Wegen anhaltendem Wassermangel können im Augenblick nur hab so viele Schiffe den Panama durchqueren wie normalerweise Punkt für die Schleusen des Kanals werden große Mengen Süßwasser benötigt. Die niederschlagsmuster verändern sich deutlich. Es ist aber noch nicht abzusehen, wie die zukünftige Entwicklung aussehen wird. Ein Beispiel für das unkartierte Gelände, in das die globale Erhitzung geführt hat. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/22/changing-climate-casts-a-shadow-over-the-future-of-the-panama-canal-and-global-trade

I came here to get the handout for Markov chains mentions in Lecture 31: Markov chains | Statistics 110. Lectures give a great intuition behind the equations, their motivation, and their limitations.

Heyde indicates how "valuable notes and chains of thought are" but also points out "how uncontrollable and irretrievable" they are.

This statement is strong evidence along with others in this chapter which may have inspired Niklas Luhmann to invent his iteration of the zettelkasten method of excerpting and making notes.

(link to: Clemens /Heyde and Luhmann timeline: https://hypothes.is/a/4wxHdDqeEe2OKGMHXDKezA)

Presumably he may have either heard or seen others talking about or using these general methods either during his undergraduate or law school experiences. Even with some scant experience, this line may have struck him significantly as an organization barrier of earlier methods.

Why have notes strewn about in a box or notebook as Heyde says? Why spend the time indexing everything and then needing to search for it later? Why not take the time to actively place new ideas into one's box as close as possibly to ideas they directly relate to?

But how do we manage this in a findable way? Since we can't index ideas based on tabs in a notebook or even notebook page numbers, we need to have some sort of handle on where ideas are in slips within our box. The development of European card catalog systems had started in the late 1700s, and further refinements of Melvil Dewey as well as standardization had come about by the early to mid 1900s. One could have used the Dewey Decimal System to index their notes using smaller decimals to infinitely intersperse cards on a growing basis.

But Niklas Luhmann had gone to law school and spent time in civil administration. He would have been aware of aktenzeichen file numbers used in German law/court settings and public administration. He seems to have used a simplified version of this sort of filing system as the base of his numbering system. And why not? He would have likely been intimately familiar with its use and application, so why not adopt it or a simplified version of it for his use? Because it's extensible in a a branching tree fashion, one can add an infinite number of cards or files into the midst of a preexisting collection. And isn't this just the function aktenzeichen file numbers served within the German court system? Incidentally these file numbers began use around 1932, but were likely heavily influenced by the Austrian conscription numbers and house numbers of the late 1770s which also influenced library card cataloging numbers, so the whole system comes right back around. (Ref Krajewski here).

(Cross reference/ see: https://hypothes.is/a/CqGhGvchEey6heekrEJ9WA

Other pieces he may have been attempting to get around include the excessive work of additional copying involved in this piece as well as a lot of the additional work of indexing.

One will note that Luhmann's index was much more sparse than without his methods. Often in books, a reader will find a reference or two in an index and then go right to the spot they need and read around it. Luhmann did exactly this in his sequence of cards. An index entry or two would send him to the general local and sifting through a handful of cards would place him in the correct vicinity. This results in a slight increase in time for some searches, but it pays off in massive savings of time of not needing to cross index everything onto cards as one goes, and it also dramatically increases the probability that one will serendipitously review over related cards and potentially generate new insights and links for new ideas going into one's slip box.

Look at this lovely explicit phrase "chain of thought" here!

This is not a well attested viewpoint from my research, but obviously happens, and Heyde calls out personal experience to underline his point.

Where is he going to place the work of creating this chain of thought? Will it be at the "traditional" writing (arranging) part of the process, or will the chain be created as one goes a la Luhmann's ultimate practice?!

A message chain

The more team human doesn't play as a team, the more problematic global supply chains will be.

Linking these many fragmented and long causal chains and tracing them back to the hyperthreat can be a polwerful visualization that brings the hyperthreat to life.

Ramelli, S., & Wagner, A. F. (2020). Feverish Stock Price Reactions to COVID-19 (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3550274). Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3550274

continued from above - invisible labor - chains.

I hate this kind of academic language - it is so inaccessible. Is their work disconnected from the communities that they're talking about? After googling to be sure I was understanding correctly - they're saying that making supply chains kills diversity from within the supply chain.

Precarity - in chains

by saying the labor is invisible are we erasing the precarity of the work?

So Campbell seems to have a lot of "causal chains," so where are the "bundles of evidence" exactly? I mean, this definitely seems to be moral reasoning, but this looks like more of a chain than a bundle.