> Emacs is a powerful tool, but it also demands a lot from its user. Eventually
I got tired of dealing with the host of plugins and customizations that I needed to keep my system running the way I wanted. I'm at a point in my life where I would rather spend my spare time on hobbies, hanging out with family and friends, and otherwise not messing around with a patchwork of ELisp code snippets that I've cobbled together from various sources.
On the flip side, my experience with Emacs has been quite different. You don't need a ton of plugins to get the most out of it; I've been using the same configuration of under 200 lines for the past six years without encountering any breaking changes. I rely on Magit, Org-mode, Org-roam, and Org-agenda every single day.
That said, using Emacs does require some commitment to reading the documentation. While I agree that it has some outdated defaults, you only need to make those adjustments once.
I second this. Emacs is plenty capable out of the box and just fine that way. It's a "choose your own adventure" that allows you to be as disciplined or as reckless as you choose. It's almost like it grants you...freedom :)
I think this SO question demonstrates this well. The question is how to select a window quickly. You can install umpteen different packages and have several black-box soltions, if you want. But it really can be as simple as this if it fits your need:
```
;; Select the 3rd window in the `window-list'
(select-window (nth 2 (window-list)))
```
Emacs almost always allows you to find a solution in-between.
If you're interested in preserving your ability to think for yourself in the age of AI, I recommend Henrik Karlsson's blog Escaping Flatland. While not directly about AI, his articles "Cultivating a state of mind where new ideas are born" [1] and "Childhoods of exceptional people" [2] explore similar themes of how to train your mind to have original ideas and learn to solve problems on your own.
Thanks for the links, but just a note. The thesis of being alone is not enough to be creative in this day and age. As advice, it worked quite well before the advent of modern technology, so the oft-quoted works on solitude from Nietzsche, Jung, etc. just don’t mention a state of being that was quite commonplace at the time, but has practically disappeared: the long hours of contemplation, which for the modern philosopher Byung-Chul Han are the crucial component of creativity; it can only express itself when we’re steeped in boredom and non-activity for a long enough time. We have completely eliminated it in the past 100 years with radio, TV and now by staring at our screens all day, to work, and to “relax.” We do not contemplate the world anymore, we do not let ourselves be spontaneously creative.
I recommend Byung-Chul Han’s books The Burnout Society and Vita contemplativa: In praise of inactivity for a short but deep dive into this aspect we’re rapidly losing.
(I have just finished reading both books and I quite enjoyed the main thesis, though thick with philosophical discourse at times. Thankfully, they are quite short, not even reaching 100 pages so they don’t overstay their welcome)
Thanks for the recommendations and I agree completely.
There's some hope, we can get better at this even in small ways by carving out pockets of time away from phones and notifications and other external distractions and inputs.
Unfortunately a lot of this kind of writing teeter-totters between being a massive coping strategy or a circlejerk. Using the lives of exceptional people as a blueprint for the everyday person is ridiculous. I’m reminded of people following professional bodybuilding schedules and meal plans to lose a bit of weight, getting caught up in nonsense like “cheat meals” and “cheat days.” Likewise, if you don’t have any exceptional abilities such that your creativity will advance a field forward, you may want to be reasonable with your expectations and outcomes of what you actually can apply your time and energy to.
At least read Gatto’s work in education because he knows what he’s talking about as an actual teacher who has put more students through schooling than anyone writing these articles. His work contradicts some of this because he studied very non-exceptional childhoods of exceptional people. He has a better answer to how to think for oneself as well.
To actually get to the bottom of things: I think most normal folks are concerned more about getting by and making decent money in “the age of AI” than they are about being brilliant whizkid prodigies coming up with original ideas. A lot of those end up being poor anyway. But the desire to live a quality life is a more universal thing. No amount of “mind training” will help here. Just steer clear of paths that AI can dominate (they’re expanding), and failing that, use it to your advantage as best as you can.
Right now working with one’s hands seems to be in vogue because it’s one of those things that people are unaware of is actually dominated by robotics in the industrial/manufacturing sectors, so the ignorance there can probably get people through some hard times. But eventually even that will be shown for what it is and we’ll have to find better ways to spend our time.
> To actually get to the bottom of things: I think most normal folks are concerned more about getting by and making decent money in “the age of AI” than they are about being brilliant whizkid prodigies coming up with original ideas. A lot of those end up being poor anyway. But the desire to live a quality life is a more universal thing. No amount of “mind training” will help here. Just steer clear of paths that AI can dominate (they’re expanding), and failing that, use it to your advantage as best as you can.
In my experience most people working on this are attempting variations on a handful of generic ideas. Most AI startups are fairly uninspired “XYZ but with AI chat” type things or ideas that have no staying power because Claude 7 will one-shot the whole product with a prompt. Succeeding here in the long run means doing something truly different and new and interesting and that’s what the linked articles are about.
I doubt it. Obsidian is not open source, and the core is maintained by a small group of people, rather than a community. What happens when the company dies?
That said, I am willing to have more faith in Obsidian, than many other things since they are not [VC funded](https://stephango.com/vcware)
There's also something nice about having everything in the same place, at least until Obsidian becomes a code editor and email reader. For a while I thought that Neovim might be the next Emacs (if you squint a bit) but looks like Obsidian is halfway there if you take a look at the plugin landscape and what people are doing at the extreme ends.
Also stuff like Bases[0] might be the thing that entrenches Obsidian even further as an IDE for knowledge work (more or less).
Which is a bit of bummer, as I think they would be doing perfectly fine if they had open-sourced Obsidian's client and just sell sync service (as they are doing now anyway).
The big win is using standard markdown. If they disappear, you still have your content.
The other big win is it's truly cross platform. I initially used syncthing to keep different systems in sync but switched to their sync service. Syncthing works fine but I found adding a new system and integrating was cumbersome if you haven't done it recently. With Obsidian's sync service setting up a new system was trivial.
Shortcoming - printing. Need to generate a pdf and use it's print feature.
Another shortcoming is merging a hierarchy of folders and notes into a composite document.
With Obsidian, you have all your markdown files on your disk, so you can use vi or emacs to view and edit them while someone else put together replacement app ...
This depends how deep down the rabbit hole someone goes. At a basic level, yes, this is true. However, if someone has built a complex system around properties, data views, and various other plugins, they're going to have a hard time.
There is a lot to be said for the value of simplicity, if one of the goals is portability.
You seem to be saying that the tool doesn’t matter. However, people who use Obsidian typically use it for a reason (other than the file format) over other tools.
> Emacs is a powerful tool, but it also demands a lot from its user. Eventually I got tired of dealing with the host of plugins and customizations that I needed to keep my system running the way I wanted. I'm at a point in my life where I would rather spend my spare time on hobbies, hanging out with family and friends, and otherwise not messing around with a patchwork of ELisp code snippets that I've cobbled together from various sources. I gradually stopped using Emacs in favor of more modern tools that are less flexible but also less of a hassle.
I don't know how many times I've read a variation on this. It took me a very long time, but now I pretty much made my peace with that: I use Emacs (for certain things), I use VS Code (with Emacs bindings), I use Apple Notes.. I don't find that it's possible or reasonable anymore, the desire to be "pure" and use only ONE tool to rule them all. The same for messaging apps, chatbots, etc.. I now embrace extreme diversity.
> Eventually I got tired of dealing with the host of plugins and customizations
The trick is to stick to as few packages and as little configuration as possible. And when opting to install a package, sticking to something popular and well maintained. This leads to a small and robust setup with little churn. Most built-in packages work out of the box. Most defaults make a lot of sense. Emacs is really tidy these days compared to where it was one decade ago. Package management has been key facilitating this.
Personally, I use major packages like AUCTeX, Org, Magit, or gptel with little to no customization and I avoid installing lesser known packages that build on top of them as I have found this to be a major source of fragility. You can get a lot of functionality from a boring 50 LOC .emacs/init.el that consists of a few straightforward use-package directives.
> I don't find that it's possible or reasonable anymore, the desire to be "pure" and use only ONE tool to rule them all.
It's not about being "pure". I was originally interested in Emacs because of the idea of only ever having to learn to use one tool, that would give me a better experience in many different domains.
Since, as you say, that doesn't really work, I personally don't find using Emacs compelling anymore, hence my not using it. (I actually used vim for a long time, then Emacs briefly, and now VSCode/Cursor/other things as the need arises.)
This makes me feel seen. I was a lunatic at one point trying to make Emacs to be my end-all-be-all. I learned to cope with multiple programs being my "toolset" since then.
The context switch between digital and analog is compelling. There is something satisfying about throwing a piece of physical paper away after pushing your commits.
I tend to hoard information, so having a medium that is highly constrained keeps me honest with what I hold onto over time. Not being able to do full text search over my notes means I prefer to keep no more than ~one legal pad active at any given time.
I also tend to get distracted with shiny technology tools. I can take my notes anywhere. I don't need an internet connection. I can fold the piece of paper and store it in my wallet.
There is value in trying to figure things out on your own, but even then if you can resist the temptation to let the machine think for you, I think AI is still useful for clarifying the problem and working through pros and cons of your ideas to solve it.
Semi related there's also ekg which stores notes in a sqlite database and uses tags as titles as in you don't really have to name a note per se and multiple notes can share a "title" which is just a tag.
But that's not why I mentioned ekg, the reason is that it does embedding out of the box, here's a quote from the repo on GitHub:
"There is support for attaching Large Language Model (LLM) “embeddings” to notes, for use in search and similarity search, via the llm package. This allows you to search based on semantics, as opposed to text matching. You can also use LLM chat in your notes, getting an LLM to respond to your notes based on a default prompt, or new prompts that you add."
These days I feel like you have lots of great options for note-taking in Emacs and you're not forced to use the org format unless you want to.
Readit News
On the flip side, my experience with Emacs has been quite different. You don't need a ton of plugins to get the most out of it; I've been using the same configuration of under 200 lines for the past six years without encountering any breaking changes. I rely on Magit, Org-mode, Org-roam, and Org-agenda every single day.
That said, using Emacs does require some commitment to reading the documentation. While I agree that it has some outdated defaults, you only need to make those adjustments once.
I think this SO question demonstrates this well. The question is how to select a window quickly. You can install umpteen different packages and have several black-box soltions, if you want. But it really can be as simple as this if it fits your need:
``` ;; Select the 3rd window in the `window-list' (select-window (nth 2 (window-list))) ```
Emacs almost always allows you to find a solution in-between.
https://emacs.stackexchange.com/a/79692
[1] https://www.henrikkarlsson.xyz/p/good-ideas
[2] https://www.henrikkarlsson.xyz/p/childhoods
https://www.henrikkarlsson.xyz/archive?sort=top
I recommend Byung-Chul Han’s books The Burnout Society and Vita contemplativa: In praise of inactivity for a short but deep dive into this aspect we’re rapidly losing.
(I have just finished reading both books and I quite enjoyed the main thesis, though thick with philosophical discourse at times. Thankfully, they are quite short, not even reaching 100 pages so they don’t overstay their welcome)
There's some hope, we can get better at this even in small ways by carving out pockets of time away from phones and notifications and other external distractions and inputs.
At least read Gatto’s work in education because he knows what he’s talking about as an actual teacher who has put more students through schooling than anyone writing these articles. His work contradicts some of this because he studied very non-exceptional childhoods of exceptional people. He has a better answer to how to think for oneself as well.
To actually get to the bottom of things: I think most normal folks are concerned more about getting by and making decent money in “the age of AI” than they are about being brilliant whizkid prodigies coming up with original ideas. A lot of those end up being poor anyway. But the desire to live a quality life is a more universal thing. No amount of “mind training” will help here. Just steer clear of paths that AI can dominate (they’re expanding), and failing that, use it to your advantage as best as you can.
Right now working with one’s hands seems to be in vogue because it’s one of those things that people are unaware of is actually dominated by robotics in the industrial/manufacturing sectors, so the ignorance there can probably get people through some hard times. But eventually even that will be shown for what it is and we’ll have to find better ways to spend our time.
In my experience most people working on this are attempting variations on a handful of generic ideas. Most AI startups are fairly uninspired “XYZ but with AI chat” type things or ideas that have no staying power because Claude 7 will one-shot the whole product with a prompt. Succeeding here in the long run means doing something truly different and new and interesting and that’s what the linked articles are about.
Working with one's hands has been in vogue since the dawn of human history.
I doubt it. Obsidian is not open source, and the core is maintained by a small group of people, rather than a community. What happens when the company dies?
That said, I am willing to have more faith in Obsidian, than many other things since they are not [VC funded](https://stephango.com/vcware)
Also stuff like Bases[0] might be the thing that entrenches Obsidian even further as an IDE for knowledge work (more or less).
[0]: https://help.obsidian.md/bases
If not, someone might make an api-compatible oss clone, because lots of the value is in the myriad of plugins.
Obsidian's ace however is it's great wyiwyg text editor if you ask me, enabling friction-free writing.
> The app will eventually become obsolete. It’s the plain text files I create that are designed to last.
The other big win is it's truly cross platform. I initially used syncthing to keep different systems in sync but switched to their sync service. Syncthing works fine but I found adding a new system and integrating was cumbersome if you haven't done it recently. With Obsidian's sync service setting up a new system was trivial.
Shortcoming - printing. Need to generate a pdf and use it's print feature. Another shortcoming is merging a hierarchy of folders and notes into a composite document.
There is a lot to be said for the value of simplicity, if one of the goals is portability.
I don't know how many times I've read a variation on this. It took me a very long time, but now I pretty much made my peace with that: I use Emacs (for certain things), I use VS Code (with Emacs bindings), I use Apple Notes.. I don't find that it's possible or reasonable anymore, the desire to be "pure" and use only ONE tool to rule them all. The same for messaging apps, chatbots, etc.. I now embrace extreme diversity.
The trick is to stick to as few packages and as little configuration as possible. And when opting to install a package, sticking to something popular and well maintained. This leads to a small and robust setup with little churn. Most built-in packages work out of the box. Most defaults make a lot of sense. Emacs is really tidy these days compared to where it was one decade ago. Package management has been key facilitating this.
Personally, I use major packages like AUCTeX, Org, Magit, or gptel with little to no customization and I avoid installing lesser known packages that build on top of them as I have found this to be a major source of fragility. You can get a lot of functionality from a boring 50 LOC .emacs/init.el that consists of a few straightforward use-package directives.
It's not about being "pure". I was originally interested in Emacs because of the idea of only ever having to learn to use one tool, that would give me a better experience in many different domains.
Since, as you say, that doesn't really work, I personally don't find using Emacs compelling anymore, hence my not using it. (I actually used vim for a long time, then Emacs briefly, and now VSCode/Cursor/other things as the need arises.)
The goal to index your obsidian and also persist anything from llm chats, and browsing history.
To your own sqlite database so you can still own your data across providers.
I’m sure someone with much more time than me will win with a better version of it
https://github.com/zackify/revect
The context switch between digital and analog is compelling. There is something satisfying about throwing a piece of physical paper away after pushing your commits.
I tend to hoard information, so having a medium that is highly constrained keeps me honest with what I hold onto over time. Not being able to do full text search over my notes means I prefer to keep no more than ~one legal pad active at any given time.
I also tend to get distracted with shiny technology tools. I can take my notes anywhere. I don't need an internet connection. I can fold the piece of paper and store it in my wallet.
I think I got over that sometime while Clinton was in office ))
The more deeply you think, you train your brain harder, but also improve the utility of the AI systems themselves because you can prompt better.
But that's not why I mentioned ekg, the reason is that it does embedding out of the box, here's a quote from the repo on GitHub:
"There is support for attaching Large Language Model (LLM) “embeddings” to notes, for use in search and similarity search, via the llm package. This allows you to search based on semantics, as opposed to text matching. You can also use LLM chat in your notes, getting an LLM to respond to your notes based on a default prompt, or new prompts that you add."
These days I feel like you have lots of great options for note-taking in Emacs and you're not forced to use the org format unless you want to.
ekg repo: https://github.com/ahyatt/ekg