Same, I already had a reMarkable tablet and got the reMarkable Paper Pro Move as an impulse purchase (ignoring its ridiculously high price) expecting to return it within the 50-day return window, but the fact that it fits in my pocket (or “most of my pockets”, as you said) has made a huge difference in how much I use it and how I spend my time. The sync is also nice (I think it works up to some limit even without a paid subscription, though it turned out I had one grandfathered in); I can basically send webpages I’m reading to it using the browser extension (at least on desktop). On mobile it’s a bit more annoying, but e.g. I’ve printed long newsletters from the Gmail to PDF (paper size A6) and imported the PDF onto it.
It’s perfectly adequate for writing on, but so far I’ve almost never used the fact that it has (a rudimentary set of) colours, though.
SSH in and you have access to basically everything. The stock setup has two partitions for the OS (it toggles between them when you update, or toggles back if it fails to boot a few times) so you can:
Last time I did it, I just did it manually - back up the OS version you want over ssh, then restore it whenever you want (on the non-active partition). And screwed it up the first time, and had to do a recovery: https://github.com/ddvk/remarkable2-recovery (requires using the contact pads on the spine for USB access - not too hard to solder up a pogo pin thing, but might take some time to get the parts).
So I'd recommend the automated way, though I haven't tried it yet :)
There's a (single) relatively active discord server if you want specific Q&As with other people too, or to double check whatever the current recommendations are (probably do that, as I'm somewhat out of date): https://discord.com/invite/nQ6nHwfDfc
And do definitely back up your data partition before making any major version movements tho, in case something doesn't work right and you need to roll back. I forget if/when that's necessary, but it's a good safety net just in case. And <8GB isn't much to store just in case.
Knuth is not in favour of using kilo/mega/etc with power-of-2 meanings:
> I'm a big fan of binary numbers, but I have to admit that this convention flouts the widely accepted international standards for scientific prefixes.
He also calls it “an important issue” and had written “1000 MB = 1 gigabyte (GB), 1000 GB = 1 terabyte (TB), 1000 TB = 1 petabyte (PB), 1000 PB = 1 exabyte (EB), 1000 EB = 1 zettabyte (ZB), 1000 ZB = 1 yottabyte (YB)” in his MMIX book even before the new binary prefixes became an international standard.
He is merely complaining that the new names for the binary prefixes sound funny (and has his own proposal like “large megabyte” and notation MMB etc), but he's still using the kilo/mega/etc prefixes with decimal meanings.
It's odd though. Metric prefixes are always lower case, so GB isn't valid metric. Further, outside of storage manufacturers attempting to inflate their numbers when does is ever make sense to mix power of ten with 8 bit bytes? Networking is always in bits per second, not bytes.
Edit: Disregard the metric bit but I think the rest still stands.
> We should note – without seeing it as physiologically symbolic of their respective philosophies – that Kant was constipated, while Nietzsche suffered from compulsive vomiting.
To the contrary, I'm pretty sure it is more than symbolic. Surely it matches their temperament (respectively) and thereby their philosophies.
Funny, but note that Knuth had already published three volumes of TAOCP and a second edition of Volume 1 (1968–1973), won a Turing Award for them (1974), and had the second edition of Volume 2 in galley proofs, and even then it was only a combination of two factors (the publishers moving away from hot-metal typesetting to phototypesetting with a decline in quality, and the emergence of digital typesetting that he felt more comfortable handling) that led him to take up the problem. And even then, he simply wrote down a design and left it to a couple of grad students to implement over the summer while he was gone, and it was only when he came back and saw their (limited) progress that he realized the problem was harder than two good Stanford grad students could handle, and decided to take it up himself. And even then he basically started in mid-1977 and was done in a year or so (TeX78 and MF79), and only when it became very popular and incompatible ports started cropping up that he decided to (re)write a “portable” TeX and METAFONT himself (1980–1982, ??–1984). And after that there was a constant stream of feature requests so he decided on an “exit strategy” and froze the programs. And continued to do research and publish papers on the side during the years he was working on TeX/MF “full-time”.
So yeah the moral I guess is, tooling may take longer than you expect, but you must at least be trying to get away from it and back to writing. :)
Yes I like that page too, and I guess I was responding to it from memory, more than to your comment :) There's an element of truth to it but also a misunderstanding, so the story can be told in both ways. Maybe I should write this up as a webpage/blog post.
OP here (though I don't claim any special insight, as I said).
It would be interesting to consider the differences between the Charlie Brown and Arthur Dent character archetypes.
One difference seems to me exactly the undying earnestness and optimism you mentioned: in a way, Charlie Brown and other American characters like him are simply not touched by failure (even if bad things happen to them), because of their optimism[1]. This makes them lovable: we appreciate them for this quality that we (most of the audience) do not have.
[1]: (or lack of self-awareness, in some other cases mentioned here like Homer Simpson or Peter Griffin)
Arthur Dent, on the other hand, is not gifted with undying optimism. He's constantly moaning about things, starting with his house and his planet being destroyed. This makes him relatable more than lovable: he's not a “lovable loser” (and for the right audience, does not seem a “loser” at all), he is just us, “my kind of guy” — we feel kinship rather than appreciation. We relate to the moaning (if Arthur Dent were to remain unfailingly optimistic, he'd be… different), whereas if Charlie Brown were to lose his optimism or if Homer were to say "D'oh!" to complain about big things in life rather than hurting his thumb or whatever, they would become less of the endearing American institutions they are IMO.
I would not say that Charlie Brown is untouched by failure. He does descend to the depths of despair. But some how rises from it to try (and fail) again. This trope is seen best with Lucy pulling away the football every time he goes to kick it. Even though he knows he's failed every time, he talks himself into this time being different.
This does not contradict your overriding point, just adding nuance to the claim he is "simply not touched by failure".
I suspect that one difference that gives the impression that the characters in Peanuts are "untouched by failure" is that for the most part they don't have real character arcs. Once their archetypes are established they stay the same. Combine that with being the longest running comic written by a single person of all time and it feels like nothing ever changes.
That's not a critique - being a comforting source of unchanging familiarity is part of the point of a newspaper comic. But it is very different to H2G. Arthur Dent might be a bumbling failure who is flung around by forces out of his own control, but his life still changes and he still changes. He still grows a little bit as a person.
Homer used to complain about the big things. He tried to kill himself in the third episode due to losing his job. The first 2 seasons are honestly comparatively depressing with some of the heavy topics they touch on.
The Simpsons just leant so far into 1-note characteristics that they became caricatures of themselves - and the term Flanderization was born.
OP, if you’re still lurking, are you familiar with the Flashman series? I feel like it falls somewhere between the poles here. Either way, would highly recommend it to anyone who likes Adams, history, learning or reprobates.
I'm an Indian, but had sanskrit education only a little not much. It just looks like lots of adjectives bunched together. I mean yes it maybe one word but then it's not a single idea it's just lot of adjectives bunched together to show the entire personality of something or somebody
• That applies to the Greek word too. Obviously these long “words” are compounds made up of distinct morphemes (similar with German examples like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rinderkennzeichnungs-_und_Rind... or for that matter even shorter English words like antidisestablishmentarianism), the whole thing is one “word” simply because there's a case ending only at the end; you need to read the whole thing as occupying a single role in the sentence it is a part of.
“Ignoring” is not the same as “noticing”; the difference is right there in the words!
You are right that it is undesirable to be a slave to one's emotions, to keep having emotional outbursts or “expressing” all emotions impulsively. But at the other extreme if you try to address this by building a habit of dissociation and “ignoring” your feelings (as you propose), that is also not good, and not how Stoicism or meditation address it. (To use an analogy: it would be bad for a parent to be a slave to their children, or for a charioteer to be led by their horses instead of controlling them. But ignoring them isn't great either!)
Stoicism addresses this preemptively, building a practice of having a proportionate response to things outside our control. Meditation also addresses this by, as you said, noticing emotions when they arise, recognizing them for what they are (creating some distance), and letting them pass instead of indulging them. Ignoring your emotions or letting them burst out are both different from letting them pass/seeing them through.
reply