Charlie, I am all for diversity and different ways about thinking. It keeps the world rich and interesting and a great source of new and innovative ideas. Perhaps you take my use of the work lazy differently or too seriously. As an information and knowledge management professional, I come across lazy all the time. An example would be not finding the correct place to put something in a document library, or deciding not to fill in the metadata when requested, information known to the person, but they "cant be bothered", then they come to me when they have lost the document or cant tell which is the most current etc...
Since the availability of relink, one could always make use of it, to maintain references rather than develop good naming standards, which without relink we had to do well, to avoid renames. When we are given things on a platter we tend to forget how we could go into the kitchen and make anything we want. Once again it is horses for courses, and what I do is different to what other people do. If one uses *relink and good naming standards* then perfect, however we (including myself) can rely on relink to fix our mistakes, so sometimes I am lazy with my names. I expect others to do this as well. However since now I have highlighted this, I am aware of the possibility and hope to avoid and overreliance on relink, or degrade my naming standards. By the way humanity is only where it is today technologically, because of our desire to be lazy in one way or another and as in the book "thinking fast and slow" describes, there is a real value and incentive to avoid the "slow thinking", yet we neglect it at our peril. Interesting discussion Tones On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 00:35:43 UTC+10 cj.v...@gmail.com wrote: > Hence my "do what makes sense for you and what you are doing." > > And me not understanding how relink could make anybody lazy. I can't > think of a use case in which relink could make a person lazy. > > > > > If there is information value in remembering (recording) what was and not > just what is, then do what it takes to not lose the what was. Do the work. > > If there is information value in the journey to what is, then do what it > takes to record and preserve that information (i.e. all the milestone > steps, whatever versions of whatever, that brought you to what is.) Do the > work. > > If the what was does not provide value, and you don't think it will ever > provide value, why bother? Same for the journey to what is. Don't do the > work. That isn't lazy. > > If you worry that you might need it someday, then it has value (even if > just alleviating the worry.) Do the Work. > > If you feel like you're life is cluttered by hoarding (the "I might need > it someday" has become unmanageable or otherwise gotten to an unhealthy > level), then maybe you need to lighten your load. Rethink your work, and > lessen the work. That isn't lazy. > > Go with what your needs are, and what keeps you sane and happy. Do the > right work for you. > > All of that to say I don't understand how it can make anybody lazy. > > It sounds like you are saying you would feel lazy if you did not do the > things you do. If you did those things sometimes but not others, I don't > think you would be lazy those times you didn't do those things. > > I don't believe at all that you're saying others are lazy if they don't do > the things you do in certain scenarios. > > > I'm just trying to get a grip on how relink can possibly encourage > laziness in people in regards to managing content / information / knowledge > in TiddlyWiki. > > That isn't something I understand, and I'd like to understand it. To > understand that, I learn something new that shapes how I do things myself > and it gives new insights on how folk might be "lazy" (which sounds more > like folk not understanding cause and effect RE how they use any tool, or > follow process, or anything at all related to content / information / > knowledge management.) > > So maybe not so much about lazy, but rather folk not being aware that > doing certain things can really bite one in the caboose when one is not > aware of the potential breaking of something, or loss of something. In > which case: meh, live and learn. > > One learns to ride a bike by accepting the potential veering into the > ditch and whatever bumps/bruises. > > I can now replace all of the above with this one-liner: make regular > backups so that the next bone-headed move doesn't create a whole bunch of > heartache. Live, learn, enjoy, don't worry. > > Entropy, like $hit, happens. Acceptance is bliss. Amount of effort > within one's boundaries of reasonableness is good. > > Unless the work is for somebody else. Than all bets, or many bets, may be > off. > > Everybody desires freedom and flexibility, and everybody is capable of > forethought and systematic understanding. (Anybody can leapfrog anybody at > any moment.) > > Every recipe does not require the same amount of salt. It depends on the > recipe, and it depends on personal taste. Some recipes don't require any > salt at all. (recipe being the need, salt being the amount of work.) > > > > > > On Saturday, July 24, 2021 at 10:15:51 AM UTC-3 TW Tones wrote: > >> Charlie. >> >> Perhaps it does not make you lazy, but if for example you use Bombay, >> then realise its no longer called that, just renaming to Mumbai, Knowing >> relink updates it everywhere is lazy. Bombay is lost to your wiki. >> >> Renaming it then adding a tiddler for Bombay with a connection to Mumbai >> and even better if you say this occurred in a particular year, then your >> wiki gains rather than looses information. In this case I am not saying >> don't rename, that is your prerogative, I am saying be thoughtful when >> doing so, and sometime the value is not the easiest thing. >> >> For example when I write macros and other solutions I already have a set >> of standard names based on experience and as a result they just never >> happen to need renaming. I am not hemmed in in any way with my naming >> standards, in fact I feel I have more freedom in many ways to move on >> knowing I can find anything I need again from "first principals" my >> standards again, and I have more times to name where I want. A macro name >> needs to be remembered, where was it defined, what are it parameters? >> >> I have the desire for the same freedom and flexibility as you, but I also >> am aware of how forethought and systematic understanding is how we can >> stand on the "shoulders of Giants" or advance our own ideas. The gentle >> application of constraints (a recent fashion) promotes discovery and >> creativity as much as seeking "total freedom from constraints" also can. >> >> After all, we are all but struggling against entropy. >> >> Tones >> >> >> On Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 12:45:41 UTC+10 cj.v...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> Well, TiddlyTweeter said "SERIOUS IMPLICIT KNOWLEDGE," so I can't take >>> the kudos for that. >>> >>> I can't imagine how relink could make anybody lazy. I want relink to >>> handle it because I prefer focus on churning the intertwingled thoughts as >>> tiddlers without the sticks-in-the-wheels, wheels-in-the-mud, that is >>> getting the title right toute-suite. Good enough title immediately, tweak >>> to perfection iteratively/incrementally. >>> >>> Sure, there may be times, as per one's needs, in which changing a >>> tiddler title is semantically bad, or bad for link rot, or bad for some >>> other reason, or a combination of reasons. >>> >>> Do as makes sense for you and what you're doing (how you function, the >>> purpose of a particular tiddler or a whole tiddlywiki). >>> >>> - For the great majority of what I do and how I function, tiddler >>> titles that must never change would drive me off the deep end. >>> - For some things, I really do not want the tiddler titles to ever >>> change, because I use (in these scenarios) tiddler titles strictly as >>> one >>> would use sequence (or system-generated) numbers for primary keys in a >>> database. These are very niche organizational/presentation purposes of >>> mine. >>> - For how I function, I can't imagine any other scenario in which I >>> would want titles to stay fixed-no-matter-what. Bleurk. I'd much >>> prefer >>> multiple tiddlers and handy-dandy transclusions to handle implicit >>> knowledge. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 8:56:09 PM UTC-3 TW Tones wrote: >>> >>>> This is where I think relink can make people lazy. The unique key to a >>>> tiddler is the title, but it is so easy to change the key, which is a >>>> powerful benefit but there are a subset of situations where changing the >>>> key needs further thought. >>>> >>>> If relink just "handles it", we may just forget the impact of a change, >>>> Apart even from external links there is a historical event involved in >>>> Bombay to Mumbai. As Charlie said SERIOUS IMPLICIT KNOWLEDGE, This change >>>> supports my approach which is to avoid loosing information. In this case >>>> if >>>> you simply renamed you loose the old name. So if renaming results in lost >>>> of information further steps should be taken. >>>> >>>> Perhaps logging renames in a data tiddler that is searchable would >>>> offer a level of record, so that a search returns something like *Mumbai >>>> (Bombay)* if this was confirmed, or *Mumbai (Bombay)? *if not >>>> confirmed. Perhaps we could use Mario's alias plugin or similar tools to >>>> somewhat automate this. I doubt capturing all title renames even over a >>>> long period would consume much space. >>>> >>>> Tones >>>> >>>> On Saturday, 24 July 2021 at 00:04:14 UTC+10 TiddlyTweeter wrote: >>>> >>>>> Right! >>>>> >>>>> But there is SERIOUS IMPLICIT KNOWLEDGE at work knowing that Mumbai IS >>>>> Bombay >>>>> >>>>> Do these transforms inform the user of what is going on an why? >>>>> >>>>> Just asking for a friend, >>>>> TT >>>>> >>>>> On Friday, 23 July 2021 at 15:03:34 UTC+2 PMario wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 5:14:00 PM UTC+2 springer wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> And as much as you may "choose my tiddler names well enough when >>>>>>> needed so they need not change in future", renaming a tiddler is not >>>>>>> always a matter of realizing that you failed to have foresight the >>>>>>> first >>>>>>> time around. (My reason for invoking the Bombay to Mumbai change -- >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think changes like this are easy to handle, without breaking "old" >>>>>> permalinks. There is no problem if you change Bombay to Mumbai and also >>>>>> change all links to be Mumbai. ... As long as you keep 1 tiddler named >>>>>> Bombay. It could contain eg: >>>>>> >>>>>> Now [[Mumbai]] since 1995. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you have a look at wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai >>>>>> ... The first thing it says is: "Bombay redirects here" >>>>>> >>>>>> just a thought. >>>>>> -mario >>>>>> >>>>> -- 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 tiddlywiki+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/121f80b1-e469-4f4e-8e67-635447d7916fn%40googlegroups.com.
