In "Where Is My Flying Car", Hall argues that what we really value in cities isn't necessarily physical density, but *temporal* density—ie low travel time. If all points were 5x further apart, but we move 5x faster, we'd prefer it: everyone could have more space. Is this right? /
One reason I like cities is definitely proximity to services and friends. Dozens of excellent restaurants and people within a thirty minute trip. But I also like running into people randomly, serendipitously. Living in a city is like shaking a fuller snow globe!
Not sure if temporal density is equivalent to physical density for the purposes of serendipity. If I only run into people at destinations, then there'd be no change if everything were spread out: the same people visit the same restaurants. But I run into people while walking!
Anyway, this book probably has the highest viewquake/page ratio of the year for me! I thought it was going to be about the history/prospects of flying cars… but that's just a framing device for a sweeping discussion of tech bottlenecks+possibilities. press.stripe.com/where-is-my-fl…
One fun way to describe this book: the narrative is a sort of glue which holds together a non-stop parade of Fermi estimates.
These results are probably much less surprising to a physicist, but snippets like this are truly shocking to me!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In 1907, William James complains that psychologists have ignored the topic of "the energies of men"—that is, the practical stamina available for "running one's mental and moral operations".
Have good frameworks emerged for this in the past century?
There's "cognitive load", "ego depletion", "self-efficacy", etc… none of these really seem to hit the nail on the head here.
"Everyone is familiar with the phenomenon of feeling more or less alive on different days. Everyone knows on any given day that there are energies slumbering in him which the incitements of that day do not call forth, but which he might display if these were greater."
Thinking about "game tape" for thinking, inspired by @tayroga, @mindy_online, past Twitch streams. I notice that thinking has limited legibility—tape captures only a fraction of what's going on. Which useful categories of feedback are possible? Which blocked by illegibility?
Some useful feedback I've gotten:
- are you being captured by the formal structure you created here, rather than by some real purpose?
- are you spending so much time reviewing those references because the main problem seems to hard, and you're avoiding it?
But I mostly haven't gotten useful feedback. Makes me wonder about the "span" of this format, at least interpersonally.
One barrier is that so much of effective thinking is instinctual: I often can't "justify" why I'm thinking about X; trying to do so too early will cause harm.
Sometimes, singing in tight vocal harmony, certain chords locked just right will produce a hair-raising effect: the air buzzes, the sound gets "fuller," goosebumps, psychosomatic tears. I think it comes from overtone overlaps? Sharing rabbit hole and questions so far:
Unfortunately, it's hard to convey this effect with a recording—it's much stronger if you're producing it. So I guess I'm mostly talking to other vocalists.
The first key bit seems to be that voices can sing in just intonation, i.e. whole number ratios: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_into…
(I'm totally skipping explanation of overtones, temperament, and the harmonic series here… for a wonderful intro, see @vihartvihart's )
Discussing this more with Laura, one thing that surprises me is how few digital authoring envs you'd want to "live in" all day for both prose and visual explanations. Your team can live in Notion, but then no visual expls; or live in Figma, but probably not write there.
OneNote was the only full-featured tool we could think of which seemed well-suited to both text and visual explanations, though it has its own downsides.
We're all still "separating by mode of production", per Tufte…
Yes, one can still embed Figma artboards as blocks inside Notion documents, but that's still separating by mode of production. Means you're unlikely to spontaneously create text<>visual interactions as you'd naturally do on paper / whiteboard.
Because software rarely operate on "files in folders" anymore, "export" is increasingly the way software exposes data. But usually you don't want a dead snapshot; you want to "use this data elsewhere"—which requires repeatedly exporting & reconciling.
Say I make an app for annotating papers. An old-fashioned way to do this would be to make a desktop app which views PDF files and writes annotations into the file. Now Spotlight can see them; Zotero can display them; etc. But SaaS must "import" the PDF and "export" annotations.
But "export annotations" is not the same as "save annotations" because now if I add more annotations to the PDF, I must export them again, and then reconcile that new export with whatever downstream tools used the old data. This gets much worse in the bi-directional case!
Really exciting talk from @JoelChan86 demonstrates an interface for incrementally generating semi-formal "discourse graphs" (X supports Y, Z informs W) through naturalistic note-taking structures:
The loose structure and incrementalism seem really key!
I've been creating these sorts of relationships informally in my own note-writing processes, and it's been really interesting to see synthesis (sometimes) emerge from the noise.
Not yet sure how useful formal structures ("discourse graphs") are, vs. relatively simple queries.
Probably more formal and machine-readable structures are essential if one aspires to network this work across many scholars, as Joel does.