Well not everyone has the privilege to buy new books, especially course-mandated books that the professor "coincidentally" wrote and costs hundreds of dollars.
I would even say that "crossing out lines you disagree with" is vandalism because a book can always be read by others and come to a different conclusion and debate in their mind from there.
Why treat books as disposable mind scaffolds when they can be used again by others productively and even preserved for later generations? If you found a book to be at least somewhat useful to write notes on, then why would others not also find it useful?
Margin notes are fine though as long as they do not make the main contents of the book unreadable like "crossing out lines".
This is why "condition" exists for secondhand books. People can choose a written-in one or not. If you can't afford new, note that written-in ones are often even cheaper!
I have been delighted by the writing I've seen in books, especially if it's a copy of a friend or family member, as you feel you are connecting to another reader years later, and the item is no longer identically mass-produced. But maybe it depends on the taste of the person writing in the book.
>I would even say that "crossing out lines you disagree with" is vandalism
if you cross out words in a book you borrowed, that is vandalism. if you cross out words in a book you own, by definition, that is not vandalism.
it would be uncool to mark up a textbook you planned to resell at the end of the semester, but it still would not be vandalism assuming you bought the textbook.
I think the truth is most printed copies of books are rarely read even once, so the idea of preserving them is noble but realistically not that important. And may be outweighed by benefits accrued to the person currently owning and reading it making the most of it and marking to their hearts content.
I admit I don’t mark up my books but I feel tempted to try
> Well not everyone has the privilege to buy new books, especially course-mandated books that the professor "coincidentally" wrote and costs hundreds of dollars.
Do you even understand what you sound like?
"Writing in something you own is vandalism because poor people".
Hello, just wanted to share. This piece just finally hit me with the surrealness of autonomous AI (with personality) in modern society is now a reality. It made me question what is consciousness? Do we need a biological body? Does a virus count as alive?
I think what you're trying to describe is a Jupyter notebook but in a slimmer package. Maybe marimo or quarto? Maybe there are already notebook viewers out there (on GitHub?) that only allow view or edit without code execution, if that suits your needs.
Hello, thanks for the work for finally having an analog to Claude Code.
A natural question to ask is, if in the near future, can Google One "Google AI Pro" subscribers have higher limits than what is offered for free users?
Looks like I just inadvertently skipped to level 4 every workday, due to working inside of a restricted area with lots of proprietary industrial stuff.
Yeah, I also found dotted notebooks to be the sweet spot. It's cleaner than a lined or gridded notebooks and especially helpful if they're already numbered.
The tweaks they found in the article is basically a proto-version of the Bullet Journal but just with its index system.
Physical notebooks are nice but as I have to come to know throughout the years, they are also kind of "disposable" and cannot survive long-term if you have to do any amount of moving. You wish you could keep all of your journals/notebooks in an archive but seems infeasible when you don't have your own house or your house is just too small. The rising rent and house prices just makes this all the worse.
They're doing the Apple strategy. Less spotlight for other third parties, and less awareness how they're lagging behind so that those already ignorantly locked into OpenAI would not switch. But at this point why would anyone do that when switching costs are low?
I would even say that "crossing out lines you disagree with" is vandalism because a book can always be read by others and come to a different conclusion and debate in their mind from there.
Why treat books as disposable mind scaffolds when they can be used again by others productively and even preserved for later generations? If you found a book to be at least somewhat useful to write notes on, then why would others not also find it useful?
Margin notes are fine though as long as they do not make the main contents of the book unreadable like "crossing out lines".