Do I hoard notes/links? Yes.

Do I struggle to turn them into actions? No.

Do I struggle to keep them organized for later reference? All the time.

Do I use Obsidian? No.

I actually use Joplin, which I switched to after deciding I needed to dump Evernote. And before then (and somewhat simultaneously with), I used a pile of disorganized text files (sometimes shared via DropBox).

That’s a really clear split: “actions are fine, reference organization is the pain” — and Joplin/text files is a very real workflow.

If the goal is later reference (not task generation), the most useful thing to validate for me is: what “organized” means in practice for you. Is the biggest failure mode:

1. you can’t find it because you don’t remember the right keywords, or

2. you remember it exists but it’s scattered across too many places/notebooks, or

3. you find it but it’s missing the surrounding context?

Details in my HN profile/bio if you want to see the angle I’m exploring (it’s not only Obsidian-specific).

Mostly some version of 2. Or more specifically, I have a lot of top-level note documents with somewhat clear titles and organizations. And then there are a lot of "thing to remember" snippets that frequently have no obvious place, and are often related to the greater topic of multiple note documents.

One pattern that may help (without heavy re-org) is to treat those snippets as first-class items with a stable home, and only link them out:

- keep an “inbox / snippets” note (or a single folder) where every orphan snippet goes

- give each snippet a short, searchable handle (one line title)

- add 1–2 lightweight links: related topics, and optionally “why it matters / when I’d need this”

Then when you’re in a top-level doc, you can embed/query “snippets linked to this topic” instead of trying to decide the perfect location for each one.

In your case, are those “things to remember” mostly time-bound (follow up, renew, schedule), or more like evergreen reference (commands, ideas, reminders)?

And I'm reading this article while sitting at an EMC/EMI test facility monitoring the test for one of my products. Certainly an interesting, and somewhat on-topic, read.

I still think there's a benefit to sticking with EVs from companies that are actually "all in" on EVs. Otherwise you're buying the product that the company (or really the sales/service channel) really doesn't want to sell you.

In this space, Tesla does have competition (e.g. Rivian and Lucid), but nowhere near as much as they should.

I'm very happy that the "base model" of cars now has a lot of the modern tech. Not because I'd personally buy a base model, but because its what you get whenever you travel and need to rent something.

In the past, when traveling, I'd be shocked at just how bare the rental cars were compared to my normal home experience. Fortunately that's no longer the case.

Its also useful for developers to have a way of bypassing customer support to have direct visibility into what issues the actual users are experiencing. This can come in the form of browsing tickets, online forums, or social media.

Often something that's easily brushed off by a support rep will ring a bell in the mind of a developer who has recently worked in the area of the code related to the issue.

The last time I worked on a project that actually had all these roles, "architect" basically meant someone who sat in meetings all day and played very little role in the actual software development of the project.

There were plenty of times where it would have been useful to have someone providing real architecture/design guidance, but no such person functionally existed.

The Seawolf was kinda the first attempt at a next generation attack sub while we were still figuring out the technology, making it far too expensive. But it led to the Virginia class, which has gone into mainstream production.

In some ways there's a similar situation with the F-22 vs F-35, though those two may have a bit more of a difference on roles and requirements.

This might be an unpopular opinion, but I'll take a car infotainment system that doesn't need CarPlay/AndroidAuto to be usable (and lacks it) over one that requires a phone attached via CarPlay/AndroidAuto to be usable.

I use Android Auto on rental cars all the time.

My daily driver is a Tesla (Model S /w MCU v2) that doesn't have it. And doesn't need it to provide a usable experience.

If the software has the same library as your phone, then I could why you see it as on par.

Android Automotive has a much smaller library than Android Auto, so the selection for audio apps, such as podcasts and music, are much more limited. The options for map software is smaller too. Also Android Automotive doesn't necessarily use your phone's existing internet connection. Depending on the maker, you have to subscribe to a separate data plan.

I've only rented Teslas but I can see how most people would consider CP/AA to be unnecessary given the quality of their integrated software. But for me, the two things Tesla can't do (and CP/AA can) is

1. Waze;

2. My preferred third-party podcasting app.

The endless list of "exception" cases is why I'm continuous skeptical about any sort of full-self-driving claims.

Sure, you can cover everything they can think of. But there are so many cases you can't predict, or which don't have an obvious solution, and it often comes down to a human judgement call that doesn't always have a programmatically-clear right answer.

> There is nothing fun about sitting in traffic on your commute to/from work, and neither there is much fun in doing long-distance driving in a straight line on highway for hours on end

And I wish this would be more broadly recognized. Every time there's a story about someone important freaking out about something related to autonomous driving, I'm at least somewhat afraid they'll use it as justification to deny me access to it for those specific use cases.

And honestly, those are the only use cases I really care about or feel comfortable with right now. Of course my car is also too old to support much more than that.

First, no, it wasn't solved. In fact, many tech companies that previously allowed remote work went back on it. Technically yes, I can "solve my commute" by taking a very significant pay cut (more than 50%), in addition to limiting my career prospects overall (or get lucky to get hired by the few competitively-paying top tech companies that still stand by remote work, which would still significantly limit my career just to those few companies). That's a proposal/trade-off that a lot of people would reasonably consider unacceptable.

Second, do you realize that remote work isn't an option for a significant majority of types of jobs? In fact, even if we lived in some magical world where every single software dev suddenly switched to remote work, it would barely make a dent. Janitors, doctors/nurses, school teachers, etc., those jobs just by nature don't allow for remote work.