Smith-Corona Electra 220 Typewriter Review by [[Joe Van Cleave]]

Some details about the internal motor workings of SCM electric typewriters.

Creating on Small Typewriters by [[Joe Van Cleave]]

Portable typewriters give up a level of professionalism in one's documents for their size and ease of portability.

In particular, the slug alignments may be slightly off compared to larger machines. Ideally they allow for one to be good enough, especially for first draft documents or journaling.

Typewriter Strike Out Corrections by [[Joe Van Cleave]]

https://old.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/w1k8lq/vintage_typewriter_repair_resources/

https://www.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1ixht52/how_can_i_make_a_typewriter_eraser_like_this_have/

Back in the day people used custom erasers for erasing. They were much harder than the softer erasers in use now, which is why modern pencil and art erasers don't work as well. For some historical methods, see these videos or here.

Secretaries also used small eraser shields to target individual letters, words, or lines. They also used larger curved shields for erasing within carbon copy packs.

Eaton used to make Ko-rec-type tabs which could be inserted for short corrections and it can still be found online as old stock.

There was also bichrome ribbon with white correction tape, but that tends to fleck off and make a mess in your machine over time. Similarly White Out is still made, but it can spill and make a mess while you wait for it to dry.

For modern typists, hand-held correction tape is probably the quickest and easiest.

This could be expanded for the widest range of history on erasing using typewriters with caveats, etc.

reply to u/Fearless_Camera_1788 at https://old.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1ixmz88/how_to_erase/

Remington Rand KMC Standard Typewriter, Ring Style, Noiseless, 1/2", Install, Replace Ink Ribbon by [[Phoenix Typewriter]]

Without the Remington ribbon rings, one can utilize the slots in coordination with grommets to thread up a Remington typewriter.

Remington Standard Typewriter KMC , model 17, How to Change and Set Margin Stops, Demo<br /> by [[Phoenix Typewriter]]

Identifying My Remington Rand Typewriter

https://www.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/flgb82/identifying_typewriters_in_the_film_all_the/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074119/

reply to u/Pope_Shady at https://old.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1iwrlij/highest_price_youd_spend/

Generally my cap for typewriter purchases is in the $20-35 range. Most of my favorite machines (the standards) were acquired for $5-10 and they're so much better than the portables. At these prices I'm not too worried about the level of work required. I regularly spend 3-4 times more money on a full reel of bulk typewriter ribbon than I do on a typical typewriter.

A few of my more expensive acquisitions: * I went as high as $100 on a machine (including shipping) to get a Royal Quiet De Luxe with a Vogue typeface that turned out to be in about as stunning a condition as one could hope for. * I went to $130 on an Olympia SM3 in part for it's Congress elite typeface as well as an uncommon set of mathematical characters. I'm sure I could have gotten it for significantly less, but wanted to help out the seller and it was in solid condition except for worn bushings. * I also went to around $150 for an (uncommon in the US) early 30's Orga Privat 5 that was in solid shape. I've yet to run into another Orga in the wild in the US since.

It also bears saying that I don't mind buying "barn machines" as a large portion of the fun in collecting for me is cleaning, adjusting, and restoring them to full functionality. I've been dissapointed once to have bought a Remington Quiet-Riter once for $10 only to discover it was in near mint condition and didn't need any work at all.

I am at the point where I'm going to need to start selling machines, work at a local shop, or start my own shop if I'm going to keep up with the "hobby" and maintain a sane spouse simultaneously. If I didn't enjoy wrenching on machines so much, I would definitely be buying them from local shops for significantly more money, and I'd probably have far fewer.

It's not talked about in great length in some typewriter collector spaces, but I think some of the general pricing "game", beyond just getting a "deal", is the answer to the questions: "What am I into this space for anyway? What makes it fun and interesting?" If you don't have the time, talent, tools, or inclination to do your own cleaning and restoration work, then paying $300-$600 for a nice machine in exceptional clean/restored condition from a shop is a totally valid choice and shouldn't be dismissed. Some are in it for the discussions of typewriters. Some are in it for the bargain hunt. Some just want to write. Some want rare gems. Some want common machines from famous writers. Others just want one "good" machine while others want all the machines. It's a multi-faceted space.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Landmesser

Why Are Some Of Our Most Successful Leaders Mentally Ill? by [[Ian Leslie]]

suggested by ES

Fits into an earlier theory about insane leaders... where's the source?

direct source for this?

Where Have I Been? Antinet Updates & Insights From the Analog World by [[Scott P. Scheper]]

He is definitely not making this much from his book... subsequent to his book perhaps, but it would be a NY Times best seller if it were doing theses sorts of numbers by itself.

https://www.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1iv0rcz/what_is_dorothy_typing_on_in_this_1992_golden/

https://www.maggiedelano.com/garden/syntopical-reading-in-roam by Maggie Delano

https://www.maggiedelano.com/garden/obsidian-vs-roam-for-running-book-clubs by Maggie Delano

Which states get more federal money than they send by [[Alex Fitzpatrick]] for Axios

via 2024 Rockefeller Institute of Government

Former Intelligence Officer Claims KGB Recruited Trump by [[Isabel van Brugen]]

It’s time for Americans to withhold their taxes by [[Judith Levine]]

‘Very, Very Bad’: Ex-Government Economist Makes Bleakest Trump Prediction by [[Lee Moran]]

Typewriter Algebra by [[Joe Van Cleave]]

via https://old.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1iucu6i/you_guys_wouldnt_know_what_typewriter_is_used_in/

reply to u/Sept-27 at https://old.reddit.com/r/Zettelkasten/comments/1itbduv/how_to_begin_storytelling_with_smart_notes/

Ahrens' book will likely leave you with more questions than answers and really has nothing directly to say on the practice of fictional storytelling. Doto's book does a better job of filling in these pieces but approaches writing in general rather than specifically fiction.

For fiction writers, I often recommend they don't practice putting Luhmann-artig numbers on their cards, but organize them in a more impromptu manner and allow them to shift more as you write. This allows things to shift more easily during the process and provides for a bit more creativity.

Some resources and examples for fiction with a ZK:<br /> - Vladimir Nabokov - David Lynch - take particular note of his method taught by Frank Daniel at AFI - Dustin Lance Black - Card index for fiction writing - The Zettelkasten Method for Fiction Writing

Take the inspiration these suggest, but don't go down the rabbit hole too deeply. You're going to want to evolve something that works best for you and your modes of writing, so trying to imitate someone else's system too closely will be the kiss of death.

EACH NOTE CARD SHOULD BE AS PURE AND SINGULAR AN IDEA AS POSSIBLE, BECAUSE I WANT TO BE ABLE TO MOVE ALL THE PIECES AROUND

This quote speaks to the general idea of "atomic notes" or note size and why they should be small.

It also osculates David Lynch's idea of holding onto the essence of an idea within a story. It's almost as if the adage "take care of the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves" were applied to the fiction writing process. If you're careful with the small pieces, the bigger piece has a stronger chance of having more authenticity.

https://www.catawiki.com/en/s?q=typewriter

https://www.ebay.com/itm/276799504311

Two 3x5 sections of 15 drawers each for a total of 30 along with a section that has 2 writing drawers along with a top and a table leg section listed in December 2024/January 2025 for $3000 with a buy now of $5000.

Free pick up in Oconee, Illinois

cost per drawer: $100

Relistings: - https://www.ebay.com/itm/276808448650 - https://www.ebay.com/itm/276816845128 - https://www.ebay.com/itm/276825363082 - https://www.ebay.com/itm/286289360862 - etc...

https://www.ebay.com/itm/296915539728

3x5 sectional with legs in dark stain listed in January 2025 for $1500 OBO

Free pick up in Glendale, AZ

Cost per drawer: $100

Everything is a Remix by [[Kirby Ferguson]]

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLU1WuLg45SiyrXahjvFahDuA060P487pV

Brother AX-350 by [[Sam Christy]]

The Texting Typewriter (hardware) by [[Sam Christy]]

https://hackaday.com/2024/12/18/back-to-the-future-of-texting-sms-on-a-panasonic-typewriter/

https://www.amazon.com/Good-Girls-Guide-Murder/dp/1984896369

Typewriter Market: It may be better if you didn't get an Olympia SM3 typewriter today.

I'm not out to shame people for their purchases, just to caution uninitiated typewriter purchasers and budding collectors who aren't carefully watching the market.

Olympia SM3s are well-touted and excellent typewriters. They've recently been selling on ShopGoodwill in unknown condition for $120-150 based only on photos.

Earlier today, an Olympia SM3 sold for $334! So what gives? Why did this go for over twice as much as the average? To the uninitiated, the seasoned collector can look at this machine carefully and realize that even without seeing a type sample or a close up photo of the slugs that this machine is quietly hiding a script typeface of some kind. This means that two bidders would have paid an almost $200 premium for a script typeface, and one of them managed to snipe it for $1 with minutes left. Generally I see script machines going for $100-150 over similar machines without script.

Sadly, the high price on this machine earlier in the day may have suckered others into thinking these machines are significantly more valuable as it seems two other Olympia SM3s right after it both went for:<br /> * $202.03 https://shopgoodwill.com/item/222707079 * $202.03 https://shopgoodwill.com/item/222546519

And they were bid over 200 by the same two people while the "smarter" money stopped with bids at $137 on both.

Of course, neither of these later two machines have a script face, but at least two bidders were potentially reeled in by the much higher sales price of the script machine earlier in the day. This means that they've overpayed at least $50 above market for each, possibly thinking that they may have gotten a great deal. Sadly they didn't, they just overpayed the market average. The person who was sniped on both managed to save themselves $100+ today because I imagine they'll be able to get equivalent machines in the coming month for closer to under $150.

Incidentally another later Olympia portable (usually in the $75-120 range) earlier in the day went for a more reasonable $232 with a stated/photographed cursive typeface: https://shopgoodwill.com/item/222546740 This one was a stronger deal in the current market as they only paid about $110 above average for that machine to get the script typeface. The tough part is that because the description stated "cursive", they didn't have the benefit of possibly picking up a script machine with less competition.

While this is an interesting microcosm example of the current (overheated?) typewriter market (at least in the US), I hope all the buyers of these machines enjoy their purchases. If they're your first Olympias, and they need some work to get back to fighting shape, I've put together a guide: https://boffosocko.com/2024/07/14/aggregated-resources-and-playlist-for-a-crash-course-on-the-olympia-sm3-portable-typewriter/

syndication link

via https://www.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1iqn5hs/comment/mdakb8r/

Just craft/tacky glue. I painted the machine with the glue and applied the fabric.

via https://old.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1ir50gz/i_covered_a_typewriter_in_fabric_not_sure_how_you/

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050307/quotes

https://www.youtube.com/c/ScorpioMartianus/playlists

via https://old.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/d6nkwy/timeline_for_lingua_latina_books_and_supplements/#lightbox

https://www.reddit.com/r/latin/comments/gvqjfh/grammartranslation_vs_reading_method_which_is_the/?sort=old

Good discussion and outline of research about natural method of language acquisition over grammar-translation method of language acquisition.

Dreamt of learning Latin? Here’s how you’ll finally do it by [[Thomas V. Mirus]]

A non-specialist look at his Latin language acquisition with lots of resources around Hans Ørberg's Lingua Latin text.

Thomas V. Mirus' comparison of Fr. William Most's Latin text with Hans Ørberg's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7kwvJpbAvI&list=PLU1WuLg45SizQQ5VwufQbCB9rL-Z3VIUJ&index=41&ab_channel=ScorpioMartianus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yflqUWKVVc&ab_channel=pol%C3%BDMATHY

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knocking_on_wood

Cleaning Typewriter Type Slugs by [[Joe Van Cleave]]

JVC recommends 91% isopropyl alcohol (IPA) for cleaning typeslugs.

Brass bristle brushes from Harbor Freight.

Sally's Beauty Supply stiff nylon brush for cleaning typeslugs.

Bergeon Rodico 6033-1 as a cleaning compound (similar to Silly Putty and other older compounds) for typeslugs.

https://www.coloradoboulevard.net/eaton-fire-lawsuits-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/

https://www.coloradoboulevard.net/caltech-webinar-on-environmental-impacts-of-fires/

https://washingtondc.jhu.edu/news/fire-resistant-designs-community-collaboration-could-be-the-best-defense-against-future-wildfires/

https://www.socalgas.com/fires

https://recovery.lacounty.gov/eaton-fire/

https://pwp.cityofpasadena.net/pasadena-drinking-water-system-impacted-by-eaton-fire/

https://www.pasadenastarnews.com/2025/01/11/black-communities-in-pasadena-altadena-devastated-by-eaton-fire/

https://calfire-forestry.maps.arcgis.com/home/webscene/viewer.html?webscene=0a7381c8b46b4e26a057383424f32c06

https://ops.alertcalifornia.org/cam-console/2478

https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2025/1/7/eaton-fire

https://www.sce.com/outage-center/check-outage-status

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/01/07/california-secures-federal-assistance-to-support-response-to-eaton-fire-in-los-angeles-county/

https://fire.airnow.gov/#11.62/34.1826/-118.0887

https://www.airnow.gov/?city=Altadena&state=CA&country=USA

https://www.fema.gov/disaster/recover/faq

https://www.fema.gov/disaster/4856#help-families

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eaton_Fire

https://www.google.com/search?q=altadena+fire+eaton+canyon&oq=altadena+fire+eaton+canyon&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQRRhA0gEIODkzMmowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Folgezettel Will Not Necessarily Create Discrete Topical Sections in Your Zettelkasten by [[Bob Doto]]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mQ5p1pL-M0

https://blog.archive.org/national-emergency-library/

Couple captures dramatic start of Eaton Fire in Altadena, California by Associated Press

reply to u/Active-Teach6311 at https://old.reddit.com/r/Zettelkasten/comments/1ilvvnc/you_need_to_first_define_the_zettlekasten_methoda/

#1 == #2 In German contexts, zettelkasten subsumed both ideas which can easily be seen in the 2013 Marbach Exhibition: Zettelkasten: Machines of Fantasy. That exhibition featured six different Zettelkasten of which Luhmann's was but one. It wasn't until after this that sites like zettelkasten.de, this Reddit sub, or the popularity of Ahrens' book shifted the definition to a Luhmann-centric one, particularly in English language contexts which lacked a marketing term on which to latch to sell the idea. The productivity porn portion of the equation assisted in erasing the prior art and popularity of these methods.

One can easily show mathematically that there is a one-to-one and onto mapping of Luhmann's method with all the other variations. This means that they're equivalent in structure and only differ in the names you give them.

Even Ahrens suggests as much in his own book when he mentions that in digital contexts one doesn't need numbered cards in particular orders for the system to work. If Erasmus, Agricola, or Melanchthon were to magically arrive from the 15th century to the present day, they would have no difficulty recognizing their commonplacing work at play in a so-called Luhmann-artig zettelkasten.

I would suggest that Luhmann didn't write more about his method himself because it would have been generally fruitless for him as everyone around him was doing exactly the same thing. The method was both literally and figuratively commonplace! J. E. Heyde's book, from which Luhmann modeled his own system, went through 10 editions from the 1930s through the 1970s in Luhmann's own lifetime.

Reply to u/FastSascha at https://old.reddit.com/r/Zettelkasten/comments/1ilvvnc/you_need_to_first_define_the_zettlekasten_methoda/mc01tsr/

The primary and really only "innovation" for Luhmann's system was his numbering and filing scheme (which he most likely borrowed and adapted from prior sources). His particular scheme only serves to provide specific addresses for finding his notes. Regardless of doing this explicitly, everyone's notes have a physical address and can be cross referenced or linked in any variety of ways. In John Locke's commonplacing method of 1685/1706 he provided an alternate (but equivalent method) of addressing and allowing the finding of notes. Whether you address them specifically or not doesn't change their shape, only the speed by which they may be found. This may shift an affordance of using such a system, but it is invariant from the form of the system. What I'm saying is that the form and shape of Luhmann's notes is identical to the huge swath of prior art within intellectual history. He was not doing something astoundingly new or different. By analogy he was making the same Acheulean hand axe everyone else was making; it's not as if he figured out a way to lash his axe to a stick and then subsequently threw it to invent the spear.

When I say the method was commonplace at the time, I mean that a broad variety of people used it for similar reasons, for similar outputs, and in incredibly similar methods. You can find a large number of treatises on how to do these methods over time and space, see a variety of examples I've collected in Zotero which I've mentioned several times in the past. Perhaps other German professors weren't using the method(s) as they were slowly dying out over the latter half of the 20th century with the rise and ultimate ubiquity of computers which replaced many of these methods. I'll bet that if probed more deeply they were all doing something and the something they were doing (likely less efficiently and involving less physically evident means) could be seen to be equivalent to Luhmann's.

This also doesn't mean that these methods weren't actively used in a variety of equivalent forms by people as diverse as Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian, Seneca, Boethius, Thomas Aquinas, Desiderius Erasmus, Rodolphus Agricola, Philip Melancthon, Konrad Gessner, John Locke, Carl Linnaeus, Thomas Harrison, Vincentius Placcius, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, S. D. Goitein, Gotthard Deutsch, Beatrice Webb, Sir James Murray, Marcel Mauss, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Mortimer J. Adler, Niklas Luhmann, Roland Barthes, Umberto Eco, Jacques Barzun, Vladimir Nabokov, George Carlin, Twyla Tharp, Gertrud Bauer, and even Eminem to name but a few better known examples. If you need additional examples to look at, try searching my Hypothesis account for tag:"zettelkasten examples". Take a look at their examples and come back to me and tell me that beyond the idiosyncrasies of their individual use that they weren't all doing the same thing in roughly the same ways and for roughly the same purposes. While the modalities (digital or analog) and substrates (notebooks, slips, pen, pencil, electrons on silicon, other) may have differed, the thing they were doing and the forms it took are all equivalent.

Beyond this, the only thing really unique about Luhmann's notes were that he made them on subjects that he had an interest, the same way that your notes are different from mine. But broadly speaking, they all have the same sort of form, function, and general topology.

If these general methods were so uncommon, how is it that all the manuals on note taking are all so incredibly similar in their prescriptions? How is it that Marbach can do an exhibition in 2013 featuring 6 different zettelkasten, all ostensibly different, but all very much the same?

Perhaps the easier way to see it all is to call them indexed databases. Yours touches on your fiction, exercise, and nutrition; Luhmann's focuses on sociology and systems theory; mine looks at intellectual history, information theory, evolution, and mathematics; W. K. Kellogg's 640 drawer system in 1906 focused on manufacturing, distributing and selling Corn Flakes; Jonathan Edwards' focused on Christianity. They all have different contents, but at the end of the day, they're just indexed databases with the same forms and functionalities. Their time periods, modalities, substrates, and efficiencies have differed, but at their core they're all far more similar in structure than they are different.

Perhaps one day, I'll write a deeper treatise with specific definitions and clearer arguments laying out the entire thing, but in the erstwhile, anyone saying that Luhmann's instantiation is somehow more unique than all the others beyond the meaning expressed by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry in The Little Prince is fooling themselves. Instead, I suspect that by realizing you're part of a longer, tried-and-true tradition, your own practice will be far easier and more useful.

The simplicity of the system (or these multiply-named methods) allows for the rise of a tremendous amount of complexity. This resultant complexity can in turn hide the simplicity of the root system.

“To me, you are still nothing more than a little boy who is just like a hundred thousand other little boys. And I have no need of you. And you, on your part, have no need of me. To you, I am nothing more than a fox like a hundred thousand other foxes. But if you tame me, then we shall need each other. To me, you will be unique in all the world. To you, I shall be unique in all the world..."

I can only hope people choose to tame more than Luhmann.

reply to u/Active-Teach6311 at https://old.reddit.com/r/Zettelkasten/comments/1ilvvnc/you_need_to_first_define_the_zettlekasten_methoda/mc14p0r/

Certainly there are idiosyncracies in how each person chooses to to work with them. The primary difference I see is how much work and when each person chooses to put into a system and what outputs, if any, there are. However, at the end of the day, their similarities as systems far, far exceed their differences. Their principles may differ in slight ways, but in the end they are identical in form. If you feel differently, then I suggest you take a deeper and closer look into the variety of traditions beyond your cursory view.

As a small exercise, attempt to explain why S. D. Goitein's system allowed him to write 1/3 the notes of Luhmann and create almost 3 times the written output? Why aren't people emulating his system? Why are there still dozens of researchers actively sharing and using Goitein's notes when almost none are doing the same for Luhmann?

Another solid exercise is to look at Heyde and explain why Luhmann chose to file his cards differently than was prescribed there? Are the end results really different? Would they have been different if kept in commonplace form using John Locke's indexing method?

reply to u/JeffB1517 at https://old.reddit.com/r/Zettelkasten/comments/1ilvvnc/you_need_to_first_define_the_zettlekasten_methoda/mc1y4oj/

I'm not new here: https://boffosocko.com/research/zettelkasten-commonplace-books-and-note-taking-collection/

You example of a hierarchy was not a definition. In practice Luhmann eschewed hierarchies, though one could easily modify his system to create them. This has been covered ad nauseam here in conversations on top-down and bottom-up thinking.

When "dumping" from one program to another, one can almost always easily get around a variety of affordances supplied by one and not another simply by adding additional data, text, references, links, etc. As an example, my paper system can do Logseq's block level linking by simply writing a card address down and specifying word 7, sentence 3, paragraph 4, etc. One can also do this in Obsidian in a variety of other technical means and syntaxes including embedding notes. Block level linking is a nice affordance when available but can be handled in a variety of different (and structurally similar) ways. Books as a technology have been doing block level linking for centuries; in that context it's called footnotes. In more specialized and frequently referenced settings like scholarship on Plato there is Stephanus pagination or chapter and verse numberings in biblical studies. Roam and Logseq aren't really innovating here.

Similarly your OLE example is a clever and useful affordance, but could be gotten around by providing an equation that is carried out by hand and done each time it's needed---sure it may take more time, but it's doable in every system. This may actually be useful in some contexts as then one would have the time sequences captured and logged in their files for later analysis and display. These affordances are things which may make things easier and simpler in some cases, but they generally don't change the root structure of what is happening. Digital search is an example of a great affordance, except in cases when it returns thousands of hits which then need to be subsequentlly searched. Short indexing methods with pen and paper can be done more quickly in some cases to do the same search because one's notes can provide a lot of other contextual clues (colored cards, wear on cards, physical location of cards, etc.) that a pure digital search does not. I often can do manual searches through 30,000 index cards more quickly and accurately than I can through an equivalent number of digital notes.

There is a structural equivalence between folders and tags/links in many programs. This is more easily seen in digital contexts where a folder can be programatically generated by executing a search on a string or tag which then results in a "folder" of results. These searches are a quick affordance versus actively maintaining explicit folders otherwise, but the same result could be had even in pen and paper contexts with careful indexing and manual searches (which may just take longer, but it doesn't mean that they can't be done.) Edge-notched cards were heavily used in the mid-20th century to great effect for doing these sorts of searches.

When people here are asking or talking about a variety of note taking programs, the answer almost always boils down to which one you like best because, in large part, a zettlkasten can be implemented in all of them. Some may just take more work and effort or provide fewer shortcuts or affordances.

reply to u/JeffB1517 at https://old.reddit.com/r/Zettelkasten/comments/1ilvvnc/you_need_to_first_define_the_zettlekasten_methoda/mc0f8ip/

Explain your definition of hierarchical reference system. How is one note in his system higher, better, or more important than another? Where do you see hierarchies?

Infinitely long notes can easily be excerpted down to smaller sizes and filed, so that portion of your argument doesn't track.

Luhmann had what some call "hub notes" and the ability to remove cards and rearrange them to suit his compositional needs and later refile them. This directly emulates the similar ideas of MOCs, whiteboards, and mind maps. Victor Margolin's example quickly shows how this is done in practice.

If there weren't direct mappings, it should be impossible to copy & paste Luhmann's notes into Obsidian, Logseq, OneNote, Evernote, Excel, or even Wikipedia. This is not the case. You might get slightly different personal affordances out of these tools or perhaps better speed and in other cases even less speed or worse review patterns of your notes, but in ultimate form they are identical and will ultimately allow you to accomplish all of the same end results.

We might argue about efficiencies, affordances, or speed, but at the end of the day they're all still structurally similar.

Introduction to Luhmann's Zettelkasten by [[Yann Herklotz]]

https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupid?key=olbp70294

References source: http://www.celtic-twilight.com/camelot/bruce_dictionary/index.htm which can be found on the Internet Archive (original site is dead) at.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170522152947/http://www.celtic-twilight.com/camelot/bruce_dictionary/index.htm

https://www.ted.com/talks/matt_ridley_when_ideas_have_sex

Here's the reference for TB, from our discussion

mention

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._(Dorst_novel)?

This was mentioned to me at an IndieWebCamp event today.

Seems interesting with respect to the meta portions of books.

Looks like the sort of thing that @remikalir and @anterobot may be interested in.

In Praise of (Foot- End- Etc.) Notes<br /> by [[Ross Gay]] on September 21, 2023

esp. "mycelial love note"

John Hodgson Wrote a 166 Page Footnote on Diplograph

["It's Friday. Have some history.

So you know Hadrian's Wall? Well for over 1000 years everyone thought it was built by someone else.

Until, in 1840, John Hodgson, an unknown Northumbrian clergyman published the LONGEST footnote in history.

Read on... /1 https://t.co/HNU4EU9qBL" / X](https://x.com/garius/status/1570771789827166208) by [[John Bull]] on Twitter

Full thread at: <br /> https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1570771789827166208.html

Hurd, Cuthbert C., ed. Proceedings: IBM Computation Seminar December 1949. New York: Internation Buisiness Machines Corporation, 1951. http://archive.org/details/bitsavers_ibmproceedeminarDec49_14295048.

In a variety of context here the idea of "cards" could be held to be synonymous with "notes".

Collision cards (though used in a physics setting) could be a bit hilarious with the idea of "atomic notes" and the idea of "combinatorial creativity".

Inspired by https://archive.org/details/bitsavers_ibmpunched3SorterDec59_4145011/page/n23/mode/2up

The older note taking tradition of using cards of equal size became much more important in the era of edge-notched and punched cards. Standardization came to be of an even higher level of importance.

https://www.reddit.com/r/typewriters/comments/1ijiwn0/hermes_10_repair/

Interesting to see them quote Vannevar Bush right at the top here, while they're using paper-based technology to move toward the Memex.

Brand names of some common edge-notched cards

An indication of the state-of-the-art in punch card systems from 1951 to 1958, particularly with respect to practical applications.

Casey, Robert S., James W. Perry, Madeline M. Berry, and Allen Kent. Punched Cards: Their Applications To Science And Industry. 2nd ed. 1951. Reprint, New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation, 1958. http://archive.org/details/PunchedCardsTheirApplicationsToScienceAndIndustry.

Begun, George M. “Making Your Own Punched Cards.” Journal of Chemical Education 32, no. 6 (June 1, 1955): 328. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed032p328.

George Begun used a template of "heavy galvanized iron" to drill holes into his 5 x 8" index cards to create his own edge-noted card system for use in his chemistry work. Rather than using commercially made sorting needles, he recommended the use of a ice pick with a dulled point "for safety".

https://gist.github.com/judell/b651640dbe9bf7d01e157e9a1ef60a66

https://selectric.org/selectric/

https://www.rilko.org/

Replacing the Carriage on a Royal Portable Typewriter by [[Marty Morren]]

https://www.m-morren.nl/product/17071027/royal-bearing-guide-ball-feeder-tool

Triumph Adler Tippa / Tippa S / Contessa De Luxe Service Manual - T.A. Vertriebs-GmbH Nürnberg<br /> by [[T.A. Vertriebs-GmbH Nürnberg]]

Typewriter Video Series - Episode 231: Petite Toy Typewriter by [[Joe Van Cleave]]

Edge-Notched Cards: A queryable database...made of paper by [[Soren Bjornstad]]

https://www.etsy.com/listing/943701460/border-punched-cards-vintage-edge-punch