These days, the only question I have to ask myself is "in what context do I want to rediscover this note?". For example, I don't usually sit around thinking: "Didn't we discuss this SSH-related problem with Jeffrey and Anna back in May? Let me go to the may-2024 folder of my notes and grep through them...". Instead, I would just go to either of these notes titled: 'ssh' or 'Jeffrey' or 'Anna' and search for backlinks, where I will surely find my notes related to that discussion, even if they're spread out across multiple days and many notes in multiple places. And it doesn't really matter where specific notes are - which file, what nested hierarchy of headings, etc.
Zettelkasten really does work. You just need a quick an easy way of cross-linking different notes. I highly recommend this little book called 'How to Take Smart Notes', it's fairly small, you can go through it within an hour or so. And remember the famous quote of Richard Feynman: "Notes aren't a record of my thinking process. They are my thinking process"... If you don't find a good way of taking notes, you won't be doing a good job of thinking.
(EDIT: Similarly, over the years I had a few cases of some TODOs I forgot about because I accidentally made a whole subtree stop parsing with a stray character. Rare as it is, I'm beginning to wonder if I shouldn't switch to modal editing a la vim, as those mistakes tend to happen when moving through the outline with "speed keys".)
In general, Org works well for me, but damn if the fragility of plaintext doesn't bite me every now and then.
For that, I have .dir-locals.el file in the root of my notes folder with a single line: ((org-mode . ((eval git-auto-commit-mode 1))))
Even if I accidentally make a change, there's always trackable history
Do you run org-lint on the save hook? I wonder if that'd be too distracting, or if it can be done silently unless some errors detected.
How can I install org-roam? Looks difficult.
Org-mode by itself, if you've never used Emacs before, can certainly be challenging - it has too many features. One of the best overviews of the Org-mode's built-in features is Rainer König's playlist on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVtKhBrRV_ZkPnBtt_TD1... He also has a Udemy course https://www.udemy.com/course/getting-yourself-organized-with..., but I've never tried it myself - by the time he published it, I was already well-versed in Org-mode features.
Besides these, Org-mode is extendable with other packages. I, for example do my pdf-annotations, presentations, anki-card editing, http endpoints testing, dotfile management and many other things in Org-mode.
Tangentially,
> I have over 30,000 tasks in my Org Mode overall. 23,000 of them are TODOs. Several thousand of them are still currently open. I'm never gonna see them all. Even if I wanted to, I'm never gonna see them all.
Now pretend that I cut and cut but can't bring myself to reduce x.txt to less than, say, 50 items, every one essential to complete by today. What do I do then? I copy x.txt to y.txt, and reduce x.txt to just what I plan to do for the next 4 hours. If that's still too long, I copy y.txt to z.txt, x.txt to y.txt, and reduce x.txt again. You could always start lower in the alphabet (a.txt) if you want more "space".
You get the idea. The point is, with text files, if it's got too much in it, create a backup version of that file and cut it down to size. Repeat as necessary until your todo list is manageably long.
If the approach is to let low priority items roll over, that just seems like a recipe for dropping the ball.
Are people getting through 133 items in a day? That's 216 seconds per item.
As someone who has compulsively accumulated lengthy to-do lists and buckled beneath the phantom of hopes and intentions of varying importance and ambition I find it enlightening that the possibility of completing a task other than those that are important enough to not have to write down to begin with can be measured by their meaningfulness and address according to this measure.
I gather that the .0050% of information that I consume daily is what is of the greatest priority and the remaining 99.995% is synthesized and iterated over the next day until it reemerges as something important. I suspect that Wiegley completes on average about 5 important things each day. This sounds like a solid baseline.
This is to say, if you don't keep on top of current work, the agenda view quickly turns into an ever growing wall of shame.
I have a pretty weird love-hate relationship with it because of that.
Maybe the 133 items are 120 items of one minute work each, and the rest are conditional or optional task you will not do that day.
He links to https://github.com/brabalan/org-review - what is that? What is org mode and org mode review? What is a sketchnote and how do you create one?
Seems org-review is one such extension.
And a sketchnote is a visual note, something where you draw/sketch your information. Basically a more freestyle diagram or something to tell a short story.
I use Autosync on android and a script that runs on my laptop. This works great for the text files, but the attachments/data files (say like screenshots) are a pain to find and open on mobile. Second, they're even more painful to add from mobile.
I'm fine with quite elaborate set ups if it solves this problem.
Realistically, I dont see the mobile experience improving much. Given Emacs' utility though I dont mind it.
Then projects, todos, agenda items etc can go from TODO -> DEFER and I know that they're "not now" items. That has seemed sufficient for me. Tracking exactly when they're reviewed has been too much, and not everything needs a scheduled time in the future for review.
But I know the feeling. I've seen videos about people who have special physical filing cabinets for notecards that take up an entire tabletop. They have to figure out how to number these things, which can open up a can of worms and lots of differing opinions.
This can seem farcical at times. Sometimes the knowledge-management world can seem like a manifestation of OCD or perfectionism.
But to be clear, I don't want to discount in any way that such approaches could work for many people on many projects. My general take is that if a person is being mindful about the _effort in_ versus _benefit out_, they'll probably end up in a pretty good place.
For YouTubers in a niche of a niche, sometimes there is a positive feedback loop to just go deeper down the rabbit hole. For example, once a content creator has "committed" to a paper-only Zettelkasten system, what are the chances they are going to "mellow out" and move to a hybrid paper+digital system?
>This can seem farcical at times. Sometimes the knowledge-management world can seem like a manifestation of OCD or perfectionism.
>But to be clear, I don't want to discount in any way that such approaches could work for many people on many projects. My general take is that if a person is being mindful about the _effort in_ versus _benefit out_, they'll probably end up in a pretty good place.
>My general take is that if a person is being mindful about the _effort in_ versus _benefit out_, they'll probably end up in a pretty good place.
:(> special physical filing cabinets for notecards
It sounds like you're a bit dismissive of it. The creator of this system Luhmann was a very prolific writer [0] which he credited to this system.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann#Note-taking_sys...
More like having every intention to achieve glorious victory in battle with your sword, but never getting to it as you keep finding ways to make the sword even sharper. That's legitimate trap, yes.
Most are so afraid of this trap, that they just live on the battlefield and keep fighting with their dull, wooden swords; when asked if they heard about sharpening - or steel - they mumble some quotes from Arthur C. Clarke's story, "Superiority". And it's true, many people fall into this trap. Some are never heard from again. But then others occasionally share their sword designs and sharpening tricks, which end up improving weapons for the whole army. Then there are those who pop in and out, tinkering in the field, upgrading their blades until they become rocket propelled chainsaws or other weird shit.
The truth is, if you're not satisfied with your Army Standard Issue Sword and want something better, you'll need to fall into this trap once or twice. That's how you learn how to upgrade your own gear.
Or, in short: exploration vs. exploitation tradeoff. If you want to get shit done, you need to find a good balance. Maximizing either of the two is a failure.