This organization is going out of the way to avoid spraying insecticides. It seems far more effective than increasing predators because ecosystems tend to adapt to predation.
Remarkable 2 is pretty good, though last time I used it the search feature for large pdfs was pretty janky. The BOOX eink devices are also perfectly fine; they're really just android tablets with a special build of android for eink devices. Those are the ones I've used personally.
Pocket Book still makes eink ereaders, though. Is there something wrong with their offerings if you stuck with one of their products for 15 years?
I’ll also take a look at the newer pocket books - I only stuck so long with my old one because it worked perfectly fine and there was no reason to get a new device.
PineNote isn't really a consumer device. PINE64 has made it abundantly clear that the PineNote is a developer playground device; they're waiting on the community to refine the software support and flesh out the ecosystem for it.
Given that Terry described the manic episodes as "a revelation from God" I think theopneustos is an accurate description. It just means "God Breathed" or "Inspired by God"
Given how simple TCL is you would probably write a parser in a day...
JimTCL (jimsh interpreter) is not 100% TCL compatible and I just used 'source qcomplex.tcl' from it's big brother TCL and now I can do complex number operations in the spot. With just a simple file, no libraries, no nothing.
With the advent of computing, the term plaintext expanded beyond human-readable documents to mean any data, including binary files, in a form that can be viewed or used without requiring a key or other decryption device. Information—a message, document, file, etc.—if to be communicated or stored in an unencrypted form is referred to as plaintext.
Unencrypted information that may be input to an encryption operation. Note: Plain text is not a synonym for clear text. See clear text.
Intelligible data that has meaning and can be understood without the application of decryption.
Unfortunately no, Unicode is not simply a mapping of bytes to characters. It is a mapping of numbers to code points, and in some cases you can even get the same characters with multiple code point sequences (not a very good mapping!). Then you need to convert numbers to bytes, so aside from Unicode you also need an encoding. And there are multiple choices. So what would be "plain text" then? UTF-16? UTF-8? If so, with or without BOM? It can't be all of them. For something to really be "plain text" it has to be the same thing to everyone...
> Unfortunately no, Unicode is not simply a mapping of bytes to characters. It is a mapping of numbers to code points, and in some cases you can even get the same characters with multiple code point sequences (not a very good mapping!).
It is worse than that; you can also get different characters with the same code points, and also same code points and characters that should be different according to some uses, and also different code points and characters that should be same according to some uses, etc.
Forth is at this point more of a culture than a language. It's a culture about keeping designs simple so that they're understandable. Without this, Forth is only powerful for programmers who can keep a lot in their heads, but lots of Forth programs end up being write-once. Moore's view, as well as most other high-level Forthers preach simplicity above all; a code cleanliness that would make Uncle Bob blush.
Lean and most type theoretic-based languages don't merely preach simplicity, they demand it. A function or type with a handful of terms or constructors might be provably inhabited/total, whereas one with 2 handfuls of terms or constructors might not be in a reasonable amount of time due to the exponential growth of the proof space. Factoring code optimally for provability yields the simplicity that Forth programmers are striving for.
> Forth is at this point more of a culture than a language.
As the saying goes, once you've seen one Forth, then you've seen one Forth.
I've mucked around with my own Forths in the past, including one that recognises lexical type, so you could build something like a parser in Forth. I didn't take it that far. Forth is normally conceived as being built from the ground up, but if you're you're going to implement it in C or C++ then you can be more imaginative.
I played around with colorforth for 5 minutes on a couple of occasions, but I ran away screaming. What - just what - the hell is going on? I'm sure it all works for Charles Moore, but for mere mortals it might as well be a klingon control panel.
I think Moore effectively gave up on programming a couple of years ago? There was some strange modification in the guts of Windows and he couldn't get his environment to work any longer. He concluded that the game was not work the candle.
The credit goes to Luhmann. Ahrens wrote a book about Luhmann's system, but Ahrens' book was more about the practical side of study habits and the nature of knowledge as much as it was about the practical side of actually using a zettelkasten.
I bought Ahrens's book to learn how to take smart notes. It should've been called Why to Take Smart Notes. The book was more about how good and lifechanging it is to use Zettelkasten, which was a bummer because I was already interested enough in the idea to buy a book about it. I was looking for more of a how-to.
Edit: Upon a quick scan, this looks more like what I learned as "Linking Your Thinking", which resonates way more with me than a strict Zettelkasten format where you try to arrange notes linearly to match some artificial constraint.
And I think that's a good thing, just not how Ahrens described Zettelkasten.
I wanted to like Linking Your Thinking, but while I found the ACE concept novel and intriguing, it didn't really fit my brain. (And while certainly a point of style, Nick Milo's presentation method somewhat grated on me). I ended up with a combination of PARA and Jonny Decimal. I actually wrote a big long conversation with Claude to recommend a methodology. I talked about what I liked about Zettelkasten, ACE, PARA, and where I had issues implementing, adhering, and how I found myself using things, and it actually came up with a fairly decent starting point.
Yes that is fair, I adjusted and simplified the system for my usage. I didn't include any of the note "phases" / transitions, so e.g. no fleeting notes.
That wasn't the issue. The problem was that most of Windows system utilities are not managed, but the WPF move was trying to make a patchwork quilt of managed vs. unmanaged utilities, making the entire system very difficult to reason about and introducing regressions constantly. From the Windows Team's perspective, the .NET people just made a mess out of everything they touched.
Perhaps if WPF really did stay at the presentation level, or used VMs or something to keep it away from the Windows core, it would have panned out better. But is it goes with "paradigm shifts", when a company thinks it has a great idea, it wants to suddenly do that great idea everywhere.
reply