For me the thing keeping me on markdown is Obsidian on mobile - no other note taking app comes close. If they made an actual Emacs for mobile (actual emacs complete with elisp support, not the existing org mode apps) that was a pleasure to use, I would likely switch to that.
As it is, the * vs # for headings makes switching between the two uncomfortable.
I have used Emacs on mobile for years. Works great in Termux on Android for instance. I use it daily and with the same .emacs.d (synced using git) as I use on computers, with just a few conditionals in init.el to not load too many bloated dependencies for things I am unlikely to use on my phone anyway.
I can second this, Termux + Emacs turned my phone back into a personal computer.
It is helpful to add extra keys to your touch keyboard, which you can do by editing your termux properties file (see https://wiki.termux.com/wiki/Touch_Keyboard). Helpful when you don't have a hardware keyboard available.
Happy Journelly user here! Finally a great place to store notes/links on my iPhone in a simple but powerful app for rediscovery. That I can bring to my windows / Linux / Mac eMacs.
> an actual Emacs for mobile (actual emacs complete with elisp support, not the existing org mode apps)
There is an official fully graphical Emacs for Android (not just the terminal version in Termux).
> that was a pleasure to use
Oh... Well, it will probably get better in time, as new features are added. For now, it actually works great with an Android tablet of 8" or more and a bluetooth keyboard. The small screen of a phone doesn't lend itself well to Emacs's interface.
Btw, which other note taking apps worth talking about exist? I am aware of org-roam and scimax (?) and both look promising but I find that (at least for org-roam) there’s not enough big picture explaining what is going on behind the curtains. That somewhat discouraged me from spending a lot of time with it, but a quick glance did look promising.
org-roam is a very small and stable codebase, worth reading on its own simply for education, but I also find that if you're interested in the internals, it's pretty accessible.
Those are Clover machines from a company they acquired like 15 years ago. They're very good and in my opinion a big improvement over their traditional batch brew-and-store coffee. There are more roasts available to order, the coffee is guaranteed to be fresh, and most of the time they still "skip queue" and hand you your coffee at the register.
The conclusion that you should wait to build anything is an illustration of the danger of economic inflation that the author started with. I'm not sure why he thinks the economic version is toxic but the technological version is a good idea though.
The answer to should we just sit around and wait for better technology is obviously no. We gain a lot of knowledge by building with what we have; builders now inform where technology improves. (The front page has an article about Voyager being a light day away...)
I think the more interesting question is what would happen if we induced some kind of 2% "technological inflation" - every year it gets harder to make anything. Would that push more orgs to build more things? Everyone pours everything they have into making products now because their resources will go less far next year.
> I think the more interesting question is what would happen if we induced some kind of 2% "technological inflation" - every year it gets harder to make anything. Would that push more orgs to build more things? Everyone pours everything they have into making products now because their resources will go less far next year.
Government bonds already do this for absolutely everything. If I can put my money in a guaranteed bond at X%/year then your startup that's a risky investment has to make much better returns to make it worth my while. That's why the stock market is always chasing growth.
If I read your suggestion correctly, you're saying the exam is basically a board explaining their decision making around their code. That sounds great in theory but in practice it would be very hard to grade. Or at least, how could someone fail? If you let them use AI you can't really fault them for not understanding the code, can you? Unless you teach the course to 1. use AI and then 2. verify. And step 2 requires an understanding of coding and experience to recognize bad architecture. Which requires you to think through a problem without the AI telling you the answer.
If you grade on pass/fail it’s easy to grade. Not every course uses letter grades…
If you let people use AI they are still accountable for the code written under their name. If they can’t look at the code and explain what it’s doing, that’s not demonstrating understanding.
Exactly the same as in professional environments: you can use LLMs for your code but you've got to stand behind whatever you submit. You can of course use something like cursor and let it go free, not understanding a thing of the result, or you can step-by-step do changes with AI and try to understand the why.
I believe if teachers relaxed their emotions a bit and adapted their grading system (while also increasing the expected learning outcomes), we would see students who are trained to understand the pitfalls of LLMs and how to maximise getting the most out of them.
As it is, the * vs # for headings makes switching between the two uncomfortable.
reply