I would use the shit out of this. I'm a heavy user of Logseq (OG, the md file-based version). Would LOVE to save my favorite web resources this way.

Have you ever listened to a congressional hearing? Or spoken to an "average reader"?

Most absolutely glaze over at the idea of calculating the "log base" of anything. If they ever got that far in math class, they certainly have not used the concept since then and cannot remember what it means or how it works. They might remember exponents, but the compounding of them is absolutely lost on the overwhelming majority of people.

I don't think this essay by PG is sufficient to teach them log bases or compounding, and is manipulative to assume now that someone knows 2 million doubling 9 times is a billion, they should be accepting of how one can earn a billion dollars fairly.

Honestly, having spent a huge chunk of my career in customer support, 80%+ of the tickets could be solved with a script and not need an AI. Just about every company has a catalog of macros for answering support tickets and once you have a good set, 80% of people just need you to send them a link to the support article where you actually already answered their question in great detail, if they'd bothered to look for it.

This makes sense. Early on most of our support requests were for routine things eg login issues, but now it’s more complex: “this new genAI feature did this weird thing”

The solution in the article is, "Pay for a max plan and then buy the extra tokens you need by API." How is that noteworthy? Isn't that exactly what Anthropic and OpenAI recommend?

I feel like I must be missing something.

Just testing out practice mode, I found what I really wanted was to be able to stay at a certain level until I felt I was getting good at sequences of that length, not immediately get pushed to the next level every time even when it took me 8 tries to get the 4-note sequence right. Give me a chance to feel like I'm improving! Don't just keep giving me harder things when I keep struggling with the existing ones.

It already has that feature! :) It’s just not very obvious. If you click the small lock icon near the top, it will snap and to that difficulty so you can practice only sequences with that specific number of notes.

This is so well done and very cool. Thanks for building it and offering it.

As someone who hasn't had a piano lesson in about 40 years, I find myself wanting to play with the keys to match the melody. So I hear the initial melody, and then I'm practically hitting keys at random (guessing where I should be on the keyboard) until I find the first note, and then I have to listen over and over again while trying to find the second note. I kind of want to hunt and peck until I'm ready and then get tested to see if I nailed it.

Glad you like it! A couple of people have asked for this feature and I guess I've been struggling with how to fit this concept into the game.

Maybe the answer really is just as simple as a little visual toggle that puts you in a "sandbox" mode where all the sounds still go through, but the game doesn’t respond to them until you untoggle it.

Another approach is having an "explore and test" or "Training Wheels" mode. Correct notes played by the user behave exactly as they do right now. But for a wrong note played by the user, instead of the round ending, you could just gives some audio-visual feedback that this is not the right answer but continue to expect the user to find the right answer. This way we can hunt and peck our way to the end of the round.

This creates a problem in that it's easy to muddle your way through without learning anything. To prevent this:

Once it gets to the end of the round in this mode, if the user had even 1 wrong note selected in this round, the game will then expect them to play it perfectly once again (like it does now).

This way you get both the hunt and peck exploration and the final "now that you've had your time to get your ears and fingers in order, play it correctly."

Put me up as another person wanting that feature, it was how I expected it would work.

Done! It's a toggle called "Free Play", and you can default it to on in the Settings.

same!

For https://www.asmusictheory.com, I built in a spaced repetition test section to aid memory retention, along with "a free play" mode for when you just want to explore.

No sound on an iPhone. They keyboard visually responds.

Tried safari and Firefox focus

Thank you for your feedback - I have it working on iPadOS 26.5 (Chrome and Safari). The browser auto-play policy does require some interaction with the page before it will play (so the first key press is often mute, but should sound after). There is a button on the control bar to enable sound explicitly. I will look for more instances (not to ask the really obvious question, but do you have sound turned up or a bluetooth connection you're not aware of by any chance?). Thanks again

looks fantastic, just what I was looking for. will try, tyvm

Thank you. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated :)

I've been a longtime user of Logseq, and thankfully both it and its plugins are open source. I've just been having a lot of fun tweaking plugins I use a lot to have the additional features I've always wished they had. It's so easy to clone the repo and just say, "Claude, make this do X as well."

This seems like such a classic example of mixing up correlation and causation.

Who's more likely to choose a job that can be done from home? People who already have reasons they'd rather not go out and spend their entire day around other people. How do you control for all those reasons?

And there is something useful about being able to trace the ballistics back to find out which gun was responsible for the shot, as a key to who was wielding it and is ultimately responsible for its use.

Your caring about the entity cited doesn't actually change the nature of the citation. Your saying "Co-authored by Copilot" does the same thing--gives Copilot possible exposure and definite credit--even if it doesn't need it and you don't care about it.

It's an interesting context, too, because Catholics have an idea of "person" that is actually broader than "human," not narrower, and it doesn't require a physical body. Angels, for example, are considered persons, though by nature they do not have bodies.

In other words, the idea of a non-human, disembodied intelligent person is at least a category that exists for Catholics. And humans "co-creating" other persons with God is downright commonplace (in the Catholic view, that's how all humans come to be).

Whether humans could ever co-create a non-human, disembodied intelligent person with God (i.e., whether God would ever choose to do His absolutely necessary part in it) remains to be seen, but there's at least the theoretical framework to hold the question.