The timeline

Posted by 22111
Apr 5, 2023 at 05:36 PM

Some of you’re waiting for my explanation of the time dimension; others - e.g. afficionados of scam sw like “TheBrain” who think the solution of / to “thinking enhancement” lies in alleging that even the most basic and stupid “thoughts” (hahahaha!) will be enhanced by complicated, i.e. and in reality, complicating, graphical deployment - “think” they’ve already got the solution, n’well then, their output will never ever get to anything…

So, and since I had said that in our 2- or 3-pane “outliners”, the time dimension problem has not yet been resolved: oh yeah! But then, I - obviously! - come up with some intermediate “solution” indeed, for our traditional, 2- or 3-pane “outliners” that is, indeed, not including fake sw like TB:

First of all, have some different, stored separator lines, divider lines, whatever you like to call’em, and as for me, in AHK, I have (currently) stored:
a) regular separator, in any text (plain text or rtf) application (Word, UR, Atlantis, TextMaker, WordPad, Jarte (note here: I just use screenplay sw as export target, not writing in any of them); Sublime Text, EmEditor, KEdit, TSE, ...)
b) double separator (as before)
c)/d) a) and b) bolded
e)/f)g)/h) as a), b), and c), but in blue instead of in regular black,
and finally:
i…) “all” of the above (i.e. expecption made for the “formatted ones” when in plain text editors…) with the respective, leading “comment” code char (depending on the app in question that is), in order to not interfere with the appropriate code…

Ditto for my TREES, i.e. currently in UR (for writing, and for IM), and for AO (for coding)...

And then, for some of them, I got ALTERNATIVE divider lines, i.e. instead of 10 or 20 underlines (and yes, I once should get their equivalent in dashes, an’then, replace all my underlines with them, yeah…)
, I got (single and double) “dot” dividers, and here again, I should, some time, replace all my multiple dots by special-dots in mid-height indeed…

NOW, with just SOME of what I’ve described so far, it becomes obvious that you then will be able to

DISTINGUISH TIME-FORWARD from DETAILING

in both ways that is, but before, let’s have this detail perfectly clear:

- Use the “same” divider, short vs. long, for sub-groups of the SAME character, vs. groups of the SAME character

- You may, though, use .......... groups, vs. your regular __________ groups, in order to convey TIME, and that’s, as far as I’m concerned, the ideal solution, even for BOTH alternatives below (or then, use “blue instead of regular black” for the distinction, BUT that distinction has to be unequivocal indeed…):

a) TIME OVER DETAILING

i.e. you e.g. group, in level “minus-1” (see my previous post regarding that issue) all the current “core details” within some one (e.g. short) divider lines’ grouping delimiting, and then, some time “on” then, it’ll be more or less (sic!) the same group, or the same groups (sic!), separated from the above by some “exceptional” divider line, and hopefully in the same order again, as to identify “who’s, and what’s what, no?”, immediately) - and, btw, but tha’ts just me again, I prefer this a) paradigm -; OR then you do

b) detailing over time,

cf. infra.

Note that in both alternatives, you’ll put further details into some “level-2”, and see in that respect my notes about UR’s now (at least externally, for a beginning), realized “expand by 2 levels” functionality, and of course - but obviously beyond the scope of some here -: when I spoke of preserving the “current display situation beneath”, that would have been for further, “regular” descendants’ displays, NOT for the current “display-2-levels-down” special command: how dumb detractors can be?

And then, the same as above, for the really-retarded:

a) (subject over time:)

; (other subjects here)
____________________
subject 1
subject 2
relationship subj1-subj2
....................
; (some time later:)
subject 1
subject2
subject 3 (i.e. some add-on, an’then: so what?)
....................
; (some time later again:)
subject 1
subject 2
relationship subj1-subj2 (i.e. not so in-between, an’then: so what: just serving the retarded?)
____________________
; (some other subjects here again)

i.e. use the .......... (and so on, i.e. simple or double) for time leaps, but use your regular “___” etc for any other “subordination” of any (other than time) kind.

or b)

Subject over time:

some other subjects
____________________
subject 1
subject1-subject2-relationship, at the same time
....................
the same subject 1, some time later
____________________
subject 2
subject1-subject2-relationship, some time later, but at the very same time as above
____________________
> you see the problem, folks’n'frails?* An’yes: If you don’t, any further explanation would’ve been pearls before swine indeed, as they say…
*=In other words, even when the technical (sic!) organization of your thougthts / output is “symmetrical” to some other alternative, that does NOT mean it’s equivalent to that one… but then, I assume nobody of my detractors here will ever had any hint of that… whilst I have to admit that even I discovered this just today… AND I suppose that that, too, will be some of those ultimate discoveries of mine… or then, please, tell me, and that’s BEFORE appropriating my findings (cf. that UE slut here in this forum once did) as their own, ok?

Fact is, b) isn’t a viable alternative to a), so a) is the way to go, obviously.

==========
Copyright by 22111-in-outlinersoftware.com, licensed to just personal use even in commercial environments, NO re-publication, etc. whatsovever without giving credit. Since it’s all in the conception, stupid: coders being for hire, conceptionalists obviously being not.
==========

An’then, for the would-be-writers around here: An’yes, “The Last Picture Show”‘s “Oscar” derived from that speech in there… but then, on RE-viewing that speech, it isn’t as formidable as it once appeared, right? And I once published an essay - hahaha, an’then, at the time, I hadn’t been been aware he already got it, hahahaha, again! -, saying that Ball should have got an “Oscar” for that speech, that conversation between the young people, in “American Beauty”... but then, let’s become serious again: The real secret lies in “distributing” such “speeches” within time… so that nobody even gets aware of them being “speech”: right?

No. Of course not. Not with people like the overwhelming majority of self-declared “contributors” here… but then, it’s not me, calling for people who have nothing to say, to be silenced… them calling the only people who’ve to got to say anything to be silenced, being the problem… having been the problem in ANY “developed” society which our historians have known… whilst refraining from stating what they all know though: that all those nations disappeared because of their silencing those not willing to do the jump, into corruption first, then into decay.

(Try something similar to a) / b) with your phony TB, and you’ll be lost… - and rightly so, somebody could say, since then, phonies just do phony things, right? But then, TheBrain, I dare you: Come’en up with YOUR solution to the timeline problem. - You’ll either fail (as expected)... or then, I’ll be happy to acknowledge you’ll come even.)
____________________

An’then, have you been smart enough to grasp that a) vs. b) (with, without the dot after the “vs” that is, and which’s obviouyly become debatable nowadays, for English-speakers…), also applies to non-“creative” subjects? Since in any simili-ontology, you’ll have to state what’s your objective, and then remain - become? - honest, from there on, with any of your drawrering. Yep.

An’then, an’just for the fun of it: “and of course there’s the sheer length of the contributions, which also clearly needs some algorithmic adjustments” - you have recently joined the group of obscene detractors, instead of remaining neutral, at least, since you had been disappointed by my non-responsiveness to your allegedly “balancing” “contributions”, whenever those sluts here felt empowered to throw shit, instead of counter-argument… but then, you ain’t that idiotic, so we both know that your “interventions” exuded condescendence: do you really, seriously, Mad, that I’m stupid?

An’Paul: “often for weeks or months” - oh my God, then: for so little? “Writing itself is friction and can force the brain to halt and abandon serendipity and the other pleasures of thinking.” - if I wannna go nuts, I’ll do Bikhram Yoga, that’s at least much more sexy, in-between, than what you’ve got to say, i.e. nothing; that being said, “In fact, putting down words can prematurely stop the process and make continuing with thinking through a problem more difficult.” - and again, it’s the old phenomenon (I have written about here) that any intermission will also intervene, thus “taking note” by just “babbling” - i.n.e. “dictating” already -, and in in case, by just some “key words”, to be “developed from memory” afterwards, in order to minimize the damage done… your ONLY alternative being, FORGETTING (many of) your thoughts, so…

Mad, “I jot bits and pieces of writing ideas down in a plethora of apps, then try to reunite them in Ulysses. But this doesn’t always work, and isn’t always helpful.”, FORGET about “writing”, just do your translations; I’m your kind daddy: believe me: I just want your very, very best! And re Ul-App: didn’t I told you so, you’all?

And, Mad, again, re “Obsidian”: I just trialed that piece of crap some weeks ago, and, seriously, but that’s just me again indeed: Anybody who takes “Obsidian” seriously, should NOT be taken seriously any further.

Then, Amonti/TheProudGerman: -“Amontillado wrote:
>A related issue, the quickest way I can kill a story idea is to tell>someone what I’m thinking about writing.LOL. Same here.”:

PLEASE!: First, writing just crap encourages you then to write about writingt? OMG?! Second, writing about 40 me-too-comp-app-how-to-books, probably (?) retrieved from the respective help files, but then and obviously so me-too that I hadn’t been able to find just one single of them in any of some of the better supplied bookstores of your country? Come-on: be real, again! And third:

I do NOT write about my writing here; I write about the TECHNIQUE of my writing, by (numerous, and even unheard-of) “outlining” enhancements: and that makes all the difference: “the quickest way I can kill a story idea is to tell >someone what I’m thinking about writing.” - yes, my “friends”: remain quiet about what you write, or what’s your intention to write, BUT THINK about your writing, and obviously, none of you two don’t.

Stephen’s “For me, friction is the amount of time and effort spent on the app itself instead of actually working with your content.”: bingo! And that’s why “your”, = our all’s, only solution to that equation is, for the time being, 1) to select the ultimate* “base” app, and then, 2) to either do the necessary scripting yourself, or then wait for some fool** to share their scripting with you.

*= I herewith retract my writing here that even some crap like “Scrivener” could serve as such a base; I just wanted to be kind to people I hadn’t, at the time - my bad indeed! - not yet identified as my enemies; and yes, that “base” app has to provide all the “core” functionality you’ll then be in need of, since any external scripting just can ease, and sometimes even add-up, but not replace core functionality which isn’t there, e.g. I would not be able, by scripting, to add user tree formatting to either “RightNote” or “DevonThink”, or then add “cloning” to the former one, so (e.g.) both apps could not become my “base app”;

**= You’d be a fool indeed to “share” real core add-on code for people similar to the non-fact-contributors of this forum, e.g. (and my recent code sharing in the UR forum just meant, “it’s doable” - and I do it that way indeed) - and for example, some totally anonymous guy, in the Adobe Acrobat Reader forum, charges 50, 60 bucks (plus then the VAT YOU will have to pay to your local EU government, on top!) for any, single Adobe Acrobat / Acrobat Reader functionality-on-top; instead of, let’s say, charging 50, 60 bucks for some clustered Acrobat / Acrobat Reader add-ons, just as several sw delopers do, either for MS Word, or then, and especially, for MS Excel (or then, for MS Outlook, etc.): NOPE: He charges 50, 60 bucks (and making you a criminal if you don’t then also pay the necessary VAT, yourself, to the Brussels lot), for every little scriptlet… An’then, there are others who’d been willing to share their findings, their work-of-many-hours, for free… and then, you treat them like crap, and openly say they’re “bots”:

So LIVE with your “frictions” and be happy with them… whilst others, in the meanwhile, have overcome any “frictions”? (And, oh, did I tell you that in-between, Ultra Recall, for me, HAS even become a PERFECT note-taking app, beyond just being my IM repository? Yes, I have told you so, even today, but “sparing” you the necessary two lines of could to get there… Cheer your frictions, folks-an-frails, then! (I’m a bot: How could I help you?)

“Stevie” again, “Having too many different info apps also increases friction, as I have to remember where I stored or wrote something, and remember too many commands or interfaces for various apps.” - both your allegations are true, and I have answered to both of them, here in forum, years ago: 1) Try to do it “all” in ONE app - and that’s possible indeed, with the help of “friends” - but then, since you treat your possible friends as “bots”, whilst enjoying the “community” with just partners in crime, sorry indeed; and 2) I also said that I “normalize”, by AHK, the relevant shortkeys beyond apps, an’thus, e.g., my different “dividers” are always triggered by the same shortkeys, whatever their insert-target might be, and whatever their respective code to be sent to the app in question.

Then, “Stevie” again, “Too many features can bog down an app and increase friction” - “can”, you say, in order to prevent me from telling you you’re just telling crap? Fact is that nobody ever has been FORCED to apply anything beyond their scope, but when Uly-App doesn’t come with user-sided tree formatting, even I couldn’t help anymore, see? (Mac vs. Windows: whatever, the principle being: From the outside, you can make (more easily) AVAILABLE functionality which is already in there, an’sometimes even well hidden, or then, fractioned between several base functionalities (cf. my last UR contribution) but from the outside, you can’t ADD really new functionality: you just can combine, get from the depths onto the surface, etc - “bogging down” meaning 1) slow down response times, which is NO subject anymore, with current Windows (or even current Mac) processors, or then 2) “disorient” the user, and, as said or implied above, the presence of any (sub-) menu item you don’t (currently) grasp (yet), will have NO incidence on your interaction with any of the menu items which are (even) currently at your disposal - a) from the developer’s side, and b) from your current “grasping” (an’yes, some so-called “help files” ain’t that helpful at all, e.g. when some outliner’s “help file”, in its “help page” “Multiple selection”, does NOT tell you about ^a for “select all sibs”, thus “forcing” you to try out many possible “solutions”, before finally trying that “damn” - too obvious? - ^a ;-)

Zeoli citing third parties, “Not only does whatever tool you’re using to take notes need to be as fast as possible, but it must never force you to make decisions when entering notes.” - spot on, and that why you need 1) an immediately-available inbox (cf. supra), AND 2) then a real smart way of FILING your (already stored) input, and obviously, NO current “outliner” will really help you with that second task, and obviously, and whilst I have, in UR, perfected (sic!*) that number-2, being a bot allegedly to my enemies here, I can’t, i.e. won’t help you.

*= Except, that is, for the fact that real perfection would NOT need an intermediary target structure within my overall-inbox, but would “file-direct”, but that’s technically not possible within the SQLite paradigm; I’d need a Postgres-backed-up “outliner” for that… but that being said, and with the reservation that my filing is two-step: my filing from general-inbox to “pre-filing-specific-target” is immediate, just 2-or-3key (=according to the specification) in all, and then, my final-filing, is fully-automated… and then, remember (cf. supra), whilst Adobe Acrobat Viewer is free, any add-on functionality then is 50, 60 bucks plus VAT, 1 by 1… whilst my additional UR-and-bucket-for-it-all (remember, “Having too many different info apps also increases friction”?) then comprises dozens of such add-ons, but then, I’m a bot, and you’ll live with your frictions.

So sorry indeed! ;-)