sgoody

I agree here. When I take notes more formally in a structured way, I often feel like there isn't a good place to store something. Or I think something is so scrappy that it doesn't "deserve" to be a note in a carefully curated store, so I don't write it down.

When taking daily notes... I can just literally fire anything into the note and forget about it.

If it's something I'm actively working on, it'll be in a note from a couple of days back.

If it's something more historic, it can sit gathering dust and I never need to worry about it and maybe if I need something I can just search over the notes files.

This is quite a personal thing... I'm terrible at note taking and I've tried a few methods. I find organising this kind of "data" very difficult and I also find habit forming around note taking very difficult also. Finally, I always hated the idea of daily notes/journaling, so I resisted it for the longest time.

But when I finally started making a journal it was a lifeline. It works so well for me. I stop worrying about what I'm writing, how well I'm writing it, how I'm structuring it, where I'm storing it... and I just write it.

If it's something pertinent to what I"m working on, then it'll be a note from the last few days. Old notes, I just don't worry about.

I do have a page for "todo" type thing and I'm still working on that and I also write "proper" documentation separately. But daily notes are a huge win for me.

Hey, thanks for this. I'm a long-time Vim user, but I've never gotten around to adding in some slick IDE-like featuers (I've made half an attempt to get code completions working, but often lose interest if it doesn't work first time).

The intro looks great I will definitely check this out.

I enjoyed reading this and I'm not bothered about tweaking the solutions into oblivion to eke out performance gains. This is a nice, simple comparison, with performance being a simple demonstration of code written by one author.

The only thing that seems to be an obvious omission is the omission of Haskell.

Thanks for the response. I knew that TCP handles dropped packets. But it seems like using an exceptional case for dealing with errors shouldn't be the norm. Is this also how more traditional traffic shaping works?

I presume that under circumstances such as this you end up generating a lot more network traffic than you need to, because of the overhead in retransmitting failed packets.

I know you couldn't buffer indefinitely because your buffer would overflow, but could you maybe delay the acknowledgements of packets, e.g. To simulate a slower link.

Not saying there's anything wrong with the approach or article, merely curious from the perspective of a non-networks guy.

I'm a developer and not a networking guy, so I'm curious; is dropping packets like this a good idea or is there a better approach? It would seem to be a bad idea to me.

Huh, strange thing is it seems like I just can read that quickly anyway. Started on the banner at 250wpm, pretty comfortable, went straight to 500wpm on the banner and still fairly comfortable to read. So I thought I'd have a go at just reading some plain text as quickly as I comfortably could and it turns out that I can read more quickly than I do. I don't know why I don't read more quickly than I do, perhaps it down to comprehension, but I think in the future for articles I'm not trying to fully absorb that I may try to just read them more quickly!

It is unfortunate that they ask you to "confirm having read and fully understood the hubiC General Terms and Conditions (sic)" in English, but then present the terms and conditions in French. Absolutely nothing against the French language, but there's a clear disconnect there.

Hey ho, it's not like I read them anyway!

I'm a C# dev and I totally agree with this.

I've done a limited amount of C++ many many years ago before I even knew what garbage collection was and I keep thinking of revisiting it, but honestly in my line of work ("Enterprise") I don't need the mental overhead of dealing with things such as pointers and memory allocation.

Perhaps, my view is outdated, but I get the impression that everything in C/C++ is just a little thorny when compared to other slightly more high-level languages, such as namespaces, package management, list comprehensions, library compatibilities, type strictness etc.

I would like to be wrong about that though... I wish I had a little more motivation to spend some real time with C++ (or perhaps even C).

I thought I'd read somewhere previously that Google claimed rights to be able to do whatever they wanted with your data... I'm looking at that now and it's not clear to me but I may have been wrong about that.

I'm pretty disappointed by the recent dropping of standards that Google has been doing.

I'm quite a sceptical person and I've never been a fan of any big corp, but Google has been the one that I've trusted my data in the most and that I've been happiest with.

I still trust them with some of my data, but I'm rapidly losing faith in them and in fact I'm starting to think that Microsoft are a more "open" company... and I'd consider myself a one-time Microsoft hater, but I think they've turned things around.

The only reason I'm still with them for email/calendars is that they're just so very very good. But they're privacy policies for GDrive scare me, so I don't use that.

Frankly though, I'm starting to think that my data and services would be better off with Microsoft now...

I know there's a lot of this kind of advise out there and I find most of it works fairly well. I think that for people who have a problem getting things done, the main issue is just not having any way of tracking things at all.

I don't follow any methodology as such, but one thing which did help me was reading a tiny bit about the Pomodoro stuff. Basically the thing which absolutely kills my productivity is context switching. i.e. starting one thing, then breaking off to do another. What I take away from the Pomodoro stuff is that I should not work on anything for less than 20mins and that time should be carved up into 20min chunks.

In practice all this means to me is that I try not to get distracted by other things and if somebody attempts to get my attention I'll get them to wait until I've completed the thing which I'm at task on.

I don't do anything by strict structure, so everything's subject to changes, but I try to be careful to allocate a minimum amount of time to things and I try to make a todo list. In my private life I use toodledo, which gives me decent views by due date/urgency/context/folder. At work, I'm using a mix of Gmail stars, Gmail tasks and proprietary apps, though in the past I have just used a single .txt file.

Kudos to you!

I can see that this is really really simple stuff (single page client side only), but it's genuinely executed very well in terms of appearance, usability and functionality.

I think we could all learn a little something from this.

Batteries not included.