37 Matching Annotations
  1. Jan 2023
    1. Books and Presentations Are Playlists, so let's create a NeoBook this way.

      https://wiki.rel8.dev/co-write_a_neobook

      A playlist of related index cards from a Luhmann-esque zettelkasten could be considered a playlist that comprises an article or a longer work like a book.

      Just as one can create a list of all the paths through a Choose Your Own Adventure book, one could do something similar with linked notes. Ward Cunningham has done something similar to this programmatically with the idea of a Markov monkey.

  2. Aug 2022
  3. Jul 2022
    1. Create a new controller to override the original: app/controllers/active_storage/blobs_controller.rb

      Original comment:

      I've never seen monkey patching done quite like this.

      Usually you can't just "override" a class. You can only reopen it. You can't change its superclass. (If you needed to, you'd have to remove the old constant first.)

      Rails has already defined ActiveStorage::BlobsController!

      I believe the only reason this works:

      class ActiveStorage::BlobsController < ActiveStorage::BaseController

      is because it's reopening the existing class. We don't even need to specify the < Base class. (We can't change it, in any case.)

      They do the same thing here: - https://github.com/ackama/rails-template/pull/284/files#diff-2688f6f31a499b82cb87617d6643a0a5277dc14f35f15535fd27ef80a68da520

      Correction: I guess this doesn't actually monkey patch it. I guess it really does override the original from activestorage gem and prevent it from getting loaded. How does it do that? I'm guessing it's because activestorage relies on autoloading constants, and when the constant ActiveStorage::BlobsController is first encountered/referenced, autoloading looks in paths in a certain order, and finds the version in the app's app/controllers/active_storage/blobs_controller.rb before it ever gets a chance to look in the gem's paths for that same path/file.

      If instead of using autoloading, it had used require_relative (or even require?? but that might have still found the app-defined version earlier in the load path), then it would have loaded the model from activestorage first, and then (possibly) loaded the model from our app, which (probably) would have reopened it, as I originally commented.

    1. ActiveSupport.on_load :active_storage_blob do def accessible_to?(accessor) attachments.includes(:record).any? { |attachment| attachment.accessible_to?(accessor) } || attachments.none? end end ActiveSupport.on_load :active_storage_attachment do def accessible_to?(accessor) record.try(:accessible_to?, accessor) end end ActiveSupport.on_load :action_text_rich_text do def accessible_to?(accessor) record.try(:accessible_to?, accessor) end end module ActiveStorage::Authorize extend ActiveSupport::Concern included do before_action :require_authorization end private def require_authorization head :forbidden unless authorized? end def authorized? @blob.accessible_to?(Current.identity) end end Rails.application.config.to_prepare do ActiveStorage::Blobs::RedirectController.include ActiveStorage::Authorize ActiveStorage::Blobs::ProxyController.include ActiveStorage::Authorize ActiveStorage::Representations::RedirectController.include ActiveStorage::Authorize ActiveStorage::Representations::ProxyController.include ActiveStorage::Authorize end

      Interesting, rather clean approach, I think

    1. I removed the in-feed upvote button, making posts only up-votable at the bottom of the post itself. This increases the vote quality (if not the quantity).

      Putting upvoting at the bottom of a post is a better indicator of quality than at the top where it's less likely to have been read and more of a knee-jerk reactions, particularly for the punch-the-monkey crowd.

      Similar to how I use read, listen, and watch posts.

    1. https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2022/06/spring-83/

      I've been thinking about this sort of thing off and on myself.

      I too almost immediately thought of Fraidyc.at and its nudge at shifting the importance of content based on time and recency. I'd love to have a social reader with additional affordances for both this time shifting and Ton's idea of reading based on social distance.

      I'm struck by the seemingly related idea of @peterhagen's LindyLearn platform and annotations: https://annotations.lindylearn.io/new/ which focuses on taking some of the longer term interesting ideas as the basis for browsing and chewing on. Though even here, one needs some of the odd, the cutting edge, and the avant garde in their balanced internet diet. Would Spring '83 provide some of this?

      I'm also struck by some similarities this has with the idea of Derek Siver's /now page movement. I see some updating regularly while others have let it slip by the wayside. Still the "board" of users exists, though one must click through a sea of mostly smiling and welcoming faces to get to it the individual pieces of content. (The smiling faces are more inviting and personal than the cacophony of yelling and chaos I see in models for Spring '83.) This reminds me of Stanley Meyers' frequent assertion that he attempted to design a certain "sense of quiet" into the early television show Dragnet to balance the seeming loudness of the everyday as well as the noise of other contemporaneous television programming.

      The form reminds me a bit of the signature pages of one's high school year book. But here, instead of the goal being timeless scribbles, one has the opportunity to change the message over time. Does the potential commercialization of the form (you know it will happen in a VC world crazed with surveillance capitalism) follow the same trajectory of the old college paper facebook? Next up, Yearbook.com!

      Beyond the thing as a standard, I wondered what the actual form of Spring '83 adds to a broader conversation? What does it add to the diversity of voices that we don't already see in other spaces. How might it be abused? Would people come back to it regularly? What might be its emergent properties?

      It definitely seems quirky and fun in and old school web sort of way, but it also stresses me out looking at the zany busyness of some of the examples of magazine stands. The general form reminds me of the bargain bins at book stores which have the promise of finding valuable hidden gems and at an excellent price, but often the ideas and quality of what I find usually isn't worth the discounted price and the return on investment is rarely worth the effort. How might this get beyond these forms?

      It also brings up the idea of what other online forms we may have had with this same sort of raw experimentation? How might the internet have looked if there had been a bigger rise of the wiki before that of the blog? What would the world be like if Webmention had existed before social media rose to prominence? Did we somehow miss some interesting digital animals because the web rose so quickly to prominence without more early experimentation before its "Cambrian explosion"?

      I've been thinking about distilled note taking forms recently and what a network of atomic ideas on index cards look like and what emerges from them. What if the standard were digital index cards that linked and cross linked to each other, particularly in a world without adherence to time based orders and streams? What does a new story look like if I can pull out a card either at random or based on a single topic and only see it or perhaps some short linked chain of ideas (mine or others) which come along with it? Does the choice of a random "Markov monkey" change my thinking or perspective? What comes out of this jar of Pandora? Is it just a new form of cadavre exquis?

      This standard has been out for a bit and presumably folks are experimenting with it. What do the early results look like? How are they using it? Do they like it? Does it need more scale? What do small changes make to the overall form?


      For more on these related ideas, see: https://hypothes.is/search?q=tag%3A%22spring+%2783%22

  4. Jun 2022
    1. The Antinet’s permanent-address scheme, with its shifting nature, gives the system a unique personality. The Antinet’s unique personality stands as one of the most integral aspects of the system. A key component that enables insightful communication with a human being is the human’s personality–the person’s unique way of communicating with you based on their unique perspectives and interpretations. The Numeric-alpha addresses provide the Zettelkasten with a unique personality. Over time, unique structures form due to Numeric-alpha addresses. This is important because it allows one to communicate with the Antinet, transforming it into a communication experience with a second mind, a doppelgänger, or a ghost in a box, as Luhmann called it. (5)5 This is the entity Luhmann referred to when he titled his paper, Communicating with Noteboxes. Numeric-alpha addresses make all of this possible.

      Scheper seems to indicate that it is the addressing system alone which provides the "personality" of a zettelkasten, whereby he's actively providing personification of a paper and pencil system by way of literacy. We need to look more closely, however at the idea of what communication truly is to discern this. A person might be able to read an individual card and have a conversation with just it, but this conversation will be wholly one sided, and stops at the level of that single card. We also need the links between that individual card and multiple others to fill in the rest of the resulting potential conversation. Or we will rely on the reader of the card extending the idea or linking it to others of their ideas (and that of the zettelkasten), to grow the system and thereby its "personality".

      Thus the personality is part that of the collection of cards using their addresses and the links between them. This personality, however, isn't immediate. It might grow over time reaching some upper limit at the length of time of the user's life, but much of its personality is contingent upon the knowledge of the missing context of the system that is contained in or by its creator. Few zettelkasten will be so well composed as to provide full context. (cross reference: https://hyp.is/5gWedOs7Eeyrg2cTFW4iCg/niklas-luhmann-archiv.de/bestand/Zettelkasten/zettel/ZK_2_NB_9-8_V).

      The question we might want to look at: Is there a limiting upper bound (a la a Shannon Limit) to the amount of information that a zettelkasten might contain or transmit, even beyond the life of an initial creator? Could it converse with itself without the assistance of an outside actor of some sort? What pieces are missing that might help us to define communication or even life itself?

  5. Apr 2022
    1. It is difficult to see interdependencies This is especially true in the context of learning something complex, say economics. We can’t read about economics in a silo without understanding psychology, sociology and politics, at the very least. But we treat each subject as though they are independent of each other.

      Where are the tools for graphing inter-dependencies of areas of study? When entering a new area it would be interesting to have visual mappings of ideas and thoughts.

      If ideas in an area were chunked into atomic ideas, then perhaps either a Markov monkey or a similar actor could find the shortest learning path from a basic idea to more complex ideas.

      Example: what is the shortest distance from an understanding of linear algebra to learn and master Lie algebras?

      Link to Garden of Forking Paths

      Link to tools like Research Rabbit, Open Knowledge Maps and Connected Papers, but for ideas instead of papers, authors, and subject headings.


      It has long been useful for us to simplify our thought models for topics like economics to get rid of extraneous ideas to come to basic understandings within such a space. But over time, we need to branch out into related and even distant subjects like mathematics, psychology, engineering, sociology, anthropology, politics, physics, computer science, etc. to be able to delve deeper and come up with more complex and realistic models of thought.Our early ideas like the rational actor within economics are fine and lovely, but we now know from the overlap of psychology and sociology which have given birth to behavioral economics that those mythical rational actors are quaint and never truly existed. To some extent, to move forward as a culture and a society we need to rid ourselves of these quaint ideas to move on to more complex and sophisticated ones.

    1. Shenkar wouldlike to see students in business schools and other graduate programs taking

      courses on effective imitation.

      If imitation is so effective, what would teaching imitation to students look like in a variety of settings including, academia, business, and other areas?

      Is teaching by way of imitation the best method for the majority of students? Are there ways to test this versus other methods for broad effectiveness?

      How can we better leverage imitation in teaching for application to the real world?

    1. Much of Barthes’ intellectual and pedagogical work was producedusing his cards, not just his published texts. For example, Barthes’Collège de France seminar on the topic of the Neutral, thepenultimate course he would take prior to his death, consisted offour bundles of about 800 cards on which was recorded everythingfrom ‘bibliographic indications, some summaries, notes, andprojects on abandoned figures’ (Clerc, 2005: xxi-xxii).

      In addition to using his card index for producing his published works, Barthes also used his note taking system for teaching as well. His final course on the topic of the Neutral, which he taught as a seminar at Collège de France, was contained in four bundles consisting of 800 cards which contained everything from notes, summaries, figures, and bibliographic entries.


      Given this and the easy portability of index cards, should we instead of recommending notebooks, laptops, or systems like Cornell notes, recommend students take notes directly on their note cards and revise them from there? The physicality of the medium may also have other benefits in terms of touch, smell, use of colors on them, etc. for memory and easy regular use. They could also be used physically for spaced repetition relatively quickly.

      Teachers using their index cards of notes physically in class or in discussions has the benefit of modeling the sort of note taking behaviors we might ask of our students. Imagine a classroom that has access to a teacher's public notes (electronic perhaps) which could be searched and cross linked by the students in real-time. This would also allow students to go beyond the immediate topic at hand, but see how that topic may dovetail with the teachers' other research work and interests. This also gives greater meaning to introductory coursework to allow students to see how it underpins other related and advanced intellectual endeavors and invites the student into those spaces as well. This sort of practice could bring to bear the full weight of the literacy space which we center in Western culture, for compare this with the primarily oral interactions that most teachers have with students. It's only in a small subset of suggested or required readings that students can use for leveraging the knowledge of their teachers while all the remainder of the interactions focus on conversation with the instructor and questions that they might put to them. With access to a teacher's card index, they would have so much more as they might also query that separately without making demands of time and attention to their professors. Even if answers aren't immediately forthcoming from the file, then there might at least be bibliographic entries that could be useful.

      I recently had the experience of asking a colleague for some basic references about the history and culture of the ancient Near East. Knowing that he had some significant expertise in the space, it would have been easier to query his proverbial card index for the lived experience and references than to bother him with the burden of doing work to pull them up.

      What sorts of digital systems could help to center these practices? Hypothes.is quickly comes to mind, though many teachers and even students will prefer to keep their notes private and not public where they're searchable.

      Another potential pathway here are systems like FedWiki or anagora.org which provide shared and interlinked note spaces. Have any educators attempted to use these for coursework? The closest I've seen recently are public groups using shared Roam Research or Obsidian-based collections for book clubs.

  6. Mar 2022
    1. Future tools will provide standard ized learning streams to help novices perform basic tasks and scaffolding that wraps the tool with guidance as users acquire expertise. Experts will be able to record their insights for others and make macros to speed common tasks by novices.

      We've been promised this for ages, but where is it? Shouldn't it be here by now if it were deliverable or actualizable?

      What are the problems in solving this?

      How might one automate the Markov monkey?

  7. Feb 2022
    1. Purple Numbers are a clever hack because you can work them into many existing kinds of systems. You don’t have to reinvent the document format, or cut it up into many pieces. You just stick a few ID tags in useful places. It’s like dog-earing the page of a book to find your way back.

      As permanently identified paragraph level locations, purple numbers might allow one to combinatorically rearrange sets of notes or facts in a variety of different ways.

      This pattern might be seen in earlier instantiations of note taking tools like the German zettelkasten.

      Documents might be generated by creating playlists of purple numbers in particular (useful) orders.

    1. The Internet is a giant mental network. In theory, it would be possible to create a miniature version of the web by creating one node with some content (an idea, a thought) and to ask people to create a branch off that node with a label of their own—based on what the initial node made them think about. People would keep on adding nodes, which would create interesting stories, like a non-linear cadavre exquis.
  8. Sep 2021
    1. Neither fentanyl (0.0003–0.02 mg/kg) nor SNC80 (0.03–0.3 mg/kg) changed either ACTH or cortisol basal levels. In contrast, U-50488H (0.01–1 mg/kg) dose-dependently stimulated ACTH and cortisol release in both male and female monkeys. Importantly, the stimulatory effects of U-50488H on the secretion of ACTH were blocked by a selective kappa opioid receptor antagonist, nor-Binaltorphimine.

      Fascinating. I'd expect mu and delta opioids to reduce cortisol, if only indirectly via relaxation.

      Likewise, it is important to understand the mechanism by which kappa agonism increases cortisol. Kappa is known for its dysphoric effects, which would naturally increase cortisol. However, kappa agonism is also consistent with extreme euphoria. This is known from reports with Salvia divinorum and Tabernanthe iboga. Whether this euphoria decreases cortisol or if it is, rather, a form of eustress is a very interesting question.

  9. Aug 2021
  10. Jul 2021
    1. If you prefer monkeypatching (around 70) linguistics methods directly onto core classes, you can do that by adding a 'monkeypatch' option to ::use:
  11. May 2021
  12. Apr 2021
    1. Yes, you are right. That was a very bad workaround. Stubbing methods on NilClass can be compared to switching to dark side of force. Powerful but comes with a huge price. I highly don't recommend using my workaround from 1 year ago.
  13. Mar 2021
  14. Feb 2021
    1. According to this comment you might want to override the structurally_incompatible_values_for_or to overcome the issue: def structurally_incompatible_values_for_or(other) Relation::SINGLE_VALUE_METHODS.reject { |m| send("#{m}_value") == other.send("#{m}_value") } + (Relation::MULTI_VALUE_METHODS - [:eager_load, :references, :extending]).reject { |m| send("#{m}_values") == other.send("#{m}_values") } + (Relation::CLAUSE_METHODS - [:having, :where]).reject { |m| send("#{m}_clause") == other.send("#{m}_clause") } end
  15. Oct 2020
    1. There are other features you *could* actually polyfill, such as Array.of, Number.isNaN or Object.assign, because those don’t introduce syntax changes to the language – except that you shouldn’t.
    1. Polyfills are naughty as they patch native APIs, while ponyfills are pure and don't affect the environment.
    2. How are ponyfills better than polyfills? A polyfill is code that adds missing functionality by monkey patching an API. Unfortunately, it usually globally patches built-ins, which affects all code running in the environment. This is especially problematic when a polyfill is not fully spec compliant (which in some cases is impossible), as it could cause very hard to debug bugs and inconsistencies. Or when the spec for a new feature changes and your code depends on behavior that a module somewhere else in the dependency tree polyfills differently. In general, you should not modify API's you don't own.
  16. Jul 2020
  17. May 2020
  18. Mar 2020
    1. Instead of re-opening Ruby classes like that (I get involuntary twitches), for our little exercise we are going to invent another name

      IMHO, re-opening classes is okay. Certainly better than duplicating an entire core Ruby class and giving it a silly, less-meaningful name. (Though I'm not sure he actually intended people to use Lax instead of Lazy. I think he was just showing how easy it is to implement Lazy from scratch in Ruby.)

  19. Dec 2019
    1. Do the technical administrators have to be the same people doing the social organizing? I think the answer as of June 2019 is, sadly, yes. If you have 2 people with root access to the server and 2 people managing the community aspects, you'll end up with imbalances in that group of 4. You will end up with technical administrators who feel like code monkeys who never get the gratitude that the community organizers get, or you'll end up with community organizers who feel like glorified babysitters while the techies have all the real power. You might even end up with a situation where both are true. I think that if you're dedicated to this sort of project though, you could start with something like that 2 and 2, and then the techies could teach the organizers the technical skills, and the organizers could teach the techies the organizing skills.
  20. Oct 2019
  21. Apr 2017
    1. Smokey Joe Whitfield
    2. intent on demysti-fying the Lion's self-imposed status as King of the Jungle.

      And perhaps also the assumed inferiority of spoken language as a vehicle of power.

    3. not be-cause he has been severely beaten but because he has been beaten, then Signified upon

      To be physically beaten is a set-back, but to have been verbally tricked by the monkey is a much threatening offense, because it has cut through his presumed power and revealed his vulnerabilities. This is the danger signifyin(g) poses, in that it exposes the game of signifying.

    4. Whereas he writes that the Monkey is a master of this technique, it is even more accurate to write that he is technique, the literariness of language, the ultimate source for black people of the figures of signification.