20 Matching Annotations
  1. Mar 2024
  2. Nov 2023
    1. Lovely. I guess what I'm trying to define is some methodology for practicing. Many times I simply resort to my exhaustive method, which has worked for me in the past simply due to brute force.Thank you for taking the time to respond and for what look like some very interesting references.

      reply to u/ethanzanemiller at https://www.reddit.com/r/Zettelkasten/comments/185xmuh/comment/kb778dy/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

      Some of your methodology will certainly depend on what questions you're asking, how well you know your area already, and where you'd like to go. If you're taking notes as part of learning a new area, they'll be different and you'll treat them differently than notes you're collecting on ideas you're actively building on or intriguing facts you're slowly accumulating. Often you'll have specific questions in mind and you'll do a literature review to see what's happing around that area and then read and take notes as a means of moving yourself closer to answering your particular questions.

      Take for example, the frequently asked questions (both here in this forum and by note takers across history): how big is an idea? what is an atomic note? or even something related to the question of how small can a fact be? If this is a topic you're interested in addressing, you'll make note of it as you encounter it in various settings and see that various authors use different words to describe these ideas. Over time, you'll be able to tag them with various phrases and terminologies like "atomic notes", "one idea per card", "note size", or "note lengths". I didn't originally set out to answer these questions specifically, but my interest in the related topics across intellectual history allowed such a question to emerge from my work and my notes.

      Once you've got a reasonable collection, you can then begin analyzing what various authors say about the topic. Bring them all to "terms" to ensure that they're talking about the same things and then consider what arguments they're making about the topic and write up your own ideas about what is happening to answer those questions you had. Perhaps a new thesis emerges about the idea? Some have called this process having a conversation with the texts and their authors or as Robert Hutchins called it participating in "The Great Conversation".

      Almost anyone in the forum here could expound on what an "atomic note" is for a few minutes, but they're likely to barely scratch the surface beyond their own definition. Based on the notes linked above, I've probably got enough of a collection on the idea of the length of a note that I can explore it better than any other ten people here could. My notes would allow me a lot of leverage and power to create some significant subtlety and nuance on this topic. (And it helps that they're all shared publicly so you can see what I mean a bit more clearly; most peoples' notes are private/hidden, so seeing examples are scant and difficult at best.)

      Some of the overall process of having and maintaining a zettelkasten for creating material is hard to physically "see". This is some of the benefit of Victor Margolin's video example of how he wrote his book on the history of design. He includes just enough that one can picture what's happening despite his not showing the deep specifics. I wrote a short piece about how I used my notes about delving into S.D. Goitein's work to write a short article a while back and looking at the article, the footnotes, and links to my original notes may be illustrative for some: https://boffosocko.com/2023/01/14/a-note-about-my-article-on-goitein-with-respect-to-zettelkasten-output-processes/. The exercise is a tedious one (though not as tedious as it was to create and hyperlink everything), but spend some time to click on each link to see the original notes and compare them with the final text. Some of the additional benefit of reading it all is that Goitein also had a zettelkasten which he used in his research and in leaving copies of it behind other researchers still actively use his translations and notes to continue on the conversation he started about the contents of the Cairo Geniza. Seeing some of his example, comparing his own notes/cards and his writings may be additionally illustrative as well, though take care as many of his notes are in multiple languages.

      Another potentially useful example is this video interview with Kathleen Coleman from the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. It's in the realm of historical linguistics and lexicography, but she describes researchers collecting masses of data (from texts, inscriptions, coins, graffiti, etc.) on cards which they can then study and arrange to write their own articles about Latin words and their use across time/history. It's an incredibly simple looking example because they're creating a "dictionary", but the work involved was painstaking historical work to be sure.

      Again, when you're done, remember to go back and practice for yourself. Read. Ask questions of the texts and sources you're working with. Write them down. Allow your zettelkasten to become a ratchet for your ideas. New ideas and questions will emerge. Write them down! Follow up on them. Hunt down the answers. Make notes on others' attempts to answer similar questions. Then analyze, compare, and contrast them all to see what you might have to say on the topics. Rinse and repeat.

      As a further and final (meta) example, some of my answer to your questions has been based on my own experience, but the majority of it is easy to pull up, because I can pose your questions not to my experience, but to my own zettelkasten and then quickly search and pull up a variety of examples I've collected over time. Of course I have far more experience with my own zettelkasten, so it's easier and quicker for me to query it than for you, but you'll build this facility with your own over time.

      Good luck. 🗃️

  3. Oct 2023
    1. The melting of the polar caps at the end of Earth’s regular ice ages has also played a halting role. These are long-term trends. More short-term effects include an earthquake in Chile in 2010 that sped up the planet and shortened the day by 1.26 microseconds. In fact, 29 June 2022 was the shortest day ever directly recorded. But something strange appears to be occurring in the short-term trends. Since 2020, the average day has been getting longer – in other words, Earth is slowing down. This goes against a previous pattern of the average day shortening for the half-century before that.

      What is the estimated day length of an average day in 2000 compared to today?

  4. May 2023
  5. Mar 2023
  6. Jan 2023
    1. Avoid both very long andvery short paragraphs: the length should usually vary from150 to 860 words. Attend carefully to the unity and correctstructure of the paragraph.

      His description of paragraphs from 150 to 350 words is interesting with respect to the amount of material that will fit on a 3x5" inch card during the note taking process.

  7. Mar 2022
    1. Dr Ellie Murray, ScD. (2022, January 6). School & university administrators, as you grapple with this week’s decisions, spare some time to think about how to delay next January’s start date to Jan 16 2022. Do you need to extend into summer? Change course lengths? Figure it out because this is going to happen again! [Tweet]. @epiellie. https://twitter.com/epiellie/status/1478921243961274370

  8. Nov 2020
    1. Prettier’s printWidth option does not work the same way. It is not the hard upper allowed line length limit. It is a way to say to Prettier roughly how long you’d like lines to be. Prettier will make both shorter and longer lines, but generally strive to meet the specified printWidth. Remember, computers are dumb. You need to explicitly tell them what to do, while humans can make their own (implicit) judgements, for example on when to break a line. In other words, don’t try to use printWidth as if it was ESLint’s max-len – they’re not the same. max-len just says what the maximum allowed line length is, but not what the generally preferred length is – which is what printWidth specifies.
  9. Oct 2020
    1. The limits are chosen to avoid wrapping in editors with the window width set to 80, even if the tool places a marker glyph in the final column when wrapping lines.
    2. For code maintained exclusively or primarily by a team that can reach agreement on this issue, it is okay to increase the line length limit up to 99 characters
  10. May 2020
  11. Apr 2020
  12. Sep 2018
  13. Oct 2017
    1. More details related to methods are provided in COREQ file at doi: 10.7910/DVN/V1TKIO20, which follows the COREQ guidelines for reporting qualitative research23.

      That COREQ file is very useful for human consumption, but it would be useful if it were machine actionable as well, which would allow, for instance, to discover it more easily when searching for studies involving, say, native Thai speakers, or NVivo 11.3.2. Just saying - I understand this is beyond the scope of the current paper, but I'm involved in efforts to make data management plans machine actionable, which means dealing with these same issues.

      As an aside, the COREQ file states (at the very bottom):

      For reasons of length, the paper reports only the major themes.

      I don't know of restrictions in Wellcome Open Research in terms of article length, and in the paper's introduction, the authors had stated

      here we focus on findings we believe to be of greatest interest to researchers who share data, or are contemplating doing so.

      which seems a more valid reason to leave out some minor themes.