Stop Taking Regular Notes; Use a Zettelkasten Instead

That is, just like in a Zettelkasten, mathlore.org is a collection of items where each one is a self contained piece of mathematical knowledge that links to other items. It is designed so that the more you add to the system, the more interconnected things are, and the more useful it is.

I also decided to use tags instead of categories too. It is really cool to see the creator of Zettelkasten decided the same.

Again thanks for sharing this because I tried to find others that had researched a similar approach for storing information that I was thinking of, but I couldn't find any. Now that I know about Zettelkasten I can gain a lot of knowledge in what works well and what doesn't in this approach.

It is really cool to know that there are others that like this approach.

> Und heute schon ist das Buch, wie die aktuelle wissenschaftliche Produktionsweise lehrt, eine veraltete Vermittlung zwischen zwei verschiedenen Kartotheksystemen. Denn alles Wesentliche findet sich im Zettelkasten des Forschers, der's verfaßte, und der Gelehrte, der darin studiert, assimiliert es seiner eigenen Kartothek.

My translation:

> Already today the book, as tought by academia, is obsolete as transmitting information between two card file systems. Anything of substance is in the Zettelkasten of the researcher, who wrote it, and the scholar, who studies it, assimilates it in his own card file.

[0] https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Alles-Wesentliche-findet-si...

Edit: ... and I checked out your profile and bookmarked your blog in my feed reader. Awesome!

Then I discovered Building a Second Brain and it's P.A.R.A. method which was like Just-in-Time Zettelkasten and it's suddenly become a cornerstone of my productivity routine.

I compare the two approaches in this blog post: I recently studied both Zettelkasten and Build a Second Brain (aka P.A.R.A) note taking methods. They share some core principles but BASB seems much more practical for most people

I compared the two here: https://zainrizvi.io/blog/remembering-what-you-read-zettelka...

For contracts, there is a customary order, you start with subject of the contract and end with force majeure, severability, term etc.

I don’t believe there is a hyperlinked inherent structure in legal documents. Skilled lawyers can of course draft a meaningful, concise document. But, I think that’s analogous to a skilled programmer writing clear and understandable code.

Most lawyers I know dread formatting and checking for cross-refs.

However, I think we do have one quality, we are used to subconsciously analyze sentences for ambiguities, double meanings, logical contradictions etc. Therefore, lawyers may use English in a way that would do the least harm (or most harm depending on which side they’re on :)).

If we figured out natural language processing or (even if very unlikely) switched our legal documents to an unambigious context-free language such as Lojban, lawyers’ jobs could be entirely automated.

I suspect that impressively structured legal documents stem from templates that have been perfected over the years by multiple lawyers, battle-tested by actual use.

That’s my impression being a junior associate and normally doing the grunt work of checking cross-refs and formatting contracts.