It's an impactful mantra
You've done the work!
Has it translated into impactful change?
I think we need different types of "follow". What about something like this:
1. Friend — this person doesn't show up in my feed. But I like them, and want to keep track of them, and maybe be reminded of them on occasion (hey hodlbod, here's what your friend X has been up to this summer). I trust them, and want to factor their opinions in to content recommendations generated for me.
2. Follow — I want to know what this person says if it has engagement, is popular, or matches some other filter, like topics I've expressed interest in. The Hacker News bot might fit in this category.
3. Super Follow — I want to see everything this person says. These are the people on my "pure signal" list currently.
4. Subscribe — these are people you don't care about, and whose opinions you don't care about per se, but are people who get paid (either by you or by advertisers) to recommend content or products. Could be bots or influencers. You'd never see their content, but you would see things recommended by them.
Items #2 and #3 are variants of the same thing, and could be conflated by assigning a decimal value to your follow (suggested by nostr:nprofile1qqsfcts2suzpxaeuhy2mnjwd9cwt69l98t3tp2r2hf09hu8uz0zzp5spzfmhxue69uhhqatjwpkx2urpvuhx2ucpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduq3vamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwdehhxarj9e3xzmnyuurtjm earlier, but I used to have something like this in Coracle).
The first category is entirely different though, because the value of the relationship is not based on what they say, but who they are. I honestly don't want to see anything my mom posts to social media unless she tags me in it (in which case she'll email me). But she's one of the most important people in my life.
Likewise the final category. This is an entirely transactional-type relationship, and is exploited to provide additional social signal to otherwise neutral content.
So, any other categories? This is really quite similar to nostr:nprofile1qqsyvrp9u6p0mfur9dfdru3d853tx9mdjuhkphxuxgfwmryja7zsvhqpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ez6ur4vgh8wetvd3hhyer9wghxuet5qyt8wumn8ghj7anfw3hhytnwdaehgu339e3k7mgpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejsxp7af9 's "relationship status" nip, but with more ability to quantify what clients can do based on the relationship. It could also be implemented (of course) using NIP 32.
LinkedIn did something like this with Follow and Connect and it's confusing af for users. Still could be cool to explore tho.
Am def guilty of paralysis thru desiring perfection ahead of action.
Note to self: Deal with complexity by simply taking the immediate next step.
Start by starting.
I should have clarified that the killer skill isn't solving for problems that are templated.
It's for problems that live in complexity and have no precreated solutions!
Anticipating and removing problems from your clients is the killer soft skill of knowledge work.
How do you recruit for that? How do you train for that?
Big reminder today
Your value and the market's perception of your value are two different things. Act accordingly.
Thank you
Isn't there a calculus for this stuff? That is - the price of a used car drops drastically after x years, but risk of failure grows. A sweet spot of sorts?
What criteria and metrics do you look for in a used car? Why?
- No older than x year
- No more than x kilometers, etc
I like Logseq too! Ideally I don't leave it, but play between both it and Obsidian.
There are (at least) two architectural ways of thinking about notes
On the level of blocks (Logseq, Roam, etc). Or on the level of files/ page (Obsidian/ OneNote).
Blocks have some incredibly powerful affordances - like linking and playing with single lines of reasoning. A single unit of an idea. Blockrefs are chef's kiss.
But they also require a lot of upfront thinking and action. So - if you didn't tag something appropriately two weeks ago in some level 6 deepthreaded note, go fuck yourself you won't find it again. It's mycelial, flat, and non-structured by design.
Conversely, page or hierarchical thinking forces upfront organization (instead of upfront tagging). There is structural safety as a backup - you remember where the file or ideas is relative to other files and levels (in the hierarchy). To me this adds a kinesthetic sense of relevance... or orientation.
I may dig it up - but a core designer of Logseq said that imposing a hierarchical structure on the tool implies an old way of thinking. Logseq requires a new way of thinking - it is designed to be flat and networked.
I suppose I am an oldthinker.
User journey
Logseq here
But mostly cuz haven't figured out how to switch over to Obsidian yet.
Have a lot to share cuz been playing the PKM game for years
My current ideal product is an eink reader that plays nicely with Readwise Reader. And has a notepad for personal notes.
No distraction. No chance of browsing the web. No notifications. No apps.
Just eink reader, Readwise, and notes.
Decided to (re)try Pocket cuz integrates with Kobo.
But after Readwise Reader there's no comparison.
Good project management is like Marie Kondoing your mind.
Oh rofl! I just had the time and book wasn't that long.
Reading consistently is prob more imp than reading quickly
A) The book is more about strategically converting economic value into experiential value from what i can tell. So, close but not exactly?
B) I'm not sure what you mean :(