ryanjamurphy

Hi HN! I'm the author of the piece referenced in this Logseq post.

> Logseq easily ticks the boxes [Navigability, Organizability, Transformability, and Extensibility] of this ITE framework, but it’s still early days in this new category of tools. The requirements will evolve rapidly, and the framework will inevitably need to be revised.

I totally agree with the need for revision. I actually thought the NOTE framework was the weakest part of my original article [1]... would love to hear some alternative takes on a design theory for ITEs.

[1]: https://axle.design/obsidian-roam-and-the-rise-of-integrated...

> What we have now is just a new hype-cycle, with new apps, new technologies and a new mix of features

You contradict yourself. Is it "just a new hype-cycle," or is it "new apps, new technologies, and a new mix of features?" If it's the latter... isn't that substantively different than what we had before?

Outliners have quite the fandom, but my issue with the traditional outliner is that they often trap data in outline form. Sure, most good outliners offer export options. Unfortunately, the second you've taken data from your outliner and exported it, you now have two versions of your data, and you've lost.

Logseq (and Obsidian) have changed this. Finally, a single document _is_ an outline, a backlink, a data source, a webpage, a presentation, and so on... The only thing the user has to do is work with that single page of information.

It's more than hype for me.

I agree with your issue of reification and I like the concept of a "wit."

I think we're getting there, too. See, for instance, https://github.com/nothingislost/obsidian-query-control — it renders the results of an embedded Obsidian query and you can interact with checkboxes. Likewise, a collaboration between dataview and the Task Collector plugin might let us manipulate different task statuses from a dataview query: https://github.com/ebullient/obsidian-task-collector/issues/...

Exciting times!

This is a fabulously concise way of explaining the difference between the three. Bookmarking your explanation to share in the future!

A neat thing about reasoning is that we tend to use all three, too. Abduction → Deduction → Induction ... in cycles.

More on topic with the OP: to me, intuition is what happens when we skip through these steps. It's the heuristics we use to make good decisions when we don't have the time to "abduce" possibilities, "deduce" the likely answer(s), and "induce" the evidence of our deductions.

This looks sleek, but isn’t that a _lot_ of glass? I had read something recently (e.g., https://www.wired.co.uk/article/stop-building-glass-skyscrap...) suggesting that too much glass was bad for the environment.

In my work in systems change, we look for leverage points and other systems features in order to design strategies for change. (e.g., https://designdialogues.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Syste...)

You can't control complex systems—heck, you can barely dance with them!—but still, we must find ways of working with them as effectively as possible. This is the only way we'll make real progress on the wicked problems of our time.

This is a useful set of instructions (thanks!) but it points to the biggest challenge Mastodon/ActivityPub will have in gaining a network. It's taken decades for people to "get" email, en masse (and many still don't understand CC/Bcc).

Twitter and FB have been mainstreamed faster in part because the onboarding/acquisition UX is so easy. It's necessary to think this through (if widespread adoption _is_ the goal).

This is really neat. Thanks for sharing! I'll pass the learn.tedpak.com page to med students I know.