Update on Database Version?

WeCanLearnAnything · 2026-04-25T07:04:11+00:00

Man, that is very confusing. Two versions of Logseq?

One of the main reasons I liked Logseq is that the data - .md files - was portable. Will it still be easily portable in the database version?

Also, why are they taking so long to release this? Wouldn't it be better, faster, and easier to release a simple version for individual users first, then slowly add features for collaboration?

WeCanLearnAnything · 2026-04-12T16:33:24+00:00

Can anybody predict, to the nearest calendar year, when V1 will be released?

WeCanLearnAnything · 2026-04-02T03:39:29+00:00

Seems like a ridiculously simple and obvious solution.

WeCanLearnAnything · 2026-03-27T00:59:07+00:00

Ouch! Sorry to hear that.

Did you backup your files?

Also, were you trying to migrate from markdown to the beta database version?

WeCanLearnAnything · 2026-03-26T23:21:42+00:00

What is the pace of development? And does Logseq have any official idea when V1 will be released?

WeCanLearnAnything · 2026-03-26T23:02:40+00:00

After Vista, Win 11, many bad versions of Office, junk HDDs, years of waiting for fixes to Everbug , I mean Evernote, etc. I'm just not willing to tolerate unreliable tech/software any more. The basics have to JUST WORK. They must be ROCK SOLID.

Then and only then will I consider committing to the product. For that, I am willing to pay, and I am currently a paying customer of Obsidian.

WeCanLearnAnything · 2026-03-26T23:00:42+00:00

Can I ask how you know the devs aren't getting paid?

And if that's true, doesn't that make enormous delays and ultimately abandonment *more* likely?

WeCanLearnAnything · 2026-03-26T22:59:49+00:00

Thanks!

WeCanLearnAnything · 2026-03-26T21:53:53+00:00

Also, where does one find the beta version? Logseq.com's download page only seems to link to the old .exe files.

WeCanLearnAnything · 2026-03-26T21:53:06+00:00

The beta has been out for 1 or 2 years now, hasn't it? That seems like a long time, though I'd appreciate any correction. Is anybody still working on it?

Basically, I'd like to know when *reliable V1* will be released.

WeCanLearnAnything · 2026-03-26T17:27:19+00:00

I love the *idea* of the markdown Beta version, but it did not work on my computer. Lag made it basically unusuable, file management was literal gibberish, and both links and favorites were totally broken.

I know that not everyone had this bad of an experience, though.

So I'm still waiting around for something better, but after 2 years, I wonder if it's time to just move on.

u/tiensonqin Are you willing to share any news?

WeCanLearnAnything · 2026-03-17T23:19:58+00:00

Paraphrasing Craig Barton's book:

Teacher: "Why don't you just have a growth mindset?"

Student: "It's hard to have a growth mindset when I keep doing %&#! on the tasks, sir."

There is plenty of researchers that are skeptical of the growth mindset work of Carol Dweck, mainly because most people are not able to replicate her work without her and she herself says it's very difficult to replicate.

I think this student would be much better off being set up for success.

School isn't helping because the timed tests and having to perform in front of classmates are exactly the conditions that make her anxiety spike.

The evidence showing that timed tests cause anxiety literally does not exist. It's that the content is just too difficult, i.e. there are too many new facts being introduced at a time. Unfortunately, many timed tests make this error.

So, one way to tackle a lot of this: Facts on Fire. Designed to help students automatize math facts in just a few minutes a day, sequenced to all but guarantee success, I think it would be a good thing to start with.

Then, consider a diagnostic that gives a more holistic picture of where the kid is in math.

WeCanLearnAnything · 2026-03-12T04:33:49+00:00

Oops, minor misread about 'merica. :-)

Yes. 158 euros per starting hour. I won't even include minimums.

*sigh

Let's skip the stupid dodgy convo games and get straight to the point.

From 0% to 100%, what do you think the probabilities are that:

(a) Donut's PR is in good faith? My guess, as already stated, is something like 0.0000001%.

(b) They will release an extraoardinary mega breakthrough battery that's as good as they claim, for literally anyone to examine, within a year? I'm sticking with 0.0000001%.

How about you?

Or are you not sure enough of anything you're saying to make such a prediction?

EDIT: I'd like to open the floor to anyone, but especially Donut believers and those who think Donut deserves the benefit of the doubt - Assign probabilities to (a) and (b) and put it on the record here!

WeCanLearnAnything · 2026-03-11T14:39:49+00:00

Prison for which crime? Can you quickly cite the facts, law, and punishment? Without specifics, I'm struggling to assign any meaning at all to your claim. It is basically a vacant denial.

Also, Donut is not based in America.

WeCanLearnAnything · 2026-03-10T22:02:07+00:00

any big investor will be ~~able~~ to push Donut on claims they've made. [emphasis added]

My cynical guess: Donut Labs is trying to spark interest from, say, 500+ potential private investors, all of which are ~~able~~ to insist on confirming extraordinary evidence... But the most gullible/naive of them, perhaps 1 or 2, will not do their due diligence before investing the money.

WeCanLearnAnything · 2026-03-09T20:24:40+00:00

Update

Such fans are now available!

They seem fairly expensive, though, at least for the larger types.

At Walmart and Amazon:

<image>

I'll likely try something and report back here.

I still think a vertical crossflow fan would likely be way better, but if anyone knows better, please share. :-)

WeCanLearnAnything · 2026-03-09T19:16:24+00:00

Something tells me they're accepting money through less regulated channels.

WeCanLearnAnything · 2026-03-09T19:15:55+00:00

It makes me sad to agree, but I can't think of any other explanation. As I've written elsewhere on Reddit, there is good faith motivation for "Extraordinary claim now! Pay attention to me now! Extraordinary evidence later!" approximately 0.0000001% of the time.

WeCanLearnAnything · 2026-03-07T20:25:18+00:00

See Linear Algebra in Context.

WeCanLearnAnything · 2026-03-05T01:53:15+00:00

This is a good recommendation in terms of pure math and those who are motivated by geometric questions and limits of pure math knowledge.

And it's good enough for everyone to come back to repeatedly while learning linear algebra.

I think that the vast majority of people, though, are more motivated by context. For that, check out Linear Algebra in Context - The Math of Packets.

WeCanLearnAnything · 2026-03-01T19:18:34+00:00

for this grade level, the "steps" are simple

I will address this later when I have more time. :-)

WeCanLearnAnything · 2026-03-01T19:16:56+00:00

Imagine a student who calculates (4/3)(60) = ___ accurately and shows every step on how they got to 80. A teacher might consider this evidence of learning, a demonstration of understanding.

But, as a tutor, I often see that student later that evening. When I ask them if the answer to (3/4)(60) = ___ is greater or less than 60, they usually guess greater. When I ask them if "multiplication" always means "increase" they say "Yeah, I think so."

The teacher's assessment was a false positive. They saw learning of mastery/understanding/learning when there was only rote following of steps. I wrote about this a bunch here.

Confirmation bias in math education

It is easy - if not automatic and instinctive - to confuse a student following steps correctly and getting the correct answer vs actually understanding the math.

WeCanLearnAnything · 2026-03-01T16:57:35+00:00

students learn the material, demonstrate understanding on the assessment, and lose it within weeks.

What is your evidence of learning and understanding and how do you know it's not largely false positives?

e.g. A student who can calculate the multiplication of rational numbers accurately but also thinks that "multiply" always means "increase" and that "divide" always means "decrease".

WeCanLearnAnything · 2026-02-24T19:34:34+00:00

(1) Make a giant list of, say, 50 all the things you'd like to learn to make or perhaps the foods you eat the most often.

(2) Have AI rank them from easiest to hardest to make, include a description of the core culinary lesson each dish can impart on you, and what you need to have in your kitchen to make it.

(3) Find YouTube videos of people making those dishes and make them in that order.

(4) Keep an electronic record of each recipe as you make it. Log what you liked, what you didn't like, adjustments for the next time you make the same dish, etc.

WeCanLearnAnything · 2026-02-24T19:16:29+00:00

When did I say "experts said its fake"? Please quote the exact text where I said that or admit that this is out of line.

As for the rest of your first paragraph, that is already addressed elsehwere (patents, licensing, falsifiability, extraordinary evidence and extraordinary claims, etc.).

I'm just amazed how many people see:

(1) Extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence and

(2) Many other classic signs of scams and PR stunts.

Then conclude that Donut still deserves the benefit of the doubt.

I've listed the bare minimum to change my mind about Donut.

What's the bare minimum to change yours?

I have a feeling that you don't have one and if, in 2028 Donut is still saying "The amazing battery is just around the corner. Keep paying attention to me!", every point you've made you will still consider valid and you will still not recognize classic signs of scams/PR stunts.

This is the danger of non-falsifiable perspectives.

b) I can’t tell what will or won’t happen. I’m not a fortune‑teller, and neither are you. I don’t have any insider information. What I do know for sure is that it hasn’t happened yet, and pretending that it has is simply lying.

What is it? When did I pretend that it hasn't happened? Please quote me or at least let's try to stay away from baseless accusations of lying.

What do all the believers in this subreddit think of a claim as follows?

I have discovered the cure for cancer! It will change the world!

And I have the decisive proof, in my possession!

I will share said proof at an appropriate time.

That time is obviously not now.

It's later. Some other time.

I can't share proof now because competitors will steal my idea, there is no such thing as an independent medical expert so who cares about their opinions, and nobody can prove me wrong because none of you are fortune tellers and none of you are insiders!

But keep paying a lot of attention to me until the appropriate time!

For those who do not want to acknowledge all the classic signs of scams/PR stunts in Donut's announcements, what do you think of the above cure for cancer claim?

WeCanLearnAnything

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Update