760: Production Workflow Check-In

[Bmosbacker]

How did I not know there was an extension option under the security settings? Well, I learned something important from you, thanks!! I made the change and Tot, along with a few other apps , now show up.

[MitchWagner]

I feel you. I write in Obsidian, transfer to either a web CMS or Word, and am not satisfied with the process.

[brookter]

I didn’t know either… but I knew that it was possible somehow, so just poked around till I found it, eventually. It’s not particularly logical for it not to be available from the share menu itself…

[coupler]

i love Macsparky. his soothing voice (even at 2.5x speed which is my norm) reminds me of a history prof I had at University who was responsible for bringing Apple products across the campus to all labs and faculty offices. His knowledge of the ecosystem and of complex implementations to solve simple workflows is truly amazing.

I can thank MacSparky for my discovery of Drafts.

• coupled with a Watch complication, a single touch captures my voice and records my thoughts about something in real time.
• Pro subscription lets me send my thoughts effortlessly to the right app for the right workflow

I can thank MacSparky for my discovery of Obsidian.

• when Evernote doubled their price, and another year without any useful features, after they terminated the entire original staff
• i fled to Notion for its seamless and comprehensive migration tool, and used it for my PARA archive according to Tiago’s BASB methods.
• i used Obsidian as my text editor, and its vault hierarchy for my active files (the “PAR” of PARA).

BUT HIERARCHICAL FILE STRUCTURES LIMIT OUR MINDS

• Apple had it right in the 90’s with Newton Message Pad OS’s “data soups”
• they even tried to fix it with “aliases” and “publish and subscribe”
• wikipedia and mediawiki got it right with flat files and tags
• why can’t most people make sense of it, no matter how many iterations we get of flat-file systems?
• we keep designing and building and stubbornly sticking to our old habits of folders and files inside them
• but our minds don’t work that way - we think in relationships and links

ENTER CAPACITIES.IO - THE GAME CHANGER

• it’s “Obsidian for dummies”.
• simple objects and templates for concepts we’re all used to
• an object model that matches how humans think
• a brilliant training content creator who presents concepts in a way that just makes sense, FINALLY
• it enables the transformation of humans from consumers to Makers
• it’s like the film “Limitless” but without the blue pill
• honestly, i could probably go back to Obsidian now and build the right model, now that I know the best implementaiton
• but I won’t. these folks are talented and, partnered with a huge community of devoted “believers”, they continue to polish and iterate on a simple UX

I can’t wait to see what they do next!

[Bmosbacker]

It’s frustrating isn’t it!

[FrMichaelFanous]

@coupler

we keep designing and building and stubbornly sticking to our old habits of folders and files inside them

My theory on this is just that maybe was the first method we were exposed to?

Ancient Egypt

• clay tablets stored in clay jars (files/folders)

Ancient China

• paper stored by 'binding together" (books) but also (files in a folder)

Medieval Times

• manuscripts kept in monasteries or libraries
• usually sorted by subject matter or date?

Industrial Revolution

• alphabetical or numerical filing?
• dewey decimal system? (could be the first attempt at flat-file depending how you argue?)

Modern

• paper and then digital
• storage of files in some kind of material (cardboard, vinyl, plastic, envelope) cabinets and then computer
• rolodex…separates ‘files’ contacts with dividers / folders?

I almost want to bank the fact that we visually see a ‘folder icon’ on a computer, still keeps us in this mentality of file and folder hierarchies. My list is an extremely over-simplification, but I love the post you mentioned.

Somewhere we are mentally processing from “document” lives in a “location” to…this document can live in multiple locations and needs to be linked somehow. (i.e. tags)

[FrMichaelFanous]

@coupler

ENTER CAPACITIES.IO - THE GAME CHANGER

This looks like a hybrid of Obsidian and Notion

[Cindy]

@coupler

but our minds don’t work that way - we think in relationships and links

That’s not how my brain works.

I think, “Where did I put that thing I wrote?” and I need it to be in a folder so I can find it when I need it, not when I stumble across a link to it in some other file.

I’m not saying that linking is bad–in fact it’s useful–but it can’t be my ONLY method of accessing my data. If it is, that data is as good as lost for me.

[MitchWagner]

What you said.

Hierarchical folder structures don’t limit our minds. They provide structure to our thought.

If folders don’t work for you, then don’t use them. But they do work for many of us — and folders (and other forms of hierarchical containers) have worked since literally the invention of writing, 5,000 years ago.

That said: At some point, I’ll give Capacities a try. Maybe I can figure out a way to provide the same capabilities that I get in folders.

My work involves creating distinct projects, and folders are a great way to organize materials for each individual project.

[chrisecurtis]

There’s a heck of a lot of serious research which suggests that we construct “mental maps” (i.e. we are using parts of our brains that are also used to find our way around the world we know) which we use to access things we have learnt (whether skills or knowledge) AND to store new learning.

Part of that mental map-making is associative: the “linking your thinking” idea. We find a place FROM another place. Part of that map-making is locational (i.e. we know “where” something is) and for efficiency we “chunk” things i.e. we put them into a hierarchy of “boxes” which we have also constructed. We don’t have to think about where every relevant piece of knowledge or skill is located but only what category or sub-category it is likely to be in.

How we choose to organise files on our computers is only very loosely related to how any mind works, but it is extremely unlikely to be successful if it is as reductive as saying there is only one way to organise anything. Machines work better the fewer processes they are running. With their inherent and dynamic complexity, human minds do lots of things all at the same time, with very limited conscious control of any of the processes involved and are likely to work better if they are allowed to work their own way, rather than trying to stick to one “system” that denies the other processes involved.

TLDR: it’s good to organise things in more than one way: folders AND links AND tags.

[MitchWagner]

I’ve been messing with Capacities this weekend and I am seriously considering switching.

"Capacities: A Studio for Your Mind"

I spent a few hours exploring Capacities this weekend but I’m not quite ready to make the switch. I’m entrenched in Obsidian. Convince me, please. I have a group of friends who roll their eyes at my frequent productivity-app switches. Let’s give them something to talk about.