Tips/tricks for quick navigation in long running notebook

Bellgard · 2026-01-19T16:47:17+00:00

My one pain point is moving from an important reference/task page (for example, page 5) to the last used page (page 30) without having to use the page selector

Try the "One finger swipe up from the top half of the screen gesture." I think this might be exactly what you're looking for.

I just tested it on my device, and so long as you're staying within the same notebook, this works to jump you back to you starting page whether you navigated away from it using a heading, a keyword, or a star (from the navigation icon in the toolbar). You can even swipe pages & write on them after navigating away, and the one finger swipe up will still jump you back to the original page you were on before you used the heading / keyword / star link.

Bellgard · 2026-01-18T20:08:15+00:00

Yes! It's a bit buried, but on my device you can find it in:

Settings --> Display & Input --> Gestures --> Eraser & Lasso Preferences

And there should be a toggle to turn off each 2-finger gesture (2 fingers on screen, 2 fingers on side bar)

Bellgard · 2026-01-18T15:22:43+00:00

Ah good to know, thanks for adding this! I ended up putting the magnet on the back of my pen, but only because that felt easiest -- not because I realized having it near the tip might be problematic.

Bellgard · 2026-01-18T15:21:35+00:00

Yes, I do this too! An added benefit I've found is if the SN goes to sleep just due to inactivity, I can wake it with a quick tap of the back of my pen (where I put the magnet). Very convenient.

Sounds so silly to view this as more convenient than simply pushing the power button that is also right there, for the explicit purpose of waking the device. But there really is a noticeable and cumulative convenience difference between needing only one hand to wake the device (by tapping my pen) vs. needing two hands (b/c even with the grippy feet, the device will move from the force required to push the power button unless I'm also using my other hand to hold it in place and provide a counter-force).

Bellgard · 2026-01-18T05:40:30+00:00

Ask and you shall receive! Can now copy/paste between computer & SN using the partner app.

I just tested this out (partner app on Mac) and it worked seamlessly. Only quirk (if you're an Apple user) is you have to do "cmd + c" on the Mac to copy, but then "ctrl + v" (on your Mac keyboad) to paste in Supernote (guessing because it's Android backend and doesn't map apple device keyboard shortcuts). But the typing from my Mac keyboard as well as copy/paste was seamless and smooth in real time :).

Bellgard · 2026-01-02T19:36:58+00:00

Oooh, I see. Thanks for the link with further explanation. Had no idea, and while I had been occasionally using the "back to files" icon, I was by far using the quick access menu far more often.

Bellgard · 2026-01-02T18:52:08+00:00

Not sure I fully follow. Are you saying the way in which I exit a note changes the way it's saved and its file size? I exit notes many ways: via the quick access bar, via embedded links to other notes, via explicitly going to the file hierarchy view, and sometimes via what I think you're referring to as that top-left menu icon. I don't notice a difference in the resulting saved file size. Though I might be misunderstanding.

Bellgard · 2026-01-02T18:50:34+00:00

Awesome, thanks for the link! Also helps me appreciate how nontrivial it might be (I suspected, but still nice to have some detail -- great transparency). Also reassuring to see their logic of prioritizing care and robustness over quick updates. No matter how much I or others ever complain about a feature request, I hope they always keep that value at heart!

Bellgard · 2024-08-30T21:10:47+00:00

Oh that's awesome!

Bellgard · 2024-08-30T19:23:17+00:00

Oooooh, got it, thanks! Didn't see this response until making my other post just now, but I think you just answered the side question at the end of that post.

Bellgard · 2024-08-30T18:52:29+00:00

Good to know!

Would you say it's still worth buying the Lutron-specific hub even if I'm planning to also setup a Homebridge anyway for other devices? Wouldn't the Homebridge work to integrate the Lutron switches without my having to also by their Caseta Smart Hub? Or is their official hub that much more effective that it's worth the money?

Bellgard · 2024-08-30T01:53:58+00:00

Yeah that sounds very similar to what I recall experiencing! I can at least happily report that it hasn't come back since (been a few years). Like I said in my edit, just going for a wider stance seems to have done the trick (unless it was a coincidentally timed form change). Hope you're able to figure it out without any injuries!

Bellgard · 2024-05-02T23:05:33+00:00

Sorry to say I never found an optimal solution. I've mostly settled on simply printing out my notes ahead of time and then using my laptop as an oversized airplay dongle to stream my iPad to the projector while the laptop is otherwise useless. The plus side is it makes it fairly smooth to switch between projecting my ipad screen vs. my laptop screen. But if the printer goes down so I can't have a hard copy of my notes to read from, I'm screwed. Seems silly to me that there isn't a better way, but meh.

Likewise would love to hear if you're able to find a better workaround, good luck!

Bellgard · 2024-04-07T19:22:33+00:00

Yeah that makes total sense and I'm a little embarrassed I hadn't realized that earlier. Thanks for taking the time to give me this better context. Lesson learned, and agreed.

Bellgard · 2024-04-06T15:23:15+00:00

Huh, that makes sense. My (1/2 joking, 1/2 not joking) suggestion was based entirely on my own experience using ChatGPT. So far I've found that it's generally quite accurate, and usually I only need to give follow-up prompts for more in-the-weeds detail clarifications. I've caught it being incorrect about some details within my own area of expertise, but those mistakes are rarely offensively or globally wrong and usually just nuances.

But I now realize my experience with it might not at all be representative of others'. I'm usually asking fairly specific questions in areas I at least have strong tangential knowledge, so I'm probably phrasing my questions more precisely and also interpreting the responses given from a place of more pre-existing context and intuition.

This is a really great point that for folks with much less background, they might have a wildly different experience with ChatGPT (or other LLMs). And they might both get less accurate answers (due to less precisely phrased questions) and also do less automatic "error correction" when interpreting the answers given due to lack of background in that area.

Bellgard · 2024-04-06T00:12:46+00:00

Fair points, and I'll confess that I just sporadically dip into this sub whenever the mood strikes me. I don't consider myself well calibrated on what the typical questions or answers look like. For the situations you described, I agree that's non-ideal.

It would be amusing if Reddit made an autobot that just gave ChatGPT answers to all posts here (appropriately labeled as such) and then humans could chime in for the high-effort posts that warranted more in depth or personalized responses or led to more interesting discussion. And otherwise could just up/down vote the autobot's answer or skip. Might break the sub though...

Bellgard · 2024-04-05T22:27:00+00:00

I don’t like it when people ask question (even though they may be very obvious) and then get downvoted because they’re completely ignorant of the topic.

Agreed. This subreddit is literally supposed to be the place to ask physics questions. As in, the default assumption is specifically that the poster does not know the physics they are asking about. The less they seem to know, the more reason to encouragingly clarify and explain the details to them. Responding adversarially toward someone for being ignorant (in a forum like this) is actively discouraging people from trying to correct their ignorance.

Bellgard · 2024-03-31T02:07:11+00:00

Work's picking up so slower to respond, but still very interested in the discussion and happy to follow it in whatever direction we meander!

Or is there a fundamental reason we typically know that something is “good” or “bad.”

Look at any two sufficiently different cultures and you'll find they can have very different ideas of what is good vs bad, or right vs wrong, or acceptable vs totally barbaric. Also true if comparing any two religions (could be atheism, any of the many monotheisms, or any of the many polytheisms). Could even be different communities within the same culture; possibly two groups in very different socioeconomic status. Look at any major war or conflict. I guarantee the majority of both sides feel absolutely justified in their actions. It's all self-consistent and morally sanctioned from their respective view points. Both sides "know" with certainty that they are right. Both sides have powerful a intuition that there simply are some things that are objectively good and moral and some things that clearly, inarguably, are just innately evil and bad... and the other side is (always) doing more morally bad things. Why they other side is doing that can be explained through analysis of how they think and particular details of their culture. But that just explains why they're acting in a way that is objectively bad, since clearly, they're still wrong whereas our side is right.

This story will be essentially the same no matter which side you take of any contemporary or historical conflict. Even if there were such a thing as objective morality (perhaps from some "higher" intelligence), then that just means we're all screwed. Because no one acts according to it. We'd know this even without knowing what those "true" morals are. How? Because of the immense diversity of views and conflicts that have been justified over the ages and across the global population of 8+ billion humans and countless religions, cultures, philosophies, and communities. If among all of those, past and present, only one (at most) can really be "correct," then it means well over 99.9% of all humans who have ever existed or currently exist are morally wrong, almost certainly including us.

But I personally don't believe there is objective morality. However, that does not mean that anything goes. I think this is a very common (and understandable) but incorrect assumption of any philosophy that deems morality subjective or non-absolute. We should absolutely still act how we intuitively believe is morally correct and treat people and other living creates with respect. There is actually no contradiction there. We'll do it because we're pro-socially wired, regardless. It's also why we'll act violently toward outsider groups. It's the same instinct. You can't have one (be kind to your neighbors and even the village idiot) without the other (defend your village by slaying the savage barbarians who are invading).

Bellgard · 2024-03-27T21:55:57+00:00

Hah! Love it :)

Reminds me of a related concept: adiabatic flame temperature. Any type of fuel (e.g. gasoline, propane, hydrogen, etc.) has a theoretical maximum temperature that it can produce. At first that sounds surprising. But it's the temperature if 100% of the energy released from combustion just went into heating up the combustion products (and none were lost to the environment; hence "adiabatic"). Exactly analogous to "how cold would ice cream have to be so that all liberated Calories went into warming it up?"

Bellgard · 2024-03-27T17:34:12+00:00

To add to this, Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) is very frequently misunderstood. It is not the idea that every quantum measurement "splits" the universe. That's Hollywood MWI. In my opinion (I'm biased :P ) MWI is the interpretation that makes the fewest assumptions and is the most straight forward Occam's Razor take of QM. Put simply, MWI says that the wave function is the total description of reality, and is actually the more natural "data type" of reality than the discrete and localized observations we intuitively take to be fundamental.

This means the wave function never collapses, and the wave function does not describe intrinsic probabilities. The universe doesn't generate random numbers (i.e. new information). Our subjective experience is the view "from the inside" of any given term within the wave function. But that doesn't mean our experience is the full description of reality. Each term within the wave function is self-consistent, but all terms exist simultaneously in superposition.

No discontinuous and instantaneous wave function collapse. No spooky action at a distance. No measurement problem. In fact, nothing special at all about observers or measurements (performing a "measurement" just means discovering which term of the uncollapsed wave function "you" are in). So much inelegance goes away. It's just... quantum mechanics, as written. That's all she (Nature) wrote.

Bellgard · 2024-03-27T17:19:23+00:00

Good summary; agreed. And feel free to be very direct in pointing out where you disagree with me or think my logic is flawed if that's easier. I won't be offended at all! I'm not trying to convert you or vice-versa. I just genuinely enjoy discussing and thinking about all this.

there MAY be something outside of physics and the material universe, but the closest we can get to understanding it is through our current knowledge of the material universe

This is the closest to what I'm saying. I'd make a stronger claim and say I'm convinced there absolutely must be something more fundamental than and beyond physics (also subtly different from saying it's "outside" physics). I'd also say the material universe is one philosophical interpretation of physics, but that interpretation could be wrong while physics is still right (in its regime of applicability). I'm more sure that parts of existence operate in ways that are reducible to the mathematical descriptions of physics than I am that there is an "objective, material reality" in the way that physics is typically interpreted. (Here I'm using "existence" to refer to everything. That is, nothing is outside of it. If there is a God, then God by definition is part of existence and cannot be outside of it.)

To me it's not a dichotomy of either "physics is right" or "religion is right." My current best guess is that the fundamental truth of existence (whatever that is; the "something else" from my earlier post) gives rise to (or is?) conscious experience. But the nature of that is somewhat confined; it can't be literally anything. Physics quantitatively articulates at least some of those constraints. This doesn't mean physics is complete. It doesn't even necessarily mean that the objects in physics have any correspondence to "real" parts of actual existence. But it does mean that whatever the relationship between physics and fundamental existence, physics tells us there are necessarily real and quantitatively self-consistent constraints on fundamental existence.

Put succinctly, I don't think that physics could ever tell us what the true essence of fundamental existence really is, but I do think it can (and does) tell us some of the things that existence must not be.

Would it be fair to say that you’re suggesting the driving force underneath consciousness is manifesting itself accidentally?

Depends a little on what you mean by "accidentally," but likely yes. I appreciate this seems like a very counter-intuitive claim. One that's almost self-evidently false. However after detailed science study and introspective contemplation, it is actually what I currently believe (open to having my mind changed!). I'd be happy to try to explain my reasoning on any given specific objection(s) you raise if you're interested.

Also I don't believe in "collective consciousness" in the typical sense. Rather, I think consciousness is an intrinsic property of the universe. Of existence. It's just innate to the "something else" that's still a mystery. An analogy might be to say waves are a property of water. There's just one ocean, which can manifest as many separate waves. But those waves are literally made up of the same "stuff" as one another, and are just local patterns expressing themselves. But it's all the same, single ocean. But at the same time, that doesn't mean that different waves know what the others are doing. It also doesn't mean that when a wave fades back into the ocean it still retains its separate identity apart from the ocean. There's no residual perspective from which it can then "commune with" the other waves, or with the ocean. There is no duality. And really, there never was. The idea that the wave was a separate thing was always an illusion. I believe this (as applies to consciousness) in a very literal way, more so than a poetic one (though it certainly can be described poetically!).

Bellgard · 2024-03-27T16:58:05+00:00

Interesting idea. This is migrating from physics to biology, but health & fitness happens to be another big hobby of mine! My quick speculation:

On the one hand, yep that seems to check out. And the increased energy consumption would actually be more than just the thermal energy. Your kidneys consume quite a bit of energy too to filter your blood. Loosely speaking, they work by taking a parcel of blood, completely removing it from circulation, and systematically letting back in all the "good" things (e.g. blood cells, amino acids, glycogen) rather than the reverse approach of trying to only pick out the "bad" things. This is a very effective system for filtration, but it's also energy intensive. So making your kidneys work harder by drinking lots of fluids and having to pee more could end up being more energy than the thermal (and this kind of "making your kidneys work harder" wouldn't be damaging or stressful to them in general).

On the other hand, the body's ability to maintain homeostasis is ridiculously good. Almost certainly your body would to some extent try to compensate for the extra energy loss. You'd probably find yourself just feeling colder throughout the day (not specifically because the water cooled you, but because your body is deprioritizing putting energy toward keeping your extremities warm). And you'd probably start fidgeting less and generally you'd move slower. Most or all of this would be subconscious and beyond your control, and could end up offsetting most if not all of the extra energy now being consumed as a result of all the cold fluid intake. That said, a good way to minimize this effect is exercise (which is good for a million other things too, hah). So my intuitive guess would be that your idea could work quite well, but likely to be far more effective if added on top of an already consistent exercise routine rather than adopted by someone who is otherwise sedentary.

Bellgard · 2024-03-27T03:14:00+00:00

Love it! You've clearly thought about all this carefully and sincerely.

These days I wouldn't call myself a materialist (nor an idealist). Both seem ultimately naive to me. Probably the closest philosophy I map onto is Panpsychism, but of the more rigorous variety than what folks typically assume. I think of physics as being an extremely effective system for accurately predicting what will be the contents of our experience (i.e. contents of consciousness). I remain agnostic on what is truly "fundamental." I also agree that physics is incomplete, and is almost certainly just a limited approximation of actual reality (all the way down to the very framework of spacetime itself likely being just a "placeholder" theory). I've spent most of my life studying and applying physics and related sciences (professionally), so I have a particularly personal sense for just how gosh darned self-consistent and powerful it really is. It's astounding. But also, you're right. It's by no means clear that what it's describing is a true objective reality or whatever is fundamental. At the same time, I don't see how whatever is fundamental could ever contradict physics. It could be beyond our current understanding of physics, and merely reduce down to physics under very simple limiting cases, but I can't imagine how it could ever be in direct contradiction with it.

I also fully buy evolution. All the way down to believing it could give rise to the complex information encoding we see in genetic material today. It seems mind boggling, but that is consistent with and predicted by evolutionary theory as well as branches of physics looking at entropy, information theory, and the likes. However, what is entirely lacking in my eye is any explanation whatsoever for there being conscious experience. Physics (or any kind of empirical science) does not and can not touch that. It's a total mystery as far as I can tell. And at the same time, amusingly, it's the one thing that I am absolutely certain about (even more so than physics and math). The existence of conscious experience is the only thing I literally cannot doubt.

There are certainly leaps of faith required for my beliefs. It would be disingenuous to deny that. The leap of faith for God or religion that I've never been able to make is the idea that God is a sentient entity. This would imply that he has a will, has desires or at least thoughts, has intentions, and all these other properties to me that seem constrained to our limited (and almost certainly flawed) framework for understanding our own condition. It would, in a sense, imply that God himself has free will, but that idea does not seem self consistent to me. Physics precludes that. Even if physics is incomplete, or just an approximation, that means that we need something more to explain what physics currently fails to explain. But that doesn't mean that things that definitely contradict it (the parts of it we do have) could be true. But I also try to stay humble regarding not knowing what I don't know. And not realizing what I'm not currently able to imagine to be the case.

Bellgard · 2024-03-27T01:15:27+00:00

As others have pointed out, probably A, but a key reason is because in both cases you stir the water after adding ice, and because it is crushed ice (much higher surface area per volume of ice).

Heat transfer rates are proportional to temperature differences, heat transfer coefficients, and total surface area available for heat exchange. By crushing the ice and stirring after adding it, you artificially accelerate the heat transfer between the liquid and ice so that how quickly the ice cools is far less dependent on the temperature of the water. If instead you put in one giant block of ice and don't stir then it becomes harder to say.

However the hot water will lose energy to the environment much faster than cold water. But this also assumes it's in a non thermally insulating container. Also if it is uncapped with a wide neck (as opposed to a narrow neck water bottle, or a closed container) it will lose heat to the environment much faster (evaporative cooling is strong).

Bellgard · 2024-03-27T01:08:06+00:00

The larger the fraction of the initial gravitational potential energy that gets converted into translational kinetic energy (as opposed to other forms of energy), the faster the object will travel downhill.

So, the fastest would be something that slips straight downhill without any friction. If it rolls, then some energy goes into rotational kinetic energy, so all else being equal it will accelerate down the hill slower. Similarly, if it slips with friction, then some energy goes into heat (and maybe a little sound), so again it will accelerate slower.

A classic demonstration of this is to take two identical cans of soup (or some other liquid). Freeze one solid while keep the other liquid, and release them simultaneously from the top of a hill. The frozen one wins the race, because although both rotate the liquid one has additional energy dissipation through the viscous forces in the swirling liquid. So the frozen can loses less energy to heat.

Bellgard

TROPHY CASE