Created
February 7, 2022 06:27
-
-
Save houshuang/6a16060ee086d7218bc571945c237172 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| - #[[Twitter thread]] [[Cedric Chin]]: Increasingly curious as to why the tools-for-thought folk talk a lot about note-taking tool features and plugins and not at all about the cognitive science of better externalised thinking. [*](https://twitter.com/ejames_c/status/1489418153449123841) | |
| - An example of why paying attention to the cognitive science is important: | |
| - https://twitter.com/add_hawk/status/1489001641051262981 [*](https://twitter.com/ejames_c/status/1489458699307728899) | |
| - Also relevant: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00146-010-0272-8 [*](https://twitter.com/ejames_c/status/1489500343092547584) | |
| - Also relevant (though this one demands some understanding of cognitive flexibility theory, and why learning in ill-structured domains is markedly different from structured domains): https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.89.4385&rep=rep1&type=pdf [*](https://twitter.com/ejames_c/status/1489511021018750980) | |
| - For the record, I’m genuinely interested in thinkers who grapple with the underlying cognitive effects of their tools. The main point I’m making with the link out to the Tufte thread is this: https://twitter.com/ejames_c/status/1489515737417134080?s=20&t=yHjnPcxf3hFKMXIJOKnSjw [*](https://twitter.com/ejames_c/status/1489516177668063232) | |
| - [[digitechst]]: #thread [*](https://twitter.com/_digitechst/status/1489864426576658437) | |
| - [[Save to Notion]]: This Thread is Saved to your Notion Workspace. [*](https://twitter.com/SaveToNotion/status/1489864585125543938) | |
| - [[Tom Bielecki 𐃏]]: “Rather than acquiring knowledge from examples (as in well-structured domains), the knowledge is in the examples.” I found that part really useful, thanks! [*](https://twitter.com/tombielecki/status/1489739303445938181) | |
| - [[Meng Weng Wong]]: Footnoting, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dimensions_of_notations [*](https://twitter.com/mengwong/status/1489503535687290880) | |
| - [[Campus]]: Great articles, thanks for sharing. I think anyone who uses knowledge tools like should get some practice using tools like @Kumupowered and work on a systems thinking project. [*](https://twitter.com/join_campus/status/1489687761657286657) | |
| - [[KC Oh]]: there’s a meta dissonance with this being delivered as a twitter thread [*](https://twitter.com/okaysee/status/1489461819903287298) | |
| - The cognitive style of twitter threads ;) [*](https://twitter.com/ejames_c/status/1489462020693196800) | |
| - [[C𐃏rtex Futura, PhD]]: If this is meant as a dig against outliner TfTs, I don't get it. Creating the "facade of order" is exactly _why_ I use them. I want to brain-dump as fast as possible while taking notes, not get bogged down in formalizing relationships. (That's what discourse graph ext is for) [*](https://twitter.com/cortexfutura/status/1489485854397640706) | |
| - I haven’t read Tufte’s full argument yet, but it matches what we’ve observed about the difficulty of transmitting information in outliner form. (I’m fairly certain you’ve talked about this before). Outliners work in single player mode, but perhaps not multiplayer. [*](https://twitter.com/ejames_c/status/1489487824105897984) | |
| - [[C𐃏rtex Futura, PhD]]: Contrapoint: big client I've helped transition off of storing information in PPT to an outliner-based TfT with Discourse-grammar style indentation and splitting information up in explicitly labeled claims and evidence reports: "This was the most productive meeting in 20y at Corp" [*](https://twitter.com/cortexfutura/status/1489494044262780932) | |
| - [[C𐃏rtex Futura, PhD]]: Imo the constraint is formatting: PPT doesn't work because of the low resolution required (as per thread you linked). TfTs have no such space constraints, and with judicious use of indentation and tagging, it _is_ possible to create relationships between points. [*](https://twitter.com/cortexfutura/status/1489494475827298313) | |
| - [[Joel Chan is synthesizing knowledge]]: Yeah, I think of this as lossy vs. flexible compression! | |
| - Though IMO the insight in the OP isn't just about how medium shapes generic information-processing, but its tight synergistic relationship with the specific social structure (the politics!) of the setting. [*](https://twitter.com/JoelChan86/status/1489597510972846091) | |
| - [[Christian Au]]: Well, moving away from Powerpoint in order to save and share information is not completely new to corporations... The issue with current TfTs is that they have 0 chance of mainstream adaptation in large corporations due to their User Interface. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/14/jeff-bezos-this-is-the-smartest-thing-we-ever-did-at-amazon.html [*](https://twitter.com/christian_au/status/1489518467476856833) | |
| - Fun fact: Bezos switched to the 6-pager format thanks to that exact Tufte publication, read on a plane ride with Colin Bryar. Bryar talks about that episode in great detail in Chapter 4 of Working Backwards. [*](https://twitter.com/ejames_c/status/1489579699437436928) | |
| - [[Joel Chan is synthesizing knowledge]]: That *is* in fact, a fun fact! :D Talk about real-world impact of a publication!!! [*](https://twitter.com/JoelChan86/status/1489597626592935940) | |
| - Ooh! Case study, please! https://t.co/dlEezmWOkD [*](https://twitter.com/ejames_c/status/1489494795508928515) | |
| -  | |
| - [[C𐃏rtex Futura, PhD]]: (The meeting they ran using the TfT instead of PPT was, not the meeting with me specifically. Although I of course do claim some small credit in making that happen :) [*](https://twitter.com/cortexfutura/status/1489494959585644552) | |
| - [[Joel Chan is synthesizing knowledge]]: https://t.co/1dzTUcdxkw [*](https://twitter.com/JoelChan86/status/1489597033656852484) | |
| -  | |
| - [[Joel Chan is synthesizing knowledge]]: I agree that raw output from individual outliner can be a poor medium for multiplayer. | |
| - Though I bet w/ (lightweight!) conventions + tooling to "compress/synthesize" from outliner inputs (as @cortexfutura notes below), multiplayer quality can > just prose under some conditions. [*](https://twitter.com/JoelChan86/status/1489598595204632579) | |
| - [[jitha.eth]]: Great thread. Thank you for curating. | |
| - Only contra-point - yes many TfTs are outliners, but they're also not PowerPoint. They don't invisibly push you to summarize, summarize. [*](https://twitter.com/jithamithra/status/1489502746030088193) | |
| - [[Aaron JR Ferguson]]: I find the irritation of bullet points in outlines curious. I think they only get in the way as much as you let them. Sure they *can* restrict thought & mystify connections, yet they can also disappear & you can write however you want. I even fade their color to near invisible. [*](https://twitter.com/aaronjrferguson/status/1489690730817679364) | |
| - [[Andy Matuschak]]: Per Alan Kay, it's a pop culture; for the most part, people aren't engaging deeply with the problem. | |
| - (separately, though I think the former is the true reason: I'm not optimistic that current cogsci theories about this particular topic present many powerful ideas) [*](https://twitter.com/andy_matuschak/status/1489478509147787266) | |
| - I’ll send you an email next week with a summary of a body of work I’m currently digging into. | |
| - I’m still writing it, but there’s apparently 40 years of research + hypermedia implementation of learning systems in ill-structured domains. [*](https://twitter.com/ejames_c/status/1489513032309178369) | |
| - [[Stian Håklev]]: Would love a copy of that email! Also up for a book club / seminar on this any time! [*](https://twitter.com/houshuang/status/1490571520669847555) | |
| - Some hints here: https://twitter.com/ejames_c/status/1489511021018750980?s=20&t=yHjnPcxf3hFKMXIJOKnSjw [*](https://twitter.com/ejames_c/status/1489513907190661120) | |
| - [[BJ]]: Kristina Wolsey writes about this a bit in her book “learn different”—more of a historical look back at apple/HyperCard during multimedia/hypermedia craze days. Unstructured graph traversal isn’t great for learning imho, though she never draws that conclusion! [*](https://twitter.com/brianjoseff/status/1489611982307086342) | |
| - Thanks for the reference! Adding that to my toread list. [*](https://twitter.com/ejames_c/status/1489612208074293250) | |
| - [[Arnaud Schenk]]: Can I subscribe to this email somehow? [*](https://twitter.com/_ArnaudS_/status/1489514163688857601) | |
| - I’ll probably write a Twitter thread at some point; the first part is up but for members only at: https://commoncog.com/blog/how-to-learn-from-other-peoples-experiences/ [*](https://twitter.com/ejames_c/status/1489514503809437704) | |
| - [[Pam Drouin]]: Hope you’ll publish your findings! Many would be interested, including myself. [*](https://twitter.com/Pamela_Drouin/status/1489614057875382275) | |
| - [[JohnBuridan]]: I am jealous of the contents of this email! [*](https://twitter.com/GrandBastion/status/1489658774101106692) | |
| - [[johnkellden]]: Better can be a whole requisite variety of different things. Pop, cogsci, spatial thinking eg a la Barbara Tversky, Tufte and insights around design, text and presentations, ... [*](https://twitter.com/johnkellden/status/1489543646902894595) | |
| - [[Indy Neogy]]: Very much this, cog sci has a lot to say about brain processing and less to say about thinking as we think of it. (I’m reading a lot at the moment on my way to writing a book about thinking) [*](https://twitter.com/Indy_Neogy/status/1489885204135264260) | |
| - [[Nick Drage]]: Hmmm... I'd argue it's because "note-taking" is conceptually very easy to conceive, and therefore easy to develop or use or evaluate; whereas "externalised thinking"... what would that do? How could people begin to think about what that is, how to rate it or compare solutions? [*](https://twitter.com/SonOfSunTzu/status/1489905279034662913) | |
| - [[Indy Neogy]]: Yes, twofold - it's the easiest thing to tech up - "we have databases!" and at the same time, one of the reasons I'm writing is because we need better handles on thinking and what can help it (not just digitally, but in general too) [*](https://twitter.com/Indy_Neogy/status/1489924642097741825) | |
| - [[Indy Neogy]]: In passing, part of the problem with TFT is that it's very interested in the activity of "learning" and much less interested in "thinking." [*](https://twitter.com/Indy_Neogy/status/1489885938037800960) | |
| - [[Ryan Muller]]: https://twitter.com/cicatriz/status/1489033688285392896 [*](https://twitter.com/cicatriz/status/1489556114186321921) | |
| - [[Bruno Winck]]: It's an excellent question. Because app designers know about books, how they learned at school, notes and CRUD text based apps are easy to build. | |
| - Searching in science how to enhance cognitive functions is much harder [*](https://twitter.com/brunowinck/status/1489557156777050114) | |
| - [[Eleanor Konik]]: I'm happier with my understanding of how my brain & processes work than I am with the tools that currently exist to help facilitate them | |
| - Can't speak for others, but I don't need a scientist to help me figure out how to think more efficiently. | |
| - I need column resizing to *work* [*](https://twitter.com/EleanorKonik/status/1489597945448128515) | |
| - [[Eleanor Konik]]: To give an analogy: | |
| - As a teacher, theories of cognitive science have helped me a lot less than training on how to properly leverage Google Classroom & my gradebook. | |
| - Mostly, the theories get debunked every 10 years and we're back to square 1. | |
| - Gradebook tech saves me time. [*](https://twitter.com/EleanorKonik/status/1489599957904539649) | |
| - [[Bopuc]]: (whispers: because they're mostly software engineers…) [*](https://twitter.com/Bopuc/status/1489511466973933574) | |
| - [[Kyle]]: And please no more software engineers commenting on cogsci or cogneuro (as a software engineer who was pursuing a PhD in cogneuro before joining the dark side) [*](https://twitter.com/KyleStratis/status/1489536445262053377) | |
| - [[phil jones (he/him - ele)]]: I suspect that given the way cognitive science works, the results that are sufficiently solid (in terms of repeatable, common to everyone) are probably too "low level" and basic to have practical application. | |
| - While "heuristic anecdotes" at least speak to people's goals [*](https://twitter.com/interstar/status/1489545960275558400) | |
| - [[Andric]]: Yeah, analysis of PowerPoint comes after PowerPoint is already in wide use. How do you analyze something *before* it has been invented or widely adopted? [*](https://twitter.com/astralwave/status/1489591172364386310) | |
| - [[Andric]]: It’s probably easier for someone with deep knowledge of cog-sci to learn UX design & work with a software eng to build new tools. Than the reverse. The question shouldn’t be “why do TfT folks…”, it should be “why don’t cogsci folks…” [*](https://twitter.com/astralwave/status/1489595723603750917) | |
| - [[Andric]]: The fact that the theory folks have failed to communicate or apply their theories should never be perceived as a failure on the part of those who do! [*](https://twitter.com/astralwave/status/1489595894307725316) | |
| - [[Andric]]: Because analyzing progress doesn’t make progress happen. Inventing tools and using them makes progress happen. [*](https://twitter.com/astralwave/status/1489596145340932096) | |
| - [[Andric]]: Since it costs a lot to become well-versed in theory (high bar to entry) vs to build (low bar to entry, effectively permissionless), there will always be more people who can build. $100 million question is why don’t folks with knowledge build tools in their own domain? [*](https://twitter.com/astralwave/status/1489596900538044417) | |
| - [[phil jones (he/him - ele)]]: But also, "building tools" isn't what cog-scientists get rewarded for in academia. Or necessarily what they want to do, or have the skill set for. | |
| - Tool builders have, in principle, a business model for making tools. So they should hire cog-scientists to work with their teams. [*](https://twitter.com/interstar/status/1489599137905618945) | |
| - [[Andric]]: Perhaps as the market grows, this will become the case. Startups don’t have the luxury of hiring deadweight (non-builders and non-sales) staff. We still don’t even have 1 IPO’d company in the space, unless you count Microsoft. [*](https://twitter.com/astralwave/status/1489602271352602624) | |
| - [[phil jones (he/him - ele)]]: That's probably the answer to the initial observation at the beginning of this thread. [*](https://twitter.com/interstar/status/1489602531059810305) | |
| - [[Andric]]: Yeah, it took Google to become a gargantuan company before they hired Hal Varian as chief economist. This kind of move is a “market leader trying to preserve pole position” sort of move. | |
| - No reason a startup founded by a cognitive scientist shouldn’t exist, though. [*](https://twitter.com/astralwave/status/1489603324945092608) | |
| - [[Alexander Rink]]: One topic is easy, the other is complex - it's as simple as that. Therefore everyone has an option to the first one. | |
| - Many people are looking for the silver bullet based on technology that will instantly solve all their problems → the root of procrastination. And I'm guilty too. [*](https://twitter.com/rcvd_io/status/1489563865398530049) | |
| - [[Doug Holton]]: I have a background in cognitive/learning science, but one thing we've learned from the history and philosophy of science is that technology usually precedes theory/research. Be interesting to see how these new tools help inform our theories [*](https://twitter.com/edtechdev/status/1489591167847178243) | |
| - [[Pam Drouin]]: There is more friction to accessing cognitive research papers/texts, either due to cost or academic-style writing than it is for people to explore their own goals/problems through features (how products are sold) and plug-ins (how to augment based on identifying further needs). [*](https://twitter.com/Pamela_Drouin/status/1489643322192928784) | |
| - [[manunam 🌰🌱🌿🎋]]: I write solely about the first principles of anything related to learning and how that might manifest in tools for thought. | |
| - 👉 http://manunam.me | |
| - I am particularly interested in people's thoughts on "semantic trees": https://www.manunam.me/post/a685b1968d/ [*](https://twitter.com/manunamz/status/1489645452635123719) | |
| - [[Frode Hegland {Augmented Text & Future of Text}]]: Not sure you can generalise completely but fair point. [*](https://twitter.com/liquidizer/status/1489698246943547393) | |
| - [[Markos]]: what would you expect commercial products to talk about? | |
| - I think what's needed is simply more experimental apps [*](https://twitter.com/okram_ovic/status/1489712702746464258) | |
| - [[justin m. duke]]: maybe this is being unkind but: because it’s much easier to synthesize release notes than research papers [*](https://twitter.com/jmduke/status/1489418449868648449) | |
| - [[Kyle]]: And when lay try to interpret papers, terrible things happen. [*](https://twitter.com/KyleStratis/status/1489536631308701700) | |
| - [[Nicolai B. Hansen]]: I have wondered the same and would love to collaborate with TfT people on for instance trying to redesign some tools based on theory. It can very well be, as @andy_matuschak also replies, that the theories will fall flat. That would be great, time to revise them then. [*](https://twitter.com/nbhansen/status/1489487007269232642) | |
| - [[Peter Dalsgaard]]: Many factors in play, but I think two major disconnects play a role: | |
| - 1) A disconnect between research and practice. With notable exceptions, e.g. @_adamwiggins_ @ken_hinckley @michael_nielsen @andy_matuschak, not that many people seem genuinely committed to bridging this gap > [*](https://twitter.com/peterdalsgaard/status/1489516924081954819) | |
| - [[Peter Dalsgaard]]: 2) On the side of research, a disconnect btw technical sciences + computer science that primarily focus on tools, and cog sci + psychology-oriented research, which tends to focus on mental processes but largely ignore the role of tools. Bridge-building definitely required here. [*](https://twitter.com/peterdalsgaard/status/1489517444926517253) | |
| - [[Nanna Inie]]: +1 for this. It's like educators understanding education and HCI understanding computer systems but they don't really attend each others' conferences and the lack of awesome EduTech prevails. [*](https://twitter.com/NannaInie/status/1489522788113203204) | |
| - [[Nanna Inie]]: That being said it is very difficult to keep up with newest research in HCI as well as cognitive science, and as much as I would love to understand cog sci better, my brain seems to only have that much room... [*](https://twitter.com/NannaInie/status/1489524528934010882) | |
| - [[Michael Shulman]]: Gosh yes. I’ve been trying to go through literature on HCI & AI to write a psychology perspective paper on team processes and how they intersect with tech. And it’s exhausting! Some canonical texts would be so helpful. | |
| - (Come to think of it - so would syllabi 🤔) [*](https://twitter.com/ymshulman/status/1489645414626299906) | |
| - [[Peter Dalsgaard]]: Yes, even keeping up with one field is hard. But I'd argue that in many cases a lot could be gained by getting acquainted with canonical texts in these other disciplines would go a long way. [*](https://twitter.com/peterdalsgaard/status/1489565579212201984) | |
| - [[Nanna Inie]]: If only fields (and reviewers!) then agreed on which were canonical texts 😂 [*](https://twitter.com/NannaInie/status/1489569514585051137) | |
| - [[Andy Matuschak]]: Peter, if you're willing, I'd be curious to hear what you consider to be, say, 3 "canonical" HCI texts published post-2000? [*](https://twitter.com/andy_matuschak/status/1489669003190554625) | |
| - [[Nicolai B. Hansen]]: If we stick to the tools for thought space I am up for a brainstorm @peterdalsgaard [*](https://twitter.com/nbhansen/status/1489671500374458368) | |
| - [[Peter Dalsgaard]]: Introducing HCI to colleagues from other disciplines, I’d start w pre-2000 texts like @jnd1er: The Design of Everyday Things; Card, Moran & Newell: The Psychology of HCI; @benbendc: Designing the User Interface, Kay: Personal Dynamic Media; @professorBodker Through the Interface> [*](https://twitter.com/peterdalsgaard/status/1489719535854837761) | |
| - [[Peter Dalsgaard]]: Post-2000: Raskin: The Humane Interface; @dourish: Where the Action Is; Hutchins, @ProfHollan, Kirsh: Distributed Cognition; Sharp, Preece, Rogers: Interaction Design; Beaudouin-Lafon: Instrumental Interaction; McCarthy, Wright: Technology as Experience > [*](https://twitter.com/peterdalsgaard/status/1489719625407422471) | |
| - [[Peter Dalsgaard]]: The reason I’d start with pre-2000 texts is that many concepts we take for granted have the power to inspire novel work in other disciplines, eg a recent interesting analysis of international diplomacy analyzed via the concept of affordances from @RebAdlerNissen & Drieschova. [*](https://twitter.com/peterdalsgaard/status/1489719682563289090) | |
| - [[Andy Matuschak]]: Thank you for sharing! The pre-2000's match what I'd expect, but there are a couple newbies to me in the post-2000's—looking forward to enjoying. :) [*](https://twitter.com/andy_matuschak/status/1489747333122121728) | |
| - [[Peter Dalsgaard]]: You're welcome, it was an interesting exercise. I'm sure I left out much that I ought to have included. And many thanks in return for sharing your research with the rest of us. Highly inspiring. [*](https://twitter.com/peterdalsgaard/status/1489881493656723459) | |
| - [[Nanna Inie]]: Now… can anyone suggest me 10 canonical texts of cog sci? My entry point has been Distributed Cognition and Design of Everyday things… and @TeresaAmabile and Simonton’s work on creativity. Help truly appreciated! [*](https://twitter.com/NannaInie/status/1489860244356349953) | |
| - [[Susanne Bødker]]: I suppose you mean modern cogsci and not that from the 1980? I’m not sure why cogsci is more interesting than many other brands of modern psychology. Is it because it has taken over creativity research (as it did first wave HCI)? [*](https://twitter.com/professorBodker/status/1489900609960558593) | |
| - [[Nanna Inie]]: That’s definitely why I’ve been introduced to it yes. In this context I was interested because the original post mentioned cognitive science and its relevance to tools for thought - but I’m grateful for canonical psychology too! (Pre or post 80s) [*](https://twitter.com/NannaInie/status/1489918564782022658) | |
| - [[Lone Koefoed Hansen]]: (But isn’t it the point that canons change over time as we exp new things and thus start seeing old things anew, revising canons?) Also, @andy_matuschak on my top3 would be Jenny Davis’ 2020 affordance book. Great framework, situated in awareness of social and cultural structures [*](https://twitter.com/koefoed/status/1489723279392874499) | |
| - [[🟣George is The MindSkills Guy™]]: Agree. | |
| - I’m about to do a series of frameworks on goal-setting, problem-solving and decision-making in my MindSkills Playbook, using TfTs. | |
| - The first part of Goal-Setting is up. See profile. [*](https://twitter.com/GeorgeSilverman/status/1489554981732630530) | |
| - [[John T. Johnson 🧠 Luctor et Emergo]]: They don’t know. | |
| - In my exprnce, they’ve read Sönke Ahrens book, read some @andy_matuschak, perhaps others, used zettlekasten, know Obsidian or other tool, package those up, use diff. words and phrases for some of the concepts, and sell that to the public at an exorbitant price. [*](https://twitter.com/John4tl/status/1489555027932983298) | |
| - [[Fis Fraga 𐃏]]: Thinking better and more clearly should definitively be more popular. There are, however, people going there, have you heard of the Discourse Graph? @JoelChan86 and @cortexfutura are working together to take TfTs to their best potential. [*](https://twitter.com/Fis4Thought/status/1489620419288125444) | |
| - Yes! I 100% buy that what they're doing is going to be good, and informed by how humans think. [*](https://twitter.com/ejames_c/status/1489638417072017409) | |
| - [[Joel Chan is synthesizing knowledge]]: 🙏🙏🙏🙏 [*](https://twitter.com/JoelChan86/status/1489785746093395978) | |
| - [[Jibran el Bazi 🧭]]: it’s because it’s note-taking-tool porn. | |
| - it’s like when you talked about porn as a teenager. you didn’t talk about what you did in your room and all that, but only talk what you liked watching/reading.👀 [*](https://twitter.com/AskJibran/status/1489741166128074759) | |
| - [[Brendan Langen]]: the research around these areas is 💯 | |
| - so many experiments for us to try to better externalize thought. many of them beyond the tools! [*](https://twitter.com/balOShere/status/1490040696094478343) | |
| - [[jitha.eth]]: Maybe understanding the science is not necessary for a 2x improvement in output? | |
| - Of course it might be necessary for a 2.5x improvement, but many are happy with 2x [*](https://twitter.com/jithamithra/status/1489419535916564481) | |
| - [[Daniel Imfeld]]: I think this kind of thing occurs in other fields too. | |
| - e.g. some photographers spend a lot more time researching the latest cameras' images quality and other gear than they spend getting better at taking pictures. | |
| - Seems like a similar phenomenon. [*](https://twitter.com/dimfeld/status/1489431142373593088) | |
| - [[bleachedsleet.eth 🕊 (😈,😇)]]: Most TFT apps are really just excellent vessels for ugh fields. I’ve yet to find a replacement for a simple text editor and a zettelkasten folder structure [*](https://twitter.com/BleachedSleet/status/1489487003573886978) | |
| - [[Andy Farnsworth]]: Partial answer in the paper you graciously linked: | |
| - "Cognitive processes flow to wherever it is cheaper to perform them." | |
| - People talk about and use what's being talked about and used. [*](https://twitter.com/AFarnsy/status/1489505697435951106) | |
| - [[Lesley 🍕]]: I cannot wait to see how your overly nerdy, dig-into-the-academia perspectives have an effect on the product vision of commoncog. So awesome. [*](https://twitter.com/lesley_pizza/status/1489518372509609993) | |
| - [[pedro está en Baires]]: mango bajito [*](https://twitter.com/manriquechacin/status/1489564271247769600) | |
| - [[Jose Gustavo Martins]]: Because they're the cable guys. [*](https://twitter.com/josegustavommm/status/1489589171983429638) | |
| - [[Scott Fry]]: As in they're just hooking you up? [*](https://twitter.com/ScottFry75/status/1489613036461518849) | |
| - [[Jose Gustavo Martins]]: Yeah... [*](https://twitter.com/josegustavommm/status/1489623106092253188) | |
| - [[Scott Fry]]: Lol! [*](https://twitter.com/ScottFry75/status/1489628587862859779) | |
| - [[Ergest Xheblati 🦊]]: Low hanging fruit [*](https://twitter.com/ergestx/status/1489426736362184706) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment