3:00a Seattle Time
Attending: LionKimbro, DanInSpace, TimurIsmagilov
Lion’s thoughts on Obsidian:
- the SpringModel
- is NOT persistent
- does NOT allow resizing of nodes, or any other form of visual manipulation
- actually, it makes nodes bigger with the number of links to it increasing
- is functionally a radial tree viewer, though it does represent graph relations
- it’s actually harder to see what a node is connected to
- the hierarchical tree modeling of pages
- tailored to a specific information density, and is visually fairly sparse
- seems like it would not scale well past a few hundred notes
- hierarchy seems to be hard coded as page names
- page meta-data block
- when you rename a page, it updates all links to the page
- (speculation: there’s a unique page ID being used behind the scene)
- (speculation: alternatively, it’s brute-forcing it with an index, and updating continuously)
Dan argues for Obsidian:
- Seeing links between elements.
- Graph cannot be replaced with a tree.
- Graph is not really needed, you can live without it
- If you want custom functional, you can DIY it with ease
- Obsidian is like IDE for your knowledge.
- Lion wrote MiniCubes, something like maps and ForwardIndex pages
- Timur wants to try it, unlike Obsidian. Dan is out-numbered 2 to 1
- Lion shows his knowledge assembly thing with hooks. See AggregatedInformation
- We saw some interesting information hehe
- He also woke up a roommate
- SearchEngine is not the same as the link database because it lacks the context, etc
- It wouldn’t work for groups of people
- Lion disagrees – CommunityWiki worked quite well as a group, and Wikipedia works quite well as a society.