Reading your thoughts, as long as you write them down first
Tantek says: they're link previews out of band - not inline - it doesn't interrupt the flow of reading.
Angelo says accordion style menus like Mac OS.
Tantek - it's like a glossary as well. (Which is close the the Tufte marginal notes)
Every now and then I start thinking about the history of Hypertext, and how we got here, and thinking about how we could show things on a page more dynamically made me think about the #Memex
Yes: Time to work on my site
Always nice to see more webmention support. Did you hook up brid.gy to get tweets too?
Good plan. I registered the domain for the street address (I offered it to the buyers to take over but they didn't want it)
https://
It does depend how you make your slides, but I like https://
Combining https://
Doing this in AWS with lambdas would work - set up an email address and call python to process the mails and add feed entries to an s3 bucket or use DynamoDB to store them and serve with another lambda. Thsi kind of thing: https://
Amazon deals with the email filtering that way, so you don't get the hassle of spam filtering yourself
Sketches of a History of Skepticism, Part I: Classical Eudaimonia – Ex Urbe
This is exactly what makes so much Covid and vaccine discussion painful. I'm not sure if it is down to naïve Popperian thinking or wilful rejection half the time.
What we knew about teapots, coral reefs, moths and treesloths, Arthuriana, protons, and the Greek concept daimon, can all be overturned and yet we remain comfortable with the Scientific Method which produced our old false information, and we are still prepared to let it provide us with new information, then overturn and replace the new information in its turn. We do this without thinking, but it is in no way a universal or natural part of the human psyche. When chatting with my father about the proton research he summed it up nicely, that two possible responses to hearing that how we measure something seems to change its nature, throwing the reliability of empirical testing into question, are: “Science has been disproved!” or “Great! Another thing to figure out using the Scientific Method!” The latter reaction is everyday to those who are versed in and comfortable with the fact that science is not a set of doctrines but a process of discovery, hypothesis, disproof and replacement. Yet the former reaction, “X is wrong therefore the system which yielded X is wrong!” is, in fact, the historical norm. Whether it’s an Aristotelian crying “Plato has been disproved!” or Bernard of Clairveaux crying “Abelard has been disproved!” or a Scotist crying “Aquinas has been disproved!” the clear overthrow of a single sub-principle within a system was, for many centuries, sufficient to shake the foundations of the system as a whole, and drive people to part with it and seek a new one.
Yes: