recentpopularlog in

nhaliday : latex   29

Ask HN: Favorite note-taking software? | Hacker News
Ask HN: What is your ideal note-taking software and/or hardware?: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13221158

my wishlist as of 2019:
- web + desktop macOS + mobile iOS (at least viewing on the last but ideally also editing)
- sync across all those
- open-source data format that's easy to manipulate for scripting purposes
- flexible organization: mostly tree hierarchical (subsuming linear/unorganized) but with the option for directed (acyclic) graph (possibly a second layer of structure/linking)
- can store plain text, LaTeX, diagrams, sketches, and raster/vector images (video prob not necessary except as links to elsewhere)
- full-text search
- somehow digest/import data from Pinboard, Workflowy, Papers 3/Bookends, Skim, and iBooks/e-readers (esp. Kobo), ideally absorbing most of their functionality
- so, eg, track notes/annotations side-by-side w/ original PDF/DjVu/ePub documents (to replace Papers3/Bookends/Skim), and maybe web pages too (to replace Pinboard)
- OCR of handwritten notes (how to handle equations/diagrams?)
- various forms of NLP analysis of everything (topic models, clustering, etc)
- maybe version control (less important than export)

candidates?:
- Evernote prob ruled out do to heavy use of proprietary data formats (unless I can find some way to export with tolerably clean output)
- Workflowy/Dynalist are good but only cover a subset of functionality I want
- org-mode doesn't interact w/ mobile well (and I haven't evaluated it in detail otherwise)
- TiddlyWiki/Zim are in the running, but not sure about mobile
- idk about vimwiki but I'm not that wedded to vim and it seems less widely used than org-mode/TiddlyWiki/Zim so prob pass on that
- Quiver/Joplin/Inkdrop look similar and cover a lot of bases, TODO: evaluate more
- Trilium looks especially promising, tho read-only mobile and for macOS desktop look at this: https://github.com/zadam/trilium/issues/511
- RocketBook is interesting scanning/OCR solution but prob not sufficient due to proprietary data format
- TODO: many more candidates, eg, TreeSheets, Gingko, OneNote (macOS?...), Notion (proprietary data format...), Zotero, Nodebook (https://nodebook.io/landing), Polar (https://getpolarized.io), Roam (looks very promising)

Ask HN: What do you use for you personal note taking activity?: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15736102

Ask HN: What are your note-taking techniques?: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9976751

Ask HN: How do you take notes (useful note-taking strategies)?: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13064215

Ask HN: How to get better at taking notes?: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21419478

Ask HN: How do you keep your notes organized?: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21810400

Ask HN: How did you build up your personal knowledge base?: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21332957
nice comment from math guy on structure and difference between math and CS: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21338628
useful comment collating related discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21333383
highlights:
Designing a Personal Knowledge base: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8270759
Ask HN: How to organize personal knowledge?: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17892731
Do you use a personal 'knowledge base'?: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21108527
Ask HN: How do you share/organize knowledge at work and life?: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21310030
Managing my personal knowledge base: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22000791
The sad state of personal data and infrastructure: https://beepb00p.xyz/sad-infra.html
Building personal search infrastructure for your knowledge and code: https://beepb00p.xyz/pkm-search.html

How to annotate literally everything: https://beepb00p.xyz/annotating.html
Ask HN: How do you organize document digests / personal knowledge?: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21642289
Ask HN: Good solution for storing notes/excerpts from books?: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21920143
Ask HN: What's your cross-platform pdf / ePub reading workflow?: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22170395
some related stuff in the reddit links at the bottom of this pin

https://beepb00p.xyz/grasp.html
How to capture information from your browser and stay sane

Ask HN: Best solutions for keeping a personal log?: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21906650

other stuff:
plain text: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21685660

https://www.getdnote.com/blog/how-i-built-personal-knowledge-base-for-myself/
Tiago Forte: https://www.buildingasecondbrain.com

hn search: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=notetaking&type=story

Slant comparison commentary: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7011281

good comparison of options here in comments here (and Trilium itself looks good): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18840990

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_note-taking_software

stuff from Andy Matuschak and Michael Nielsen on general note-taking:
https://twitter.com/andy_matuschak/status/1202663202997170176
https://archive.is/1i9ep
Software interfaces undervalue peripheral vision! (a thread)
https://twitter.com/andy_matuschak/status/1199378287555829760
https://archive.is/J06UB
This morning I implemented PageRank to sort backlinks in my prototype note system. Mixed results!
https://twitter.com/andy_matuschak/status/1211487900505792512
https://archive.is/BOiCG
https://archive.is/4zB37
One way to dream up post-book media to make reading more effective and meaningful is to systematize "expert" practices (e.g. How to Read a Book), so more people can do them, more reliably and more cheaply. But… the most erudite people I know don't actually do those things!

the memex essay and comments from various people including Andy on it: https://pinboard.in/u:nhaliday/b:1cddf69c0b31

some more stuff specific to Roam below, and cf "Why books don't work": https://pinboard.in/u:nhaliday/b:b4d4461f6378

wikis:
https://www.slant.co/versus/5116/8768/~tiddlywiki_vs_zim
https://www.wikimatrix.org/compare/tiddlywiki+zim
http://tiddlymap.org/
https://www.zim-wiki.org/manual/Plugins/BackLinks_Pane.html
https://zim-wiki.org/manual/Plugins/Link_Map.html

apps:
Roam: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21440289
https://www.reddit.com/r/RoamResearch/
https://twitter.com/hashtag/roamcult
https://twitter.com/search?q=RoamResearch%20fortelabs
https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3AQiaochuYuan%20RoamResearch&src=typd
https://twitter.com/vgr/status/1199391391803043840
https://archive.is/TJPQN
https://archive.is/CrNwZ
https://www.nateliason.com/blog/roam
https://twitter.com/andy_matuschak/status/1190102757430063106
https://archive.is/To30Q
https://archive.is/UrI1x
https://archive.is/Ww22V
Knowledge systems which display contextual backlinks to a node open up an interesting new behavior. You can bootstrap a new node extensionally (rather than intensionally) by simply linking to it from many other nodes—even before it has any content.
https://twitter.com/michael_nielsen/status/1220197017340612608
Curious: what are the most striking public @RoamResearch pages that you know? I'd like to see examples of people using it for interesting purposes, or in interesting ways.
https://acesounderglass.com/2019/10/24/epistemic-spot-check-the-fate-of-rome-round-2/
https://twitter.com/andy_matuschak/status/1206011493495513089
https://archive.is/xvaMh
If I weren't doing my own research on questions in knowledge systems (which necessitates tinkering with my own), and if I weren't allergic to doing serious work in webapps, I'd likely use Roam instead!
https://talk.dynalist.io/t/roam-research-new-web-based-outliner-that-supports-transclusion-wiki-features-thoughts/5911/16
http://forum.eastgate.com/t/roam-research-interesting-approach-to-note-taking/2713/10
interesting app: http://www.eastgate.com/Tinderbox/
https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/09/labor-day-software-update-tinderbox-scrivener/498443/

intriguing but probably not appropriate for my needs: https://www.sophya.ai/

Inkdrop: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20103589

Joplin: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15815040
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21555238

MindForgr: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22088175
one comment links to this, mostly on Notion: https://tkainrad.dev/posts/managing-my-personal-knowledge-base/

https://wreeto.com/

Leo Editor (combines tree outlining w/ literate programming/scripting, I think?): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17769892

Frame: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18760079

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/cb18sy/anyone_use_a_personal_wiki_software_to_catalog/
https://archive.is/xViTY
Notion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18904648
https://coda.io/welcome
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15543181

accounting: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19833881
Coda mentioned

https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/ap437v/modified_cornell_method_the_optimal_notetaking/
https://archive.is/e9oHu
https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/bt8a1r/im_about_to_start_a_one_month_journaling_test/
https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9cot3m/question_how_do_you_guys_learn_things/
https://archive.is/HUH8V
https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/d7bvcp/how_to_read_a_book_for_understanding/
https://archive.is/VL2mi

Anki:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Anki/comments/as8i4t/use_anki_for_technical_books/
https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/how-anki-saved-my-engineering-career-293a90f70a73/
https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/ch24q9/anki_is_it_inferior_to_the_3x5_index_card_an/
https://archive.is/OaGc5
maybe not the best source for a review/advice

interesting comment(s) about tree outliners and spreadsheets: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21170434
https://lightsheets.app/

tablet:
https://www.inkandswitch.com/muse-studio-for-ideas.html
https://www.inkandswitch.com/capstone-manuscript.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20255457
hn  discussion  recommendations  software  tools  desktop  app  notetaking  exocortex  wkfly  wiki  productivity  multi  comparison  crosstab  properties  applicability-prereqs  nlp  info-foraging  chart  webapp  reference  q-n-a  retention  workflow  reddit  social  ratty  ssc  learning  studying  commentary  structure  thinking  network-structure  things  collaboration  ocr  trees  graphs  LaTeX  search  todo  project  money-for-time  synchrony  pinboard  state  duplication  worrydream  simplification-normalization  links  minimalism  design  neurons  ai-control  openai  miri-cfar  parsimony  intricacy  meta:reading  examples  prepping  new-religion  deep-materialism  techtariat  review  critique  mobile  integration-extension  interface-compatibility  api  twitter  backup  vgr  postrat  personal-finance  pragmatic  stay-organized  project-management  news  org:mag  epistemic  steel-man  explore-exploit  correlation  cost-benefit  convexity-curvature  michael-nielsen  hci  ux  oly  skunkworks  europe  germanic 
october 2019 by nhaliday
An Efficiency Comparison of Document Preparation Systems Used in Academic Research and Development
The choice of an efficient document preparation system is an important decision for any academic researcher. To assist the research community, we report a software usability study in which 40 researchers across different disciplines prepared scholarly texts with either Microsoft Word or LaTeX. The probe texts included simple continuous text, text with tables and subheadings, and complex text with several mathematical equations. We show that LaTeX users were slower than Word users, wrote less text in the same amount of time, and produced more typesetting, orthographical, grammatical, and formatting errors. On most measures, expert LaTeX users performed even worse than novice Word users. LaTeX users, however, more often report enjoying using their respective software. We conclude that even experienced LaTeX users may suffer a loss in productivity when LaTeX is used, relative to other document preparation systems. Individuals, institutions, and journals should carefully consider the ramifications of this finding when choosing document preparation strategies, or requiring them of authors.

...

However, our study suggests that LaTeX should be used as a document preparation system only in cases in which a document is heavily loaded with mathematical equations. For all other types of documents, our results suggest that LaTeX reduces the user’s productivity and results in more orthographical, grammatical, and formatting errors, more typos, and less written text than Microsoft Word over the same duration of time. LaTeX users may argue that the overall quality of the text that is created with LaTeX is better than the text that is created with Microsoft Word. Although this argument may be true, the differences between text produced in more recent editions of Microsoft Word and text produced in LaTeX may be less obvious than it was in the past. Moreover, we believe that the appearance of text matters less than the scientific content and impact to the field. In particular, LaTeX is also used frequently for text that does not contain a significant amount of mathematical symbols and formula. We believe that the use of LaTeX under these circumstances is highly problematic and that researchers should reflect on the criteria that drive their preferences to use LaTeX over Microsoft Word for text that does not require significant mathematical representations.

...

A second decision criterion that factors into the choice to use a particular software system is reflection about what drives certain preferences. A striking result of our study is that LaTeX users are highly satisfied with their system despite reduced usability and productivity. From a psychological perspective, this finding may be related to motivational factors, i.e., the driving forces that compel or reinforce individuals to act in a certain way to achieve a desired goal. A vital motivational factor is the tendency to reduce cognitive dissonance. According to the theory of cognitive dissonance, each individual has a motivational drive to seek consonance between their beliefs and their actual actions. If a belief set does not concur with the individual’s actual behavior, then it is usually easier to change the belief rather than the behavior [6]. The results from many psychological studies in which people have been asked to choose between one of two items (e.g., products, objects, gifts, etc.) and then asked to rate the desirability, value, attractiveness, or usefulness of their choice, report that participants often reduce unpleasant feelings of cognitive dissonance by rationalizing the chosen alternative as more desirable than the unchosen alternative [6, 7]. This bias is usually unconscious and becomes stronger as the effort to reject the chosen alternative increases, which is similar in nature to the case of learning and using LaTeX.

...

Given these numbers it remains an open question to determine the amount of taxpayer money that is spent worldwide for researchers to use LaTeX over a more efficient document preparation system, which would free up their time to advance their respective field. Some publishers may save a significant amount of money by requesting or allowing LaTeX submissions because a well-formed LaTeX document complying with a well-designed class file (template) is much easier to bring into their publication workflow. However, this is at the expense of the researchers’ labor time and effort. We therefore suggest that leading scientific journals should consider accepting submissions in LaTeX only if this is justified by the level of mathematics presented in the paper. In all other cases, we think that scholarly journals should request authors to submit their documents in Word or PDF format. We believe that this would be a good policy for two reasons. First, we think that the appearance of the text is secondary to the scientific merit of an article and its impact to the field. And, second, preventing researchers from producing documents in LaTeX would save time and money to maximize the benefit of research and development for both the research team and the public.

[ed.: I sense some salt.

And basically no description of how "# errors" was calculated.]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8797002
I question the validity of their methodology.
At no point in the paper is exactly what is meant by a "formatting error" or a "typesetting error" defined. From what I gather, the participants in the study were required to reproduce the formatting and layout of the sample text. In theory, a LaTeX file should strictly be a semantic representation of the content of the document; while TeX may have been a raw typesetting language, this is most definitely not the intended use case of LaTeX and is overall a very poor test of its relative advantages and capabilities.
The separation of the semantic definition of the content from the rendering of the document is, in my opinion, the most important feature of LaTeX. Like CSS, this allows the actual formatting to be abstracted away, allowing plain (marked-up) content to be written without worrying about typesetting.
Word has some similar capabilities with styles, and can be used in a similar manner, though few Word users actually use the software properly. This may sound like a relatively insignificant point, but in practice, almost every Word document I have seen has some form of inconsistent formatting. If Word disallowed local formatting changes (including things such as relative spacing of nested bullet points), forcing all formatting changes to be done in document-global styles, it would be a far better typesetting system. Also, the users would be very unhappy.
Yes, LaTeX can undeniably be a pain in the arse, especially when it comes to trying to get figures in the right place; however the combination of a simple, semantic plain-text representation with a flexible and professional typesetting and rendering engine are undeniable and completely unaddressed by this study.
--
It seems that the test was heavily biased in favor of WYSIWYG.
Of course that approach makes it very simple to reproduce something, as has been tested here. Even simpler would be to scan the document and run OCR. The massive problem with both approaches (WYSIWYG and scanning) is that you can't generalize any of it. You're doomed repeating it forever.
(I'll also note the other significant issue with this study: when the ratings provided by participants came out opposite of their test results, they attributed it to irrational bias.)

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01796-1
Over the past few years however, the line between the tools has blurred. In 2017, Microsoft made it possible to use LaTeX’s equation-writing syntax directly in Word, and last year it scrapped Word’s own equation editor. Other text editors also support elements of LaTeX, allowing newcomers to use as much or as little of the language as they like.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20191348
study  hmm  academia  writing  publishing  yak-shaving  technical-writing  software  tools  comparison  latex  scholar  regularizer  idk  microsoft  evidence-based  science  desktop  time  efficiency  multi  hn  commentary  critique  news  org:sci  flux-stasis  duplication  metrics  biases 
june 2019 by nhaliday
Interview with Donald Knuth | Interview with Donald Knuth | InformIT
Andrew Binstock and Donald Knuth converse on the success of open source, the problem with multicore architecture, the disappointing lack of interest in literate programming, the menace of reusable code, and that urban legend about winning a programming contest with a single compilation.

Reusable vs. re-editable code: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01966146/document
- Konrad Hinsen

https://www.johndcook.com/blog/2008/05/03/reusable-code-vs-re-editable-code/
I think whether code should be editable or in “an untouchable black box” depends on the number of developers involved, as well as their talent and motivation. Knuth is a highly motivated genius working in isolation. Most software is developed by large teams of programmers with varying degrees of motivation and talent. I think the further you move away from Knuth along these three axes the more important black boxes become.
nibble  interview  giants  expert-experience  programming  cs  software  contrarianism  carmack  oss  prediction  trends  linux  concurrency  desktop  comparison  checking  debugging  stories  engineering  hmm  idk  algorithms  books  debate  flux-stasis  duplication  parsimony  best-practices  writing  documentation  latex  intricacy  structure  hardware  caching  workflow  editors  composition-decomposition  coupling-cohesion  exposition  technical-writing  thinking  cracker-prog  code-organizing  grokkability  multi  techtariat  commentary  pdf  reflection  essay  examples  python  data-science  libraries  grokkability-clarity  project-management 
june 2019 by nhaliday
bibliographies - bibtex vs. biber and biblatex vs. natbib - TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange
- bibtex and biber are external programs that process bibliography information and act (roughly) as the interface between your .bib file and your LaTeX document.
- natbib and biblatex are LaTeX packages that format citations and bibliographies; natbib works only with bibtex, while biblatex (at the moment) works with both bibtex and biber.)

natbib
The natbib package has been around for quite a long time, and although still maintained, it is fair to say that it isn't being further developed. It is still widely used, and very reliable.

Advantages
...
- The resulting bibliography code can be pasted directly into a document (often required for journal submissions). See Biblatex: submitting to a journal.

...

biblatex
The biblatex package is being actively developed in conjunction with the biber backend.

Advantages
*lots*

Disadvantages
- Journals and publishers may not accept documents that use biblatex if they have a house style with its own natbib compatible .bst file.
q-n-a  stackex  latex  comparison  cost-benefit  writing  scholar  technical-writing  yak-shaving  publishing 
may 2019 by nhaliday
package writing - Where do I start LaTeX programming? - TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange
I think there are three categories which need to be mastered (perhaps not all in the same degree) in order to become comfortable around TeX programming:

1. TeX programming. That's very basic, it deals with expansion control, counters, scopes, basic looping constructs and so on.

2. TeX typesetting. That's on a higher level, it includes control over boxes, lines, glues, modes, and perhaps about 1000 parameters.

3. Macro packages like LaTeX.
q-n-a  stackex  programming  latex  howto  nitty-gritty  yak-shaving  links  list  recommendations  books  guide  DSL 
may 2019 by nhaliday
packages - Are the TeX semantics and grammar defined somewhere in some official documents? - TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange
The grammar of each TeX command is more or less completely given in The TeXBook. Note, however, that unlike most programming languages the lexical analysis and tokenisation of the input cannot be separated from execution as the catcode table which controls tokenisation is dynamically changeable. Thus parsing TeX tends to defeat most parser generation tools.

LaTeX is a set of macros written in TeX so is defined by its implementation, although there is fairly extensive documentation in The LaTeX Companion, the LaTeX book (LaTeX: A Document Preparation System), and elsewhere.
q-n-a  stackex  programming  compilers  latex  yak-shaving  nitty-gritty  syntax 
may 2019 by nhaliday
documentation - Materials for learning TikZ - TeX - LaTeX Stack Exchange
The way I learned all three was basically demand-driven --- "learning by doing". Whenever I needed something "new", I'd dig into the manual and try stuff until either it worked (not always most elegantly), or in desperation go to the examples website, or moan here on TeX-'n-Friends. Occasionally supplemented by trying to answer "challenging" questions here.

yeah I kinda figured that was the right approach. just not worth the time to be proactive.
q-n-a  stackex  latex  list  links  tutorial  guide  learning  yak-shaving  recommendations  programming  visuo  dataviz  prioritizing  technical-writing 
may 2019 by nhaliday
Quiver | HappenApps
would be interesting to compare this w/ Workflowy (maybe keep Workflowy for most stuff but try out Quiver on a software side project)

biggest problems:
1. linear rather than hierarchical
2. lack of custom preamble (a limitation of MathJax). you can only define macros

both definitely are side effects of targeting programmers working on individuated projects rather than universal notetaking

design goals: http://yaoganglian.com/2015/12/06/What-is-Quiver/

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11009996
software  tools  osx  desktop  app  notetaking  productivity  devtools  latex  money-for-time  🖥  multi  exocortex  wkfly  working-stiff  hn  commentary  structure  network-structure  stay-organized 
june 2016 by nhaliday

Copy this bookmark:





to read