> People should start using these apps as simple note-taking apps and extend/adapt them based on their needs
This. I'm a hardcore Obsidian user both at work and at home, and I started both vaults from absolutely nothing - no user scripts, no organisation, literally no plan at all. Since then, they've evolved and optimized in radically different ways. Taking someone else's "system" is just a way to fool yourself into thinking you can be more productive than you are; you have to find that for yourself and what works specifically for you.
My personal vault is geared much more toward organizing creativity, with a little bit of task-oriented stuff and technical documentation, while my corporate vault is heavily schedule based and contains mostly tactical information, meeting notes and thoughts, etc. For it to be a "second brain", you need it to model your brain - and I work very modally. I have a "work mode" and a "non-work mode" that order things pretty differently, and it shows in the hierarchies and organization of both vaults.
Interesting that you have so few vaults. I have dozens of them, each for a different project, or for different aspects of the same project. The way folders work in Obsidian is quite bad, when I am creating a new note it insists in putting it into the top folder instead of in the folder where I am currently in, so I prefer to keep it flat. I am just using the default setup and cannot be bothered much with plugins. There is no proper API documentation either.
You could s/Designers/Engineers/ and end up with the same statement.
What you seem to be getting at is "hackers with a great aesthetic sense" - and what makes a hacker, then? An engineering background? A computer science degree? Most designers have some understanding of the platforms they're working with. Could they invert a binary tree on a whiteboard? Write an LRU cache? Scale a system to a million DAU? Usually not, but you don't need to do that to build a proof-of-concept application that people fall in love with.
A designer may be a hacker, just as an engineer may be.
If you didn’t have any faith in the mechanisms you had to mitigate COVID-19 pharmaceutically, you would act in much the same manner.
Sinovac may just not be that good over time, or maybe it’s just a pride thing in which we have a political leader staking heroic, superhuman claims on a Zero-COVID strategy.
IIRC back when computers were a fair amount more expensive in the early 00s, eMachines and some other ultra low cost computing platforms came supported by installed adware for extremely low costs - I bought one at that time as it was the only machine I could afford to buy, and there also was ad-supported dial up Internet you could access (NetZero et al.) I reformatted the disk, installed a Windows 2000 Pro copy I had to it, and got a cheap tower from it.
Perhaps all is old is new again, but I can’t imagine this model leading to significant growth in today’s market. PCs are vastly more commoditized than they were then; my local supermarket sells low-end Windows and Chromebook machines for very little, and refurbished/recycled business machines with Skylakes can be had for $150 on eBay. If people want inexpensive computing platforms there are many more options and this doesn’t even include ultra cheap tablets or prepaid Android devices.
Here are some other antidiscrimination clauses in Federal law that read in a similar fashion:
From EEOC on employment: "race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history)." [1]
From FHA: "The Fair Housing Act prohibits this discrimination because of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability." [2]
Note that this act's (a) clause does not contain "sexual orientation" as above, and (b) specifically contains the new protected category of "political ideology".
The old turntable.fm was basically a chatroom in which people would take turns queueing songs for the entire room to listen to and talk about. You could like or dislike the song playing as well. If enough people downvoted the song it would be skipped.
It was pretty magical in summer 2011; I made real-life friends on TTFM and I learned about a ton of music I had never been previously exposed to. I was disappointed when it died because it really was a lot of fun.
I have seen a bunch of these lately as I was researching another alternative to Turtable.fm. Turns out more than half my friends don’t have Spotify so I can’t use it with them. The genius of the old TT was that it (a) had very cute avatars and UX in general and (b) it didn’t require you to pay for a separate service. I wouldn’t mind paying myself that allowed me a certain sized “room” but the moment everyone else must sign up for an external service, let alone a paid one, it becomes a non-starter.
Then charge me as the organizer fir a room of a certain size. But don’t make every one of my guests pay. I am ok creating a virtual DJ space for me and my 30 closest friends. I’m less ok with every one of them having to open up their wallets to sign up for their own subscription even if the amount of money in total is the same.
I can confirm that these statements just don't ring very true at most major technology companies; it may be a thing specifically for startups which I have little recent experience with. I know plenty of people in FAANG, Microsoft, Salesforce, etc. that are still ICs that are well over the age of 35.
Ageism may be alive in startups, but in technology as a whole, it doesn't really seem to be a big deal if you are up to date on your skills.
I think part of it may also be that us "older" folks are not fooled by the startup glitz, and would rather work somewhere with a little more stability and work-life balance.
I did the startup thing a bit, it was fun, but I'm mostly over it. I have other things in life I want to focus my time and energy on.
Agree. I feel like the division in which designers only work in Figma/Sketch/etc. without actually being able to implement those things in HTML and CSS leads to designs that are often impractical for the platform. Shouldn't the person responsible for drawing the user experience have an understanding as to what is actually capable on the platform that they are designing for?
Even if you do fully understand the platform you'll still find yourself having to argue with engineers who claim things are "impossible", any talent capable of producing high quality, performant UI with great UX front end work is extremely rare.
Struggling to find engineers who can even create a button and link that function correctly these days on pages with 5-10 second load times.
> One needs to work hard to keep up personal relationships with product/sales/project management/etc to ensure that the level of trust is there to be able to have the hard conversations.
In the heat of the moment, on deadline with a bunch of bugs and yet multiple compliance hurdles to clear, with a short-staffed team and conflicting management priorities, it's pretty easy to lose sight of the common goal.
Microsoft has a nice cliche you can use when you catch yourself on the adversarial end of this type of conversation: "assume positive intent". It's written on most of the Redmond campus whiteboards. If we are all assuming positive intent, it can give us the right empathetic mindset with which to build this trust even when it seems difficult. I've found working with other teams through the hard conversations with compromise instead of "no" leads to better results. They're assuming positive intent as am I and it's OK. If I'm feeling something is adversarial I need to understand why.
I like to frame it as "not me versus you, us versus the problem" when things get too heated. Otherwise things degrade into ad hominem "Those goddamn X people", instead of "We're having a lot of problems getting our project to work with X"
I like this one, too. The moment the people are your adversary in a technical discussion, you have probably lost sight of the actual problem. Much of the time I find it's misaligned incentives or, as Amy wrote here, sometimes it's people working with obsolete context or old grudges. Reframing yourself first, and then the discussion, is very much the way to succeed.
My partner is a physician, and this is _exactly_ how they manage disagreements about treatment plans, almost by instinct. It is amazing how well this works at clearing things up.
This. I'm a hardcore Obsidian user both at work and at home, and I started both vaults from absolutely nothing - no user scripts, no organisation, literally no plan at all. Since then, they've evolved and optimized in radically different ways. Taking someone else's "system" is just a way to fool yourself into thinking you can be more productive than you are; you have to find that for yourself and what works specifically for you.
My personal vault is geared much more toward organizing creativity, with a little bit of task-oriented stuff and technical documentation, while my corporate vault is heavily schedule based and contains mostly tactical information, meeting notes and thoughts, etc. For it to be a "second brain", you need it to model your brain - and I work very modally. I have a "work mode" and a "non-work mode" that order things pretty differently, and it shows in the hierarchies and organization of both vaults.