I chop my books and read them on my reMarkable tablet. It really doesn't get any better.

https://www.davisr.me/projects/books/

That's cool and all, but I generally prefer my text reflowable, and find PDF reading on any not-huge e-reader to be a pain in the ass. It's worth it for things that are rich in figures and formatting (like House of Leaves, many textbooks, comics and manga, etc), but for the typical novel or non-fiction book, I really do want just text and the most minimal formatting and layout instructions possible, so I can configure to my own comfort, not to whatever the publisher has decided they want me to see.

You must have forgotten the point of this thread was about chopping books.

It seemed to me more about taking control of things to read in ways that are most comfortable and convenient. I was already off the topic of specifically chopping up books.

You replied to someone comparing it to e-readers; you do not get to complain they say more about e-readers.

What do you do with the pages of the book once you’ve scanned it?

Having a ghostwriter in your ordinary life is absolutely cheating. It's letting someone, or something, else write for you and pass it off as your own. Personally, I'm insulted any time someone sends me LLM-generated media.

The reMarkable cloud is crap and has been since the beginning. I wrote a free/libre offline management tool called reMarkable Connection Utility (RCU) that is decently popular, used by several thousand people. Beyond backup/restore of editable notebook data, it has a lot of unique features the manufacturer can't/won't support (like exporting with native PDF highlight annotations).

[1]: https://www.davisr.me/projects/rcu/

> The reMarkable cloud is crap and has been since the beginning

Citation needed

On the contrary, reMarkable's cloud and associated sync functionality is praised regularly in the unofficial subreddit, as is the access Support has when people accidentally overwrite or otherwise delete notes.

I fully understand why some people would prefer to self-host their documents, but to link your own work whilst labelling reMarkable's as "crap" is somewhat disingenuous

> On the contrary, reMarkable's cloud and associated sync functionality is praised regularly in the unofficial subreddit

Are we sure it's not just from bots?

I tried to use reMarkable as a tablet with screen casting when teaching, and it failed miserably. The screen casting just breaks randomly.

For storage/sync it's fine, but even that is problematic if you want to organize a large library.

I've been a big name in that "unofficial" subreddit for the past 8 years (u/rmhack), and I check it daily. I put unofficial in quotes because the moderators communicate and coordinate with reMarkable AS, so it's not really quite unofficial anymore.

I don't think it's disingenuous to link to my own work, when that work was directly inspired by reMarkable's own awful software. I would call that "relevance".

I don't think it's fair to praise reMarkable's support for restoring access to files they mistakenly deleted in the first place. And secondly, their support is doing this FAR less than they used to. Some people in the subreddit report they don't do it any longer, since about 2 years ago.

https://www.reddit.com/r/RemarkableTablet/comments/1caeble/b...

https://www.reddit.com/r/RemarkableTablet/comments/1nzwt9c/d...

Another defect of theirs is erroneously RESTORING files that were previously deleted.

They do not have sync or cloud figured out.

https://www.google.com/search?q=remarkable+support+restore+d...

This thread made me curious about remarkable, what would you say is a good summary or entry point to the whole remarkable hacking scene?

I use Redirector in Firefox to rewrite URLs to the old Wikipedia:

  {
      "description": "Old Wikipedia",
      "exampleUrl": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page",
      "exampleResult": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?useskin=vector",
      "error": null,
      "includePattern": "^(https?://)([a-z0-9-]*\\.)wikipedia\\.org\\/wiki\\/([^?]+)(?!=\\?useskin=vector)",
      "excludePattern": "",
      "patternDesc": "Adds ?useskin=vector to any Wikipedia page",
      "redirectUrl": "https://$2wikipedia.org/wiki/$3?useskin=vector",
      "patternType": "R",
      "processMatches": "noProcessing",
      "disabled": false,
      "grouped": false,
      "appliesTo": [
          "main_frame"
      ]
  }

I do something similar with Redirector, but a bit more involved (to also redirect mobile links to the regular pages + a few other cases):

    {
        "description": "Wikipedia Mobile -> Regular",
        "exampleUrl": "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypernucleus",
        "exampleResult": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypernucleus?useskin=vector",
        "error": null,
        "includePattern": "https://([^.]+).m.wikipedia.org/wiki/([^#?]+)(#(.+))?",
        "excludePattern": "",
        "patternDesc": "Remove .m and add ?useskin=vector to end",
        "redirectUrl": "https://$1.wikipedia.org/wiki/$2?useskin=vector$3",
        "patternType": "R",
        "processMatches": "noProcessing",
        "disabled": false,
        "grouped": false,
        "appliesTo": [
            "main_frame"
        ]
    },
    {
        "description": "Wikipedia (Use Vector instead of Vector2022 skin)",
        "exampleUrl": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato",
        "exampleResult": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato?useskin=vector",
        "error": null,
        "includePattern": "https://([^.]+).wikipedia.org/wiki/([^#?]+)(#(.+))?",
        "excludePattern": "(https://[^.]+.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:.+)|(https://([^.]+).wikipedia.org/wiki/[^?]+[?].*useskin=.+)",
        "patternDesc": "Add ?useskin=vector to end",
        "redirectUrl": "https://$1.wikipedia.org/wiki/$2?useskin=vector$3",
        "patternType": "R",
        "processMatches": "noProcessing",
        "disabled": false,
        "grouped": false,
        "appliesTo": [
            "main_frame"
        ]
    },
    {
        "description": "Wikipedia (Use Vector instead of Vector2022 skin) -- Query String Redirect",
        "exampleUrl": "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Petabyte&redirect=no",
        "exampleResult": "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Petabyte&redirect=no&useskin=vector",
        "error": null,
        "includePattern": "https://([^.]+).wikipedia.org/((?:w/index.php)|(?:wiki/([^#?]+)))[?]([^#]+)(#(.+))?",
        "excludePattern": "(https://[^.]+.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:.+)|(https://([^.]+).wikipedia.org/wiki/[^?]+[?].*useskin=.+)",
        "patternDesc": "https://([^.]+).wikipedia.org/wiki/([^#?]+)[?].+useskin=.+",
        "redirectUrl": "https://$1.wikipedia.org/$2$3?$4&useskin=vector$5",
        "patternType": "R",
        "processMatches": "noProcessing",
        "disabled": false,
        "grouped": false,
        "appliesTo": [
            "main_frame"
        ]
    }

You say this as a fact, but you're wrong and I'm living proof of that. You can earn good income selling copies of AGPL software. It doesn't matter if people upload it to a public place, that's their right, and *that right* is why so many people buy a copy in the first place. You are spreading FUD.

Also, the money can be made selling premium package/modules/features on that Free core AGPL software.

I earn income selling copies of free/libre/open source software. Other people could too, if they tried, but they don't.

I buy paperbacks, chop and scan them [1] then use a reMarkable tablet + RCU [2] to do the reading.

Digitizing paper books and writing on them with digital ink is 100% the best way to have marginalia. I've tried special dotcode pens, portable scanners...writing digitally with a stylus is the best. Yes, it destroys the paper book, but it more than makes up for it with the freedom, flexibility, and durability of the digital copy.

[1]: https://www.davisr.me/projects/books/ [2]: https://www.davisr.me/projects/rcu/

Your language is far too kind for the invasion of privacy and our human expectations of what ought to be permissible. It's not just about being "recorded" in public. It's about having all public excursions recorded, cataloged, and analyzed. What this panopticon of private surveillance is, is way more similar to "stalking" than "recording".

Fundamentally the right to privacy is focused around what people do in private, not things that are publicly visible. If we really think that it's an invasion of privacy to track people's vehicles, the focus should be on abolishing license plates. After all, isn't the bigger problem the fact that cars are all required to display an identifier?

Well no, what they're saying is it seems to be capable of reducing autism-related struggles and misbehavior, not that it can somehow remove autism. Truly removing autism in any meaningful way is probably impossible since the brain was trained with it since birth.

No, that appears to be the implication of this study, which frankly seems like such a large effect that I'm pretty skeptical! I'd say "where's the control group" except the claimed effect is so large that you kind of don't need one, if it's real:

> Prior to the study, 83% of participants had "severe" autism. Two years later, only 17% were rated as severe, 39% as mild or moderate, and incredibly, 44% were below the cut-off for mild ASD.

Emphasis mine. If you are below the cutoff for mild ASD you wouldn't be diagnosed at all.

That was the study without a control; for the placebo controlled study, they don't give the numbers, just say "statistically significant improvements" on several metrics.

(Without a control group, you have questions about how people of that age generally progress, and what other treatment/therapies they receive over those 2 years. The phase 1 trial was with children whose parents presumably sought ever possible way to help them, while the placebo controlled phase 2 was adults who may have plateaued.)

My reasing of the study is children with significant gut issues and diagnosed with autism see a significant reduction in symptoms when the gut issues are treated.

Which leads me to wonder if for some of these children is the root cause just gut issues.

If all they have figured out how to so is treat significant gut issues that sounds very promising.

I believe the best procedure is actually sticking it in your nose.

(They run a tube through your nose, down your throat, through the stomach to the top of the intestines, and introduce the bacterial slurry there.)

Makes you wonder how hard would it be to just put it in a swallowable capsule that dissolves only in the upper intestine.

Also, "fecal transplant" is marketable only to weirdos. "Probiotic infusion" would work better.

For those who want to gain some artistic talent, there's this (but is expensive):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist's_Shit

From my understanding, the problem is volume.

You want to land a substantial amount of, ahem, shit in there, since don't just want it to colonize one portion of the gut, and it's got quite a lot of competition.

So you would be talking a truly astonishing number of pills, I think, to compare to the volume you can manage with a tube.

WP suggests that it's about 100g (or 100000mg) of actual feces then mixed in a larger volume of saline or milk, and you'd probably need to have additional volume for assumed losses and whatever coating you think would work.

That is a _huge_ amount to put in pills.

Good point, but shit seems to be made of a lot of stuff- ~75% water, undigested food and fiber, fats, inorganic matter... Bacteria seem to be about ~30% of the dry weight. So of those 100 grams, you'd get maybe 7/8 grams of bacteria? If so, these could possibly be delivered by a number of small capsules taken in the course of several days.

That's a fairly invasive way of doing it. It can be given through pills now. https://www.lhscri.ca/news/innovative-poop-pills-show-promis...

Pretty sure there’s a shorter path to the top of the intestines than through the nose but I’m no Biologist.

If you’re implying it is through the rectum, you’ve definitely got some bio to brush up on. The small intestine alone is >20ft long.

There really isn't. From the mouth is basically the same distance and it contains teeth and a tongue. Through the rectum is much much much farther through meters of intestine. Through the skin creates a surgical hole that's going to be difficult to keep sterile.

The shortest safe path is via the nostril.

... Back and forth, forever?

))<>((

Wild to see multiple references in one place! That was one of the more memorable scenes ever…

I burst into laughter after hitting reply and seeing the same message character for character

Are you AI? You joined HN 5 years ago, dawg.

Account creation time may not line up with when someone actually started using the platform.