Ciao Ed

HA! Most interesting!

I followed that through to this: 
https://first1000.substack.com/p/roam-research

It is revealing on the HOW of attention to Roam, but also, implicitly, the 
motivation to wrest some "control" by it for it.

Many thanks
TT

On Friday, 18 September 2020 14:40:36 UTC+2, Ed Heil wrote:
>
> I ran across a thread on Twitter a little while back which pointed out 
> that Roam's popularity first exploded among the so-called "Rationalist" 
> community on the internet (associated with the websites LessWrong and 
> SlateStarCodex).
>
> https://twitter.com/melissamcewen/status/1277465062010163200
>
> On Friday, September 18, 2020 at 5:27:17 AM UTC-4 TiddlyTweeter wrote:
>
>> David Gifford wrote:
>>>
>>> I guess you will all need to blame me. 
>>>
>>
>> Nah. It was good & opened a lot of useful directions for TW.
>> Power to your elbow & its active greasing.
>>
>> MY point in the OP is that (a) the concepts Roam advances are NOT new; 
>> (b) that its approach plays on concepts of linkage that are (i) well worn; 
>> (ii) packaged to look innovative; (c) TW can DO all of them and more, no 
>> problem (which your Strolling showed). It is not a big deal. I care less 
>> they make money from that than *consume informational space*.
>>
>> IMO the underlying issue is that, generally, on web, there is a very poor 
>> depiction/explanation of link/tag strategies, Despite their ubiquity & 
>> necessity. And that marketing of some non-linear solutions exploits that 
>> fact.
>>
>> Better concepts are needed. And *LEAFED* (i.e. the process of grown 
>> differentiation from interacting primitives to redolent outcomes) examples 
>> in TW would aid that AND help promote TW.
>>
>> Best wishes
>> TT
>>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/b35dca9a-4c91-4b47-906c-2b5ea54b32b7o%40googlegroups.com.

Reply via email to