It does match. & that it can match is what matters. It shows how the salient aspects of our universe or models of physics might arise from simple rules.
No, it doesn't show how and you didn't show how it matches. I've read from your other comments that you are big fan of "internal meanings". We humans use language to communicate ideas so that we can connect your internal meanings to everyone's internal meanings, but you didn't present any meaningful connection between those DFA and real physical processes, or at least any connection that someone interested in this topic could see. I understand what you write in the article, but I can't see any match between those DFA's and physics. Make any sensible example and then we can talk.
Yeah. Stuff like Obsidian. I think they focus too much on building knowledge bases. & that Microsoft Word focuses too little. This app, you just take whatever notes you need to get things done.
Oh, that's really cool you have something similar there too. I like that you stay in edit mode as you navigate from note to note with the shortcuts. I think that's one of the things that makes Card Buddy work really well. I tried to make it feel like editing a spreadsheet. In the app, you can navigate to empty cells in the canvas using the arrow keys and then create a card on the spot by typing some text. It makes it super fast to fill in the board if you have a lot of thoughts you want to get down right away.
I thought of that, but then I realized you'd run out of space very quickly. Stacking links to the notes in the second sidebar is better. It's alot easier to browse & then jump between.
I browsed that website for a few days about a year or two before writing this app a year ago. This app is kind of an inversion where the focus is not on reading but on writing.
Thanks. & here are some ideas. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43012478 & some more ideas. You can also work out an outline or timeline or table of characters & settings & objects in the editors to the right. You can also get your editors to write their overarching feedback & questions in the editors to the right. I also designed this for screenwriting so you can get more ideas by reading up on how screenwriters do their work. It's clunky to format to standards acceptable to the industry, but the industry standards seem pointless & counterproductive, so it's maybe good to be forced to focus on content over form.
About the second point. In Word, you can easily get feedback for specific paragraphs by just writing around or underneath those paragraphs, or for the whole by just writing in another document & keeping that document open in another window or in the same window. But you can't easily get feedback for specific chapters, & you can't do any of these things while easily keeping chapter-specific notes always in view. This among other reasons is why this app is maybe more powerful than Microsoft Word, Google Docs, Obsidian, etc. It balances notetaking & reflection & writing. Microsoft Word & Google Docs focus too much on writing, & have very little capability in the other 2. Obsidian focuses too much on notetaking, & has very little capability in the other 2. None of them integrate all 3.
About reflection. With Word, the moment you make changes to the document, all the stuff written to the side goes out of sync. So it's best just to write in sequence. So Word has no advantage there.
(I deleted what I wrote in that link. Here it is.) The leftmost editor is used to write the section (or chapter), & the rest are used to take notes for that section, or to keep old versions of that section as reference, or to work out different ways of writing a subsection, etc. (& this seems hubristic, but I think this app might actually be a watershed moment in UI & UX & software development history. There's nothing out there that lets you juggle contexts nearly as seamlessly. Microsoft Word & Obsidian have alot of lines of code & hours behind them, but in terms of how much they empower me to write & think, they're far inferior to this app. & if you look at the html, you'll see it's only 750 lines of code, of which only 670 lines are actually used. So it's also extremely maintainable & forkable.)
You just type whatever, then the list underneath will filter out anything that doesn't have the search terms either in the title or text. You don't need to ENTER. You shouldn't ENTER.
Search & replace is very important. I'll implement that in the future.
It can be used on desktop as long as you have an internet connection. If you look at the source code you'll see it sources some CDN files. I'm planning on taking it totally offline.
I thought about it & decided against it. It'd be buggy, complicated, & undoable. People should just manually search & replace things. There's even a first level search to help people get started.
