.
Cruelty, meaning to intentionally inflict pain and suffering, implies the sensation of said pain and suffering in the subject. Pain and suffering are (personal) conscious or subconscious judgements of sensory input. So to be cruel you must assume the subject you are cruel to can (1) feel sensations and (2) decide if the sensation is painful or inflicts suffering.
My take on the assessment of pain is that any entity with some self sustained direction (in life) will be able too suffer or feel pain when faced with sensations that signal an obstruction to that direction. If the entity is able to self correct the path after such sensory input, I claim that the entity can experience pain.
With that in mind:
A calculator has no self sustained direction. And no sensory input to help with self correction either. So it naturally cannot feel pain.
A chicken has a self sustained direction. It lives (moves on its own) and at least want to continue to do so. It also has the ability to self correct when given sensory input. So it can feel pain, and you can (given the reasoning above) be cruel to chickens. Even without an assessment of whether the chicken is conscious or not.
To be conscious, to go into that as well, is in my book to be able to use reason and to be able to reflect on things. So that new sensory inputs are created and assessed based on other already experienced sensory inputs. I.e. to be able to self adjust ones path (in life) seemingly, from an external observer, without any new sensory input.
With that definition one should be able to construct experiments with chickens to decide whether they are conscious or not, or merely acting subconsciously, autonomously.
With that definition of consciousness it should also be possible to define an AI that is conscious. And given the definition of pain above, it should also be possible to inflict pain on (and be cruel to) an AI. The morality of inflicting pain on different subjects is a different story though... :-)
Definitely would be great to see this project gain mindshare and funds. Also, for the ones who wonder what it is they reach when clicking the link for this "Show HN", there is an about-post here: https://logseq.com/blog/about
Very useful I must say. I have a bunch of those with different filters on points. Means the same article will show up multiple times but in more and more exclusive feeds. This removed my FOMO quite nicely!
I guess we all have an incentive to make you go out of business then ;-)
On a more serious note: I see no issue with software being a service and costing money if it's built on a standard that leaves the data in the owners hands and in the owners own structures. I.e. Markdown files synced using infrastructure like OneDrive/Dropbox/whatever with some nice features on top of it and a nice UI can cost whatever and no one should complain. Because if that software goes away the data is in the owners hands and in a standardized format supported by many other tools.
That should be the preferred way we build software btw. And to take it to the next level we should create more general purpose (and standardized) database tools that are user friendly, treat them in similar fashion as files by syncing with user owned Infrastructure and we might just get to the point where more rigid data structures can be used in a similar manner as what I described above for files. That future would be great.
I too see no problem in a closed-source application so long as the data files are open. I like the IDE analogy here -- you can edit source code with a bunch of different tools. Some open, some closed. But the important thing is that the source code is readable by all of them.
People in groups behave differently from people alone; people considering billions of dollars in profits behave differently from people considering tens of dollars in profits.
"Normally" as in Denmark, or "normally" as in "anywhere in the world", or for some other meaning of "normally"? Why wouldn't it be if inflation is meant to be a measure of changes in the expenses of average households?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation says "The measure of inflation is the inflation rate, the annualized percentage change in a general price index, usually the consumer price index, over time." and links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_price_index which says "The index is usually computed monthly, or quarterly in some countries, as a weighted average of sub-indices for different components of consumer expenditure, such as food, housing, shoes, clothing, each of which is in turn a weighted average of sub-sub-indices." and goes on to give an example (apparently ficional) in which housing makes up 41.4% of the index.
Edit: My copy of Samuelson and Nordhaus, Economics, 19th edition, has an example of a consumer price index including housing weighted at 42.4%. At that weighting, unless my math is off, the remaining 57.6% of the stuff in the index would need to get cheaper by 1.2% to get to overall 1% inflation with a 4% increase in housing prices:
- Normally as in almost everywhere in the world (apart from a few places like Sweden I think?)
- Buying a house is not a living expense, it is a capital investment. This is the reason why statisticians either only include rents (e.g. the EU Eurostat) or replicate the housing costs of owner-occupiers with an “owners equivalent rent” (the US BLS does this).
- Housing might be 30% or more of CPI in the US but none of it is house prices for the reason above. Most of it is rents and owners equivalent rent, some of it is furnishing costs, some of it is utility tariffs, some of it is costs of repairs and maintenance.
This is the first mention of "house prices" in this thread. The index linked in the ancestor comment called itself "housing", not "house prices". Good for you if you insist on making the difference, but then if you make the difference you are not talking about the thing I was talking about, I think.
Also, some of it is house prices if house prices factor into the "owners equivalent rent", or is that made up out of thin air? Also, rising house prices cause rising rents, so indirectly they are represented anyway.
This is without up to date fact checking so take this with a grain of salt, but during the last housing crisis I remember looking this up and came to the conclusion above. I don't actually know if it's universal but it was valid for Sweden at that point in time. I think the key word in your text above is "expenditure", where a house maybe isn't seen as an expenditure but rather an investment..?
When taking about inflation it's also always good to remind one self that the pool of money also changes. And the fact that housing usually is connected to mortgages, which in turn expands the amount of available money. But this paragraph has nothing to do with your comment so I'll just stop there!
Thanks for your comment. I was a bit intrigued, also in light of the sibling discussion, so I tried to look this up without spending too much time on it.
This document "How is inflation measured?" from the Riksbank: https://www.riksbank.se/globalassets/media/rapporter/ekonomi... doesn't give weights in general but does say this (emphasis mine): "the method in which housing costs for owner occupied housing are measured are an important source of non-comparability, partly because they make up a large proportion of the CPI (around 10 per cent in sweden)". Note the "owner occupied" part, so this isn't even just rents! But then I don't understand the rest of the discussion that follows this.
Also Statistics Sweden at https://www.scb.se/en/finding-statistics/statistics-by-subje... lists "Housing, water, electricity, and fuels" as one of the "main groups" in the CPI, though this only suggests but does not prove that housing does have a non-zero weight.
"The inflation rate" generally means CPI-U[1] in the US or some similar "basket of goods" in other areas. So, this is correct, as we're usually looking at urban consumers, it would include rent but not housing.
As another poster mentioned, though, inflation or deflation as general concepts can refer to any price or cost that increases or decreases.
This argument is really important actually. The design pattern to separate the data from the application solves it. And org-mode has done that in a way as the data is in text-files. But it's not marketed like that. We should really see org-mode as two parts:
- Org-mode data format
- Software implementation that understands the data
Maybe it's a bit late to hope for wide software adoption for the org-syntax. Markdown has in a way taken that space already. But... I'm still hoping! ;)
I'd love org syntax to be more widely adopted, but it probably isn't going to happen. That's because org syntax, without org mode, is just slightly better Markdown. That's not very impressive.
Org mode has so many fans because of what the implementation (i.e. org-mode in Emacs) can do with those files. It works as an awesome ASCII table editor. It works as a half-decent spreadsheet. It works as a great planner. It works as a better version of Jupyter. And couple other things.
This post resonates with me. But mostly because we've come to equate tools with data. And that "tool = data" mindset (in my view) is the reason for having this problem to solve in the first place.
If the data for a particular need of mine was in a standardized format, it wouldn't matter which tool I used as I could switch at any point in time.
The post mentions Excel as the go-to tool. What I would have liked the author to be able to say instead is - "use spreadsheet-data as the first data-container for the data needed". If a better data-format, more specialized for my need exist, migrate to that instead. The tool to interact with that data should be the secondary choice. Something that could be reevaluated at a later time if needed, without loosing past data due to lock-in effects.
I'd say mindmapping is an inferior term for describing org-brain even. Concept mapping is better. But that term is also already taken for something else. Org-brain and thebrain provide another organizational system. It's closer to graph databases (but more restricted with only three kinds of relations). The way it mimics our natural way of thinking about stuff is really helpful. Few tools help us easily capture those relations. Often we're stuck with pure hierarchical systems (such as mindmaps or folder structures). So I look forward to seeing this org-mode add-on evolve and truly hope that this way of organizing information gets more widespread. And covered in more tools and on more platforms.
More seriously though, it's a very central topic to the software world since many things in this world deal with how to work with information. And note taking is a very central thing when working with personal information.