I'm not sure who's the corpo here. Most likely not OP.
67 karma · joined November 21, 2023
I'm not sure who's the corpo here. Most likely not OP.
It's still early stage, but I love their pitch so I'm following them with fingers crossed.
I also use Logseq, not Obsidian, which encourages a journal like workflow. Specifically, using templates is almost like a simple interactive prompt: /template > decide if it's work project or personal area or whatever > get a pre-filled note starter, with suggested tags (I delete the ones I don't need rather than think about the ones I have to add) .
It's just so easy.
Once you got the habit of writing down a lot of stuff, and putting them in the right bucket, a lot of things become easier, and LLMs make some of those even easier.
If you're saying that Logseq on steroids is what you're aiming for, then, my immediate feedback would be to emphasize more: - the writing experience: at the end of the day, writing and taking notes will be the most common activity - the file organisation: tags, templates, media files, does it do the basics? - the sharing and access mechanism: can I easy share a doc with a partner / client?
Those are the basics of daily business tasks for my consultancy, and so the first thing I'm looking for. I really wish to get off Google drive, but those points need to be solved for that to sound feasible.
As for the tool building it looks very powerful, but the first example you presented (on-call dashboard), was a bit too much from the get go to wrap my head around the building blocks of your system. I've been building custom tools/wrappers of varied complexity on top of markdown for my team, from a custom revealJS skill that follows our design guide, to a form builder to a project/client DB that wraps duckdb (for yaml frontmatter parsing) with a semantic layer. I've watched your intro video but I'm still not sure whether your service would help me more closely integrate those tools to my company's knowledge base or not.
But once again, if your vision matches your tagline, then I'm really looking forward to hear more from you
But the product seems much more narrow than an actual tool run the whole business in markdown. I was hoping to see Logseq on steroids, and it feels like a tool builder primarily. I love the tool building aspect, but the fundamentals of simply organizing docs (docs, presentations, assets etc, the basics of a business) are either not part of the core offering or not presented well at all.
I love the idea of building custom tools on top of MD and it's part of my wishlist, but I feel little deceived by your tagline so I wanted to share that :)
Who claims that 'baroque northern italian painters' are not artists? If anything, an unknown painter is much closer to art with capital A than Banksy, in the traditional hierarchy. So this is a weird framing.
As for time, this is both time taken to create and time spent practicing to reach a certain level of artistry. A speed painter is still an artist, and they reached their speed not by using an AI shortcut but by spending long hours practicing.
The underlying question is how do we tie art and legitimacy: society has always tied both, which is why we have institutions tasked with assigning legitimacy (museums), a hierarchy of art forms where the longest lived are seen as superior (painting over photography), and artists gain prestige not from a single art piece, but from a consistent production of works that are tied together by a shared identity.
On the other hand, a lot of the "pro" AI art discourse I've seen often boiled down to attempts to disconnect art from legitimacy. That's a tough hill to climb.
I wonder if it would be more ergonomic to connect to the aoe window on my phone for when I have more then one claude code session to keep track of. I'm not against switching the zellij part to tmux.
I understand where comedians get their source material now.
1) is it possible to use Obsidian like Logseq, with a primary block based system (the block based system, which allows building documents like Lego bricks, and easily cross referencing sections of other documents is key to me) and
2) Don't you expect to be sherlocked by the obsidian team?
The trick to do so is to flatten human experience under the determinism of "efficiency" (which you euphemistically called "quality of life"). This way "optimists" can dismiss nuanced oppositions to a lack of regulations as "luddism" and fold together anti-vaxxers and AI skeptics, as if those are the same people, with the same motivations or arguments.
This also conveniently distracts from the fact that technological pessimism exists as a contrast to periods of technological optimism, which helps evade the question of what changed: after all, pessimists aways existed, as your link shows.
I would suggest unfolding the "pessimist" reductionism and questioning why AI skeptics are not stem-cell skeptics. This will probably help avoid arguments that sound very much like "the end justify the means".