6 Matching Annotations
  1. Dec 2019
    1. There’s the command prompt version, which is extremely useful for anyone who is constantly in the command prompt. But don’t panic if you’re not a command line fan, because it’s not the only tool available to you—there are great todo.txt clients for every platform.

      Just because you don't like one client doesn't mean you should rule out all clients of text-based to-do lists from consideration. (Similar issue with hledger: there are GUIs available for plain-text accounting software too!)

      Just because there are tools/features for power users doesn't mean it can't also work for more casual users.

  2. Nov 2019
  3. Jul 2019
    1. I’m reminded of how Greenspan’s observers in the financial industry tended to project all manner of genius onto him simply because he refused to articulate, in any concrete way that involved anything so crass as a narrative, what he was thinking or doing. For market watchers and finance industry savants, Greenspan was a human koan upon which they were expected to puzzle out their own economic enlightenment. If you didn’t get it, you were the idiot. 

      The Alan Greenspan fallacy

  4. May 2019
  5. Apr 2018
    1. Interesting parts on the more manipulative aspects of persuasion. They are not necessarily evil, or fallacious.

      Parts look a lot like a this 2007 article : https://via.hypothes.is/https://www.copyblogger.com/persuasive-writing/

  6. Feb 2014
    1. A CAUTIONARY NOTE Don’t brief the case until you have read it through at least once. Don’t think that because you have found the judge’s best purple prose you have necessarily extracted the essence of the decision. Look for unarticulated premises, logical fallacies, manipulation of the factual record, or distortions of precedent. Then ask, How does this case relate to other cases in the same general area of law? What does it show about judicial policymaking? Does the result violate your sense of justice or fairness? How might it have been better decided?

      Read the case to identify:

      • unarticulated premises
      • logical fallacies
      • manipulation of the factual record
      • distortions of precedent.

      Then ask:

      • How does this case relate to other cases in the same general area of law?

      • What does it show about judicial policymaking?

      • Does the result violate your sense of justice or fairness?

      • How might it have been better decided?