I'm with you there. I have to either hear the full sentences narrated by my internal voice or see the words flashing in my mind in order to "think". This is great for building and maintaining deep mental models but it is also highly susceptible to "bit rot" (such as forgetting the rationale or evidence for a specific assertion or position) days/weeks/years later. I have a friend who simply can't understand how inter-linked note systems (like the kind Obsidian enables) are helpful. It's just a bewildering mess to them and they think more linearly.
Thus, writing things down is a necessity for me: it's not for a need for structure but rather that my "context window" gets filled too quickly. I can counter my own arguments but it's more fun, and often quicker, to do with someone else. Besides, there is such a diversity of thinking out there it would be foolish to not take advantage!
Reminds me of the show Severance. You don't know what the master plan is for several seasons even with exposure to all the quirky subdepartments: https://www.severance.wiki/lumon_depts
I have emailed people based on a YouTube video, podcast episode, blog post, or just browsing a project on GitHub. If their email address is available I see that as permission to contact them for "wholesome" purposes. A few things that come to mind:
1. clarification on something in particular that they have already published
2. engage in genuine discussion about adjacent topics in which their opinion is specifically relevant
3. expressions of appreciation
4. corrections of information to prevent genuine harm or significant frustration for others
My success rate is probably 50-75% but I only do it a few times per year.
Cold-calling to get people try try your new app or answer a survey is rude.
My senior year of college, I emailed a Danish/Swedish professor (had lived in both countries and published in both languages) about a niche research article he had published that I was unable to find. He not only sent me the article, but mailed a couple copies of his books to me in the US. Sadly, my Scandinavian reading comprehension has plummeted since then and I am unable to read his books anymore, but they sit on my shelf and remind me of that period of my life and my wonderful Nordic Studies professors.
I have emailed two authors now and both responded enthusiastically and answered my questions. Granted, these were also niche texts so I don't imagine it's common for them to get fanmail either!
I find myself in a similar situation. Drafting an email to an academic. And as I decipher her motivations with respect to her own work from micro-expressions she had in an interview, I start to think we're not that different. I'm falling in love, how embarrassing ...
People continue to criticize Arch for being elitist or gate-keeping to keep casuals out but there are clear benefits by not allowing dangerous things to be simple. This is true in many aspects of life.
After using Void Linux I switched to `aurutils` to get a similar separation on Arch. I can easily maintain a local AUR repo by compiling/making my own binaries and can use `pacman` to install and manage them which improves the upgrade process overall.
> People continue to criticize Arch for being elitist or gate-keeping
I have the complete opposite experience. Arch makes it easy to get in and get hacking right away. Their beginner guide's on the wiki were a gem 10-15 years ago... made it super easy to get up and running. I don't have the time these days to tinker - but boy do I love some Arch.
It is frustrating to know that we can digitally sign and encrypt messages but don't because "it's too hard for normal people".
With HIPAA, is it not possible to simply encrypt the message? The "forgot password" flow for their message center is probably email anyway.
I can upload my public key to SourceHut and all email from them becomes signed and encrypted. It's a one-time process to generate long-lived keys and another to set up with SourceHut and that's all I need to do.
Inverting the order actually addresses my primary annoyance: what is a feature?!
> refactor(core): Update webmcp support to use document.modelContext
As the author points out, the line between a fix, an improvement, and general clean-up is blurry and dividing each semantic change into its own commit (and possibly squashed later anyway) is just creating work for no one's benefit.
I think Conventional Commits are just an artifact of trying to automate SemVer rather than solving any of the other problems directly. I don't think changelogs should be automated anyway - I can `git log` that if I want a list. A changelog is an opportunity to communicate to a wider audience what is actually going on under the hood.
There is still a tendency within some parts of aviation (safety auditing) to look for root causes and use tools like "fish bone diagrams" despite the more holistic approach used after an actual crash or incident.
Thus, writing things down is a necessity for me: it's not for a need for structure but rather that my "context window" gets filled too quickly. I can counter my own arguments but it's more fun, and often quicker, to do with someone else. Besides, there is such a diversity of thinking out there it would be foolish to not take advantage!
reply