I make heavy use of the OSX feature "desktops", which allows multiple separate workspaces in parelell.
I'll typically have a desktop for my logging and tracking, one for chats and coms, one with open blog posts, one with writing projects, one with an open coding project, etc.
Basically, all of these are separate contexts that I can switch between for doing different kind of work.
What I want to be able to do is save each of those contexts, and re-open them later.
I want to be able to click a button to close and save all the open windows (and all of their tabs) that on a particular desktop, and then click a button to reopen them all again.
And crucially, it doesn't close the windows in OTHER desktops.
Ideally, it would also save the relative size and location of all the windows, so that they open in the same places as where they were when I saved them.
But that's an extra benefit.
Ideally, it would work across applications: I can save browser windows, an open pdfs, open text editor files, etc. (Again, without closing other windows of that application on other desktops.)
But I would get 90+% of the value from just a tool for web browser windows.
Does some version of this exist?
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Is there a platform that allows me to publish two versions of a document, a public version and a private version, so that the two stay mirrored, except for some particular components that only show up on the private version?
Basically I want to be able to have some pages that I continually edit, which are mostly public, but include some private notes to myself. And I don't want to have to manually update two versions.
One example of how this could work is something like google docs, where the text is shared with anyone who has a link to it, but only people who have been given special access can see the comments.
@gshaikovski @JanMBrauner @DavidSKrueger Man, I'm with you for most of this tweet, except for the word "baseless".
(Some) people have detailed arguments underlying their predictions.
It's true that all our predictions on this topic are going to be importantly speculative, but baseless is too strong.
@gshaikovski @JanMBrauner @DavidSKrueger For instance, we can extrapolate from scaling law data, and we can reason from analogy to biology, or make arguments based on rational agent models
Are those science? No! Not in the proper sense of "science".
But it's also not people making up random fancies.
@gshaikovski @JanMBrauner @DavidSKrueger That kind of argumentation is weak compared to empirical work. A lot of arguments in that class sound compelling, and but are then obviated in surprising ways by how reality actually turns out to be.
Base rates suggest that it will turn out not to work, but I'm allowing myself to feel excited anyway.manifold.love
It feels like I'm looking at old OkC again.
A vibe of trying to help people find happiness.
(Instead the feeling of every dating app since OkC—a superficial veneer of enthusiasm on top of constant pressure to force me to play a game I don't want to play. The tech is out to get me, not to empower me or serve human needs.)
There should be a kind of company that offers homeoweners the following deal:
* We knock down your house to build a classy multi-story brownstone in its place.
* We'll pay for that.
* You own and live in the bottom floors, just as you currently live in your house.
* We're going to rent out the newly built floors above you to new tenants.
* You get to take x% of the rental profit.
If this were common, it could double the the housing capacity of high-rent suburbs like Berkeley.
And because it compensates the homeowner, it incentivizes them to be YIMBY instead of NIMBY.