TL;DR: A curious asymmetry between making and criticizing, the scientific method as an approach to factored cognition, and a less-than-half-baked idea about syntax and semantics of task decomposition.
Hey Matt! :) Thanks for the comment, happy to hear you enjoy my writing.
I've read the article from Markus, and he makes a lot of excellent points. I've also observed that most tools that target "a lot of different academics" tend to be kind of bad. I imagine tools have to become a lot more powerful and even easier to use before they become widely adapted. But I think if a tool is tailored exactly to the person (or the research group) using it, then there might be benefits that can be leveraged. (I'm writing this response with the help of a pretty decent autocomplete feature based on my writing pattern https://twitter.com/janhkirchner/status/1487537247394140160?s=20&t=gCPNoHMYgi_-ZKutBL7IOQ )
Hey Matt! :) Thanks for the comment, happy to hear you enjoy my writing.
I've read the article from Markus, and he makes a lot of excellent points. I've also observed that most tools that target "a lot of different academics" tend to be kind of bad. I imagine tools have to become a lot more powerful and even easier to use before they become widely adapted. But I think if a tool is tailored exactly to the person (or the research group) using it, then there might be benefits that can be leveraged. (I'm writing this response with the help of a pretty decent autocomplete feature based on my writing pattern https://twitter.com/janhkirchner/status/1487537247394140160?s=20&t=gCPNoHMYgi_-ZKutBL7IOQ )
I also absolutely love that Research Debt essay, and the whole vision behind distill.pub. But still, also that tool has now been on hiatus for a year https://distill.pub/2021/distill-hiatus/ .