OutlinerGeometry

The problem with outliners:

Parent

• A
• B

When we want a sequential chain of thought, we nest them as equal level children under the same parent. The alternative would be a very ugly way:

Parent

• A
  • B
    • C...

This way makes more sense but looks horrible.

The maths doesn't work out either. When use method 1, A/B/C are related via an OR (x) function. In method 2, A/B/C are related via an AND (%) function. We intuitively feel this burden that something is not right. And yet we don't like going into indenting hell.

Part of the reason why I enjoyed writing in prose form in obsidian was because I didn't have to figure out whether I had to indent or write a sibling bullet. Isn't it intuitive? No it isn't, especially when you consider how a bullet is queried in future...

In outliners, querying for a thought doesn't show you a linear progression of thought. It shows you the parent-child relationship, discarding its siblings. The problem is that a thought is multidimensional, whereas an outline only has parent-child... https://t.co/YONd0vaqzg

Axes of thought. An outliner only adequately shows the hierarchy axis, it is 1 dimensional. It also forces the progression axis to work in a parent-child relationship when it doesn't work that way. https://t.co/bIecU9Ego7

A promising approach in @obsdmd using the breadcrumbs plugin... This could work... VERY well. https://t.co/H1pCvBz24v

@obsdmd I'm getting more convinced that outliners are inferior to original Zettelkasten (using cards). Zettelkasten was essentially and originally a thread system made on paper.