That's like saying, "Honda isn't a car company, they're an assembly company because they don't mine the minerals to make the parts and rely instead on supply chains"
Well, Bitnami didn't produce own hardware stack either ;) Joke aside, it's not naive - CentOS, Alma, Rocky, Ubuntu... FOSS community has some experience with these things
This resonated because I realized my relationship to bookmarks was different - I don't save bookmarks, I save or want to remember sentences and saving a bookmark wasn't the best way to do that.
I try to read little I am not looking to apply, or be conscious it's for pleasure/interest
If I bookmark something, I consider it unread. If I read something, I make sure I bookmark and annotate it and tag it to make my mind more actively work with what I'm reading (and make it easer to find.)
The result? 10-15 years of every link I've ever saved, organized and annotated by me. Chronological, sorted, I can see what I was paying attention to chronologically, or by topic, and at any time search any of my highlights and notes.
This is the nice part because it isn't an AI tool, but maybe something that can feed into an AI tool quite nice. My curation, where relevant, as input.
Best of all, it just works. It's not heavy or tedious, anything that has my attention, gets my attention.
The one thing a text only approach will not solve is that URIs while universally defined will not perpetually stay online.
Diigo, and other tools like it allow you to save your own cache, or perhaps submit to a public cache that page so once it invariably goes offline, it doesn't.
There's lots of tools out there to help with this each person's way, I liked diigo.com, but lately think tools like logseq with a few basic plugins are offering a lot of promise to directly save a bookmark, whatever snippets are relevant, and they are always and instantly searchable.
Upon seeing this mastodon popped in my head. If a service like this was federated it could let everyone run their own and depending on how it was managed, still be tied together?
reply