If you don't need collab, give Trilium a try. It's IMO better than notion at keeping things organized (notion lets you create types/objects as "databases", but craps at polymorphism, i.e. extending and specializing those types). I really don't need the bling of notion/capacities/obsidian if they can't manage consistent data, and Trilium works offline, too, and is impressively hackable.
Plus, trilium has a self-hostable sync/web server. The data is stored in a database but you have the option to export as markdown/HTML.
Only issue is that its maintained privately by one person. I take this as a plus but it does mean that theirs a bus factor of one (unless someone else forks it).
yup, there's a legit bus factor question, but it's not totally a one person's job either having a healthy stream of contributions (some even as code). What makes it even less a concern for me is that the scope of the software is clear and finite, its implementation mature with no major feature missing and it has a sound design. Boring is good in this area as far as I'm concerned.
I've been using Logseq for a while, which seems kind of in the same general category of tools as Trilium. I like it a lot, but mostly use it for disorganized note-jotting. In reality I know it is highly extensible and configurable for more advanced use cases.
I wouldn't put Trilium and Logseq in the same bucket, I spent quite some time with Logseq (and Obsidian, and SiYuan, and Joplin, and Anytype and some commercial offerings like Notion) before settling with Trilium, so I can pretend having quite the comprehensive view round the topic.
How I would describe Logseq is that it's an outliner (it relinquishes the concept of folders in favour of pages containing nested blocks inheriting form their parent's block/page properties). It's possible to structure information hierarchically using (hierarchical) tags/page prefixes, and it's possible to use templates to instantiates new pages with predefined attributes, but Logseq metadata model is manually managed and potentially (probably) inconsistent: changing a template definition won't change its page instances, defining a parent block/page attribute without a value doesn't imply/suggests that its children will override/provide a value for it… Maintaining libraries of "things" (people, locations, events, …) is a manual job, and it didn't take me long to realize that the tool was giving me more work to do than was helping with it.
Contrast that with Trilium, which has even simpler and more effective principles: everything is a note, and notes can be nested. Notes can carry (optionally inheritable) attributes, in such a way that all metadata within a subtree are guaranteed to have attributes and properties from their parents (e.g. all notes within "People" can have "Name" and "Date of Birth" attributes), and, as expected, adding after the fact new properties to the parent automatically propagates to the children. Polymorphism (notes specialization) can be achieved following the same principle by placing notes under dedicated hierarchies (e.g. "Colleague" can be a subnote of "Persons" with specific properties like "Department" and a constant value for "Company"). Notes can co-exist (like symlinks) in multiple hierarchies at the same time (so you are not bound to a "top-down" or "linear" organizational model). And on top of that you can create new notes (and notes hierarchies) by composition instead of by inheritance (like "traits composition") by defining a note as having multiple templates. Trilium makes all that spontaneous (doesn't get in the way), explicit (you can easily explain why things are the way they are) and flexible in case you later find a more suitable structure for your notes.
tl;dr: the sync/live editing is very impressive, and that's encouraging if it ever wants to become a collaborative tool (would I ever have the need for one), but the way attributes are managed is manual and inconsistent.
A reply to my comment says that they are putting some thought into the problem, so I'll definitely keep an eye on them and see what they come up with.
At their place, I would:
- do away with the current templates implementation, it lets you define attributes at template (=representation) level and at type (=model) level simultaneously. I'm also unconvinced that a type needs multiple competing ways to be represented
- consider organizing types as hierarchies with attributes inheritance as a core principle. Done right, it could address one of notion's biggest shortcomings and be a more approachable Tana's "supertag"
- consider letting template blocks be annotated as to prevent type instances/objects to change their layout too much (that's something Trilium doesn't have due to its rudimentary editor and which I sometimes miss), this could also be used to configure how inheriting types could alter (or not) the base type's layout
- imposing all new objects to be typed or at least suggesting a type to derive from. Changing the type of an object isn't easy (I don't remember if even possible), so it's probably good to encourage the user thinking about it upfront
The combination of fake listings, ghosting, and generic emails that provide no feedback seems almost designed to hold them back. There are a few tricks to learn, but without insider knowledge, they may remain undiscovered.
I spend over 20 hours a week searching, tailoring my resume, and submitting applications, only to receive minimal responses. This is demoralizing, not to mention the stress from diminished income.
And those same employers will scream from the mountaintops that workers don't exist and the only solution is to import more labor from places that just happen to have far lower wages.
In fact some employers will create listings with very specific requirements they have no intention of filling so that they can site it during visa applications.
I actually don't know if this is still a thing, but it was absolutely happening back in the early 2000s. In order to sponsor a TN visa you needed to show several months of trying to find local talent to fill the position. The only proof you actually needed was dated classified ads.
Most employment-based green cards for people already in the country require a fake job listing. If a company is willing to go through the trouble of sponsoring a green card for an existing employee, they are obviously not interested in hiring a replacement. But the government makes them pretend they are, because there are no other ways of keeping the employee.
There are some exceptions, such as EB-1s and tenure-track faculty positions, but fake job ads are the norm.
This reminds me of how things sometimes work in totalitarian states. Some everyday things are effectively impossible to do by the rules. The government does not enforce the rules, because it wants the activity to continue. But when they decide they don't like someone, they can start enforcing selectively and show that the undesirable person is breaking the law.
> Job seekers are facing a broken, emergent system.
This is not an 'emergent' thing - it was this way 20+ years ago when I was starting out. The most important thing I've learned in that time is that all of my best jobs come through people I know.
I've gotten a grand total of one job in 26 years from a 'blind' application, and that was working for a local government who had a very strict interview process.
Build your network, work your network. Read The Proximity Principle by Ken Coleman if you need some direction and inspiration.
Emergent? Hardly. Employers love it this way. I'm not saying there's a centrally-coordinated conspiracy at play, but there's certainly very little incentive for any individual employer to "defect" from the current equilibrium.
Do they? Everyone I know in recruiting is stressed out of their minds wading through thousands of applications, meanwhile it's taking 6+ months to even get a double-digit amount of interviews with vaguely qualified candidates for important roles that we were offering pretty good salaries for.
I really don't get the feeling, internally or externally, that most companies are happy with the current situation either. What sort of "defection" do you think they could be doing that would make things better? I interviewed recently with a company that, in my mind, did everything right in terms of an easy and honest interview process, upfront salary and benefits info, all that. I barely got time with the recruiter for it because they had 20+ screens that day because they were swamped with applicants.
It sounds kind of like the online dating dynamic: One side spams requests into the void, knowing they're going to get MAYBE a 0.1% response rate, and the other side is inundated with requests and are overwhelmed with the task of sorting through the 99.9% unacceptable ones. Everyone is looking for drinkable water. Candidates are in a desert with no water in sight and employers are in a swamp full of water--none of it drinkable.
If they do not disclose credentials, and they are defrauding and/or identity-thefting and thereby sabotaging one, is one fairly regarded as hostile and what is a fair use of force in self defense?
Scenario: A harasses/assails/defrauds/identity_thefts/sabotages B. (A does not disclose any credential of legal authority to B, who has the right to check the validity of A's credentials if claimed as material prior to such altercation.) Given self-defense right due to the initial positive hostile action of A, B is not legally obligated to request that the or a state pursue Due Process against A in the immediate or before the Statute of Limitations.
So, if someone is defrauding you, you have the right to self defense (and also Equal Protection of your Equal Rights).
What's the warrant supposed to do? If you don't want to talk to police, don't. If they have arrested you on probable cause, their having a warrant is the least of your concern.
> The service has gone completely down hill for me the last few months. The app is the buggiest it has ever been. I've been overcharged more time than I can count, and customer service is practically impossible to actually get in touch with.
I’m going to assume that both you and the OP are engaging in this in good faith. I am thoroughly in the “legislating encryption is basically outlawing math” camp and believe it’ll be highly ineffective at accomplishing any of its goals. However…
Get a warrant for what exactly? On, say, an iPhone where you can have reasonably secured encryption-at-rest for your data (the entire disk is encrypted using an AES key that is protected by your passcode and that key is destroyed after too many failed attempts), simply getting a warrant to take physical possession of the device doesn’t really provide any evidentiary value. In the US and many other jurisdictions (but not the UK from what I recall), courts generally can’t compel someone to reveal their passcode. The E2E keys are stored encrypted at rest as well.
My thoughts are there are hardly any good police officers.
I think if any officer saw another doing anything illegal or would get them in trouble, 99% of the time they wouldn’t report them. The Blue Wall is real.
There has been substantial evidence of police hiding or deliberately not reporting misconduct from their colleagues, often because of fear of reprisals -- which absolutely is part of the system being objectively wrong.
Yes.
Some experiences need friction. For example I do not automate any bills. Each of them are paid manually (with a few exceptions like subscription services)
I want to see, feel, know and understand what is happening behind the curtain when it comes to my hard earned assets.
