TIP: When asking for advice in relation to knowledge management, note-taking, etc., be sure to ask for precise details regarding commenters' solutions. There are many people who participate in these discussions who don't seem to take a lot of notes (e.g., one file or paper notepad for all of their notes!).
I have a personal knowledge base that currently includes almost 7,000 files in which I store my notes. I take notes on everything. Every technology. Every project. Every meeting. Every product I evaluate. EVERYTHING.
My notes are stored in Org files that I edit with Emacs and Org mode[1]. Org files are written using a feature-rich lightweight markup language[2] that is much more powerful than Markdown (which is used by other note-taking tools like Obsidian). For example, Org supports plain text spreadsheets[3], a feature I love.
People tend to disqualify Org and say, "I don't use Emacs," while assuming that Emacs users choose Org because we already use Emacs. But I started using Emacs specifically for Org, not programming.
Regardless of which tool you end up using, consider organizing your note files using hierarchical tagging. I started using hierarchical tagging for my notes right after Wikipedia launched and I saw how effectively hierarchical tagging was being used there. Each Wikipedia article can belong to multiple categories, and each category can belong to multiple categories. This is hierarchical tagging, and it's worked great for my notes. At the bottom of every one of my Org files, there is a list named "Parent topics", and each parent file has its own "Parent topics" list (excluding the "main topics" files, which have no parents).
> If you want funding for certain medical research, have your state issue grants. There is nothing that requires it to be the federal government.
States would need to increase taxes to fund more research, which would cause some of the wealthiest residents to flee to low-tax states. This would result in the pro-research states losing tax revenue and eventually cutting their research funding. The decline in research funding would result in the U.S. experiencing brain drain similar to what has been experienced in red states[1] for decades.
Some of us don't want the U.S. to experience brain drain that will cause our country to become more like the rural states that suffer from the loss of their best and brightest.
> States would need to increase taxes to fund more research, which would cause some of the wealthiest residents to flee to low-tax states.
The people who actually pay most of the taxes aren't the billionaires (both because there aren't that many of them and because they already engage in sophisticated tax avoidance), they're the likes of senior partners at law firms, cardiologists, successful small business owners, etc. But these people are not only not going to move to Wyoming for lower taxes, because they can't operate the businesses that them that amount of money there, a lot of the reason Wyoming has lower taxes is because they're large net recipients of federal funds. If they had to fund their own stuff that would make it more attractive to live in the states that are currently doing the funding.
Moreover, research funding has always been a small proportion of government spending, e.g. the NIH is ~0.7% of the federal budget. This does not require a large change in tax revenues to move somewhere else.
> Some of us don't want the U.S. to experience brain drain that will cause our country to become more like the rural states that suffer from the loss of their best and brightest.
The first search result from your link is an article saying that isn't actually happening:
My favorite static site generator is Org mode[1] for Emacs. Org files are written using a feature-rich lightweight markup language[2] that is much more powerful than Markdown (e.g., plain text spreadsheets). Org files can be exported to HTML[3].
The reason I prefer Org for static site generation is not because I already use Emacs. I actually started using Emacs about 20 years ago specifically to use Org mode.
I wouldn't say I learned this too late, but ashamedly, I didn't learn this truth until after ShellCheck was released. I have thousands of hours of experience writing Python, Ruby, and Perl, but I no longer have any use for them.
Yeah, because they allow anyone to contribute with little oversight. As Lance Vick wrote[1], "Nixpkgs is the NPM of Linux." And Solène Rapenne wrote[2], "It is quite easy to get nixpkgs commit access, a supply chain attack would be easy to achieve in my opinion: there are so many commits done that it is impossible for a trustable group to review everything, and there are too many contributors to be sure they are all trustable."
Pretty much every PR does get reviewed before merging (especially of non-committers) and compromises would be easy to detect in the typical version bump PR. At least it's all out in the open in a big monorepo. E.g. in Debian, maintainers could push binaries directly to the archive a few years ago (I think this is still true for non-main) and IIRC even for source packages people upload them with little oversight and they are not all in open version control.
Of course, Debian developers/maintainers are vetted more. But an intentional compromise in nixpkgs would be much more visible than in Debian, NPM, PyPI or crates.io.
Serious question: What documents include high-quality content but are too long to read and lack summaries written by the authors of the documents? None come to mind immediately. Research papers have abstracts. Book chapters have introductions. I can't think of an example. Are you referring to low-quality content that isn't worth reading?
https://www.commentary.org/author/james-meigs/