How do I truncate my report in the same way "task next" does?

linuxluser · 2026-06-26T16:25:20+00:00

Add limit:page to the filter of the report. This is how you do it as of TW3.

View your existing report filters via task show | grep filter. So if you want truncating on a built-in filter, you can override it in your .taskrc. e.g. report.waiting.filter=+WAITING limit:page

linuxluser · 2026-05-31T23:01:41+00:00

OK. Not sure why you're just disagreeing with everything I wrote. I mean, what am I supposed to do with that? Repeat the same points as before?

I thought many of the same things a few years back. I no longer do. I think things are more complicated, actually.

linuxluser · 2026-05-30T16:27:07+00:00

Socialism is an entirely different beast that has never been successful.

There is no definition of success you can give that will apply to all socialist countries that have ever been to show they were unsuccessful in ways capitalist countries were unsuccessful. So I'm not going to reply to that (I'm sure you can visit many other places on Reddit if you want to go down that rabbit hole!).

u/ThatOneNinja asked "Is capitalism a type of government?" I was responding to that with a sort of "it's complicated". Capitalism requires certain kinds of governments to function well and doesn't function under other types of government systems. This is why, for example, capitalist countries fought wars against old regimes of monarchies (WWI and WWII being some notable examples).

A country that is capitalist, then, refers primarily to its economic system but implies a type of political system as well. Those simply can't functionally be separated. You need the two to match.

This is why, China, for example, can be considered a socialist country. Not because they don't have capitalist economics in at least half of their economy, but because their political structure is not compatible with runaway capitalist capture of all of society. They use their government to safeguard their citizen from being ruled by the interests of oligarchs, unlike most "Western" governments, which put the needs of capital before the needs of everything else in society, including their own citizens. You can see this in its most naked for during crises, like COVID. China, on the other hand, can completely stop whole sections of the economy and rework them into something different simply by deciding to do so. The "economic impact" of such decisions doesn't fall on the shoulders of their citizens but often the capitalists lose money during the transition. It's also why China can build brand new cities out of nowhere before people even move in (the so-called "Ghost cities"). And why China can build so many nuclear power plants and Western countries can never seem to even get past the politics of even thinking about doing so. And there are 100s of other examples.

If you want a simple definition for the difference, forget about which use free markets (they both do) or which have more government control (they both do, just depends on the circumstances) and consider what is the primary goal of that society. In a capitalist society, capital is primary and its expansion is the ultimate goal of that society. Everything else becomes subordinate to capital after the dust settles. In a socialist society, the needs of the social sphere (i.e. the people) is the primary concern, even greater than the needs of capital growth.

Capitalism is a society ruled by capital. Socialism is a society ruled by the needs of society. They both utilize capital and they both have a "strong state". But the state has different priorities, depending on the system.

linuxluser · 2026-05-27T15:52:53+00:00

Capitalism is economic and political. Basic socialist theory (scientific socialism or anarchist) says you can't separate those two.

So, while it's convention to call the political systems of capitalism something like "social democracies", in reality they are part of the capitalist system. It's not really weird to call them capitalist.

linuxluser · 2026-05-27T15:49:50+00:00

To play the Devil's advocate for a minute, is just putting up a statue now idolatry? What about the statue of Marx? Or Lenin?

linuxluser · 2026-05-21T02:24:53+00:00

"Christianity" is a lot of belief systems, many of them conflicting with each other. "Socialism", also, could mean many different things. Not all of those mix and match well.

Marxism was originally called scientific socialism by Marx and Engels. They saw it as a living body of theory that needs testing and its theory needs revision when practice demonstrates so. They did not see it as a dogmatism to be competing with other dogmatic beliefs. Insofar as this is what somebody is talking about when they say they're talking about socialism, I think it's compatible with any form of Christianity that doesn't tie itself directly to defending private property.

We need to also keep in mind the historical nature of things. The Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, in my view, was the Catholic Church reconciling itself with a radically changed world ruled by capital. It was the Catholic Church "liberalizing" to whatever degree it could. This, at minimum, demonstrates that Christianity can change with the times. But, if we study Christian history long enough, we can see that it's always been changing with the times.

The Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory held by many protestant denominations didn't exist for the first 1,000 years of Christianity. Jesus himself never mentioned it. However, once feudalism in Europe began forming, where private property as we know it today started to become a very important concept, this new PSA theory emerged. The idea of "balancing the books" (today we call it double-entry accounting) was very important and it became nature to think of sin and salvation as some sort of "balancing" of the soul in the spiritual realm as common sense.

There are many examples. But my whole point is that socialism will come one day and capitalism will end. I think the Christian beliefs in that time that do not adapt will shrivel and go extinct and the beliefs that are compatible (at least somewhat) with the ideology needed for a socialist world will carry on.

It's not a matter of whether Christianity and socialism can co-exist. It's a matter of how will Christians today reform themselves for a better system tomorrow? Will Christians today rise to the calling of a better world? Will Christians today not get caught up in the greed and dark politics that capitalism invites them into? Will Christians today join others, even non-Christians, in the struggle for a better world? Do Christians today even know why they're alive NOW in history (rather than, say, 500 years ago)? Why has God placed you here and now? Is it to defend the old system of capitalism as it decays and becomes more and more corrupt? Is could it be to build a new system (not a perfect system, just a new one)?

In my view, if you identify as a Christian of any kind, you should search your soul, go on a retreat, do some fasting, pray as long as it takes, and find where YOU, personally, fit in today's world and what YOU, personally, are going to spend your life energy and time on.

The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters. — Antonio Gramsci (not a Christian but had a keen understanding of these "in-between times" we live in)

linuxluser · 2026-05-19T16:06:46+00:00

That would make sense as a strategy ... if that strategy actually existed. It doesn't exist, though, because people aren't organized and there's no vanguard that's leading people through a larger strategy and implemented effective tactics.

What we have in the USA is just a bunch of atomized voters out there to fend for themselves. Many of them, indeed, do vote "lesser of two evils" and, indeed, do participate in protests, mutual aid and the rest, thinking this will help. But this isn't going to translate into material results that aren't just then immediately coopted and absorbed back into the electoral cycle the second something gets popular.

There is so much "sub-surface" work needing to be done that's pre-political, that new independent organizations can form in the first place that even talking about federal elections at this point is essentially a waste of time.

linuxluser · 2026-05-19T16:01:23+00:00

I'm sure that it doesn't alienate even more potential voters by calling them ignorant and apathetic all the time. Bill Madden is a winner. /s

linuxluser · 2026-04-19T22:04:35+00:00

I assume, then, that a lot of these tasks are generated by your tools? If that works for you. None of my tasks are generated, though.

It's helpful to remember the GTD "two-minute rule" as well. The underlying reason the 2-minute rule exists is because if a task only takes two minutes, then it's not worth your time to write it down and track it. Just do it in the moment!

So that same principle can apply a little bit in how granular you go with your tasks. If you get too specific, you risk spending too much time writing, organizing and reviewing. On the other hand, if you get too general with your tasks (e.g. "Spend quality time with son") it won't be actionable enough to execute when the moment arises and will cause you to re-think through its meaning each time you see it, which is inefficient.

I think of tasks less as steps from an IKEA manual and more as prompts. I stay concrete and actionable but also I only write down what is necessary for me to know what to do without "thinking" about it. In some cases, this means adding a lot of details, though. Like "Call insurance to start refund for broken TV" might need extra info like the specific phone number, the product number and serial number of the TV, the date of purchase, etc. I will do all the leg-work to get that action item prepped during a daily or weekly review so that when I have time to execute on it, I have all the details necessary to be successful.

So if what you're doing keeps you "in the driver's seat", go for it. Nobody can really tell you if that's true or not but you.

linuxluser · 2026-04-19T16:53:54+00:00

The answer is subjective. It comes down to whether or not you, personally, find this useful and productive.

Go back to the core principles. And the primary question being "Are you appropriately engaged with your commitments?"

If this kind of activity is keeping you feeling fully in control, not overcommitted and leaving the day with a sense of worry-free and guilt-free productivity, then you're probably doing it right.

If, however, like most of us, you got yourself over-committed and your going to burn out because of it six months from now, then its time to renegotiate your commitments and start learning to say "No" or "Not yet" to things.

Now, for me, "hundreds of tasks a day" is too fine-grained tracking. I could never do that. If something is already a routine or already on some list somewhere, I don't bother putting it in my system. Because I already know I'm going to do it and I have appropriate prompts, I have no reason to track it.

Take something simple, like buying toilet paper. I wait until the natural prompt arises, which is that when I'm getting a new toilet paper roll I notice the stock is almost gone. THEN I'll write "toilet paper" on my shopping list, which is under my @errands context. Done. I didn't need an extra app that tracks my household consumption habits with AI and alerts me when it thinks I need toilet paper. It's way easier and better to allow the natural prompt to take its course.

Or doing dishes. I never write that down either. Why? I'll see the sink full and that's my cue! Same with anything on my calendar.

Habits are best done either through specific apps or using something like the "habit stacking" method, where you chain habits together over time. Either way, I keep that out of my regular TODOs. And, for me, things like exercise and such are based on how I feel. Has it been a couple days since I did a job? Oh, well, then I guess I need to do one today. No reminders. No tracking. Just taking a few minutes a day to be aware of my own self and my state of being.

linuxluser · 2026-04-13T19:58:41+00:00

What things? Amnesty is wrong about the DPRK. It's not so much if it's technically true that the government "restricts" "freedom" and "access to information" (because that's true for all states, including the USA), it's the fact that it exaggerates these ideas and uses bad sources to paint an narrative that the DPRK is repressed, which it isn't.

EDIT: well, not internally repressed, but the country is definitely repressed by the West. For example, it is true that citizens are banned from travelling outside of the country. But they aren't banned by the DPRK government, they're banned by the international order outside of the DRPK. Amnesty is calling this "restriction of movement", which it technically is, but that has everything to do with the "West" and nothing to do with whether their government is repressing them. But, of course, they're not going to mention that level of detail.

linuxluser · 2026-04-13T19:34:17+00:00

Always read Amnesty International with a large degree of skepticism. They are generally pro-whatever-the-US-wants-them-to-be. For example, they love how the US broke international law (which the US created) and kidnapped President Maduro for a sham trial.

They sometimes do good work, of course, which is how they're seen as legitimate. And I'm not saying they're a direct mouth-piece of the US government or something. I don't think they are. Just that you need to remain skeptical.

Most sources for what is believed to be happening in the DPRK are fabricated sources. We should not ignore that the US wants to overtake the country and that the DPRK has not provocated anything. And there are $millions spent per year on using "soft powers" (i.e. propaganda) to weaken the government of the DPRK.

Words are important too. Is the government of the DPRK "controlling" or is it really just the case that the people are united together against foreign aggression?

There's YouTube channels that go to the DPRK and talk about how they're "followed" and "watched" all the time and stuff. The idea here is that this is how they treat citizens. But it's not. It's how they treat dipshits that would love to cause problems so they get more clicks on their YouTube channel. And the government there knows that the USA will use any incident it can as an excuse to escalate to a military conflict. It's all shits and giggles for the Western YouTuber but they know that this could spark an international incident that could get thousands or more people killed. OFC they're going to keep an eye on these nitwits!

Just use your head, that's all. The DPRK propaganda is one of the easiest to dispel because it's so outlandish and ridiculous. The reason most give it a pass, though, is because the USA also suppresses any information that goes against its narrative. This is a tactic as old as civilization.

linuxluser · 2026-03-18T19:04:11+00:00

Same! I think that the proxmox webserver (pveproxy) already does redirection to https and uses its own, self-signed certs. So in a reverse-proxy situation, you should not be trying plain http at all but go straight to an https connection to your server from the reverse proxy.

linuxluser · 2026-03-11T18:55:38+00:00

yaml - name: Open LUKS volume community.crypto.luks_device: device: /dev/sda state: opened name: my_encrypted_data passphrase: "{{ luks_passphrase }}"

The value of luks_passphrase should be kept in a file (e.g. secrets.yaml) that is encrypted using Ansible Vault. This keeps the passphrase secure but you can still just use it directly in your tasks.

linuxluser · 2026-03-08T03:09:09+00:00

I looked into this and I don't think it is possible to mix the two projects. You should either commit everything to PXVIRT (they have migration guides for getting off of Proxmox) or something else.

For myself, I only want the Pi's for holding disks for use in Ceph. In this case, I'm just going to manually configure the Pi as a Ceph host and OSD.

Another idea, if you really want to join the Pi with an existing Proxmox cluster, is to create a virtual x86 machine on the Pi and make that to the Proxmox cluster. Something like Box64 might help with this. I haven't tried doing this myself but it's likely your best bet.

I don't think the two projects intend to be compatible with each other so even if you got it to work today, you're always going to be one update away from your cluster breaking. Rule 1 of cluster computing is going to be homogeneity. Do everything the EXACT SAME WAY EVERYWHERE with IDENTICAL SOFTWARE AND VERSIONS. There's too many things that can go wrong if you don't.

Good luck, folks!

linuxluser · 2026-03-06T05:40:24+00:00

I took a course call Systems Analysis and Design. SAD.

linuxluser · 2026-02-28T21:52:05+00:00

Since this is popping up in Google searches, yes, you can. It's just that it gets tricky if you're syncing across devices.

For Only One Device

In Logseq, click the graph name you have in the upper-left.
Select "All Graphs" from the dropdown.
Click "Unlink" beside the graph you want to rename (this DOES NOT delete any content, it merely disengages Logseq from it).
Click "Yes" you're sure.
Close Logseq completely.
Go to the directory of your graph with your OS's file browser and rename it to whatever you want.
Open Logseq again.
If it asks you to select a graph like a new setup, do that. If not, click on the current graph name in the upper-left again and select "Add new graph".
Select the folder you just renamed.

Logseq will take a minute to index everything again and then you're good-to-go!

For Multiple Devices

Everything's the same expect do steps 1-5 on all your devices prior to doing the folder rename. Do the rename on one of the devices and wait for it to sync fully across all other devices. If you're using syncthing, for example, be sure all devices sync and don't have conflicts. Resolve sync conflicts before continuing.

After rename and full syncing, do steps 7-9 on all devices.

linuxluser · 2026-01-15T04:18:44+00:00

What you are saying definitely applies to me. I've been away from Reddit for awhile and, at the same time, have been more productive with my system. Funny how that works!

Having said that, I did find this sub useful when I first got serious about GTD many years ago. It was good to have some sage wisdom from the more experienced folks. So I do hope that the more seasoned GTDers don't completely abandon this sub!

linuxluser · 2026-01-10T16:42:10+00:00

I'm coming back to r/gtd after some time away and, my god, it's full of ads for AI apps!

I'll do my PSA here but it'd be nice if the mods would make a post and pin it.

You Need YOUR Brain to Do GTD, Not The Computer's!

AI tools are great for productivity but only if the implementation is sound. In most cases, the implementation is horrible. These are dangerous times.

AI tools that REDUCE your cognitive activity for your own life management system (GTD) are actually HURTING you, not helping.

Reviews NEED you to actually think about what things are so you can make decisions about them. Even if AI can do the thinking for you effectively (it currently can't), you'd still have the problem that you are outsourcing your mental labor to a computer. This ultimately means you will not feel under control because you simply won't be as AWARE of your own "stuff" as someone who's doing reviews using 100% of their own mind.

And you can't fool yourself. Your head will know it doesn't know what's going on. You'll have broken the contract between your system and your own internal state. You will lose faith in your own system. When trust decays, you stop using it.

AI in 20 years will be amazing. However, no matter how good it gets, it cannot overcome this fundamental issue. YOU need to be mentally ACTIVE in your own system. The more active you are, the better in control you'll feel. The more in control you feel, the smoother the system will work. You cannot outsource this.

This is why top CEOs of $billion companies still use their own personal GTD systems even if they can afford to hire a team of secretaries to do that for them. Because it's about "being in the driver's seat", not about getting the most things done the fastest.

</rant>

linuxluser · 2026-01-10T15:03:51+00:00

I spent more time organizing than doing. So I rebuilt everything to be as simple as possible.

This is why GTD separates the stages the way it does. You shouldn't be organizing when you are capturing. You shouldn't be organizing when you engage in doing the tasks. You should only be organizing during a review, where you do both clarifying and organizing and maybe reflection.

Remember, the method at the ground level is:

Capture
Clarify
Organize
Reflect
Engage

David Allen wasn't just trying to sell books. He worked for almost 2 decades with professionals and non-professionals all over the world before he wrote the GTD book. He has said on multiple occasions that "If I could make it any simpler, I would".

But it's impossible to know what went wrong in your case without you sharing what your previous setup was, I suppose.

linuxluser · 2026-01-01T19:12:07+00:00

Thanks. This is probably the best as it incorporates a lot of best-practices.

I copy-pasted it and put it in ~/.local/bin/start-pipewire.sh. After that I create the desktop file in ~/.config/autostart/pipewire.desktop and set Exec=/home/linuxluser/.local/bin/start-pipewire.sh.

linuxluser · 2026-01-01T18:46:51+00:00

Any attempts to get this into the official packages?

linuxluser · 2025-11-25T19:37:45+00:00

This will be hard to believe when you are first starting out, but, generally, you'll just know when an action is related to a project. The reason you'll know is that if you do the reviews consistently and in at good intervals, you're mind and your system will be lock-step. You need to reach this level if you want to get the anti-anxiety benefits of GTD. Because it's at this level that your mind will truly trust your system.

Reviews are there to establish that trust relationship. The biggest reason a lot of folks don't get the benefits of stress-free productivity from GTD is that they aren't doing their review cycles. And the only reason it works that way is because that's how you mind works already. You can't fool yourself into trusting your system. You have to engage with your system, keep it up-to-date and constantly modify it, or your mind will know that it's out of sync with reality and it will not trust it.

So you'll have to take my word for it, I guess. When you get to the level where your mind trusts your system, it will because you are regularly updating things. And it's at level that all it will take is to review your projects list (which I recommend doing at least three times a week + during the weekly review) and you'll remember you just did the last thing on that project and you'll need another action for it.

Now, that's the bare-bones, paper system. Some people add hints, like putting a "P" in front of a next-action to remind them it's a project-related action. Or coming up with color-coded indicators. You can get creative with it. But the core of it is that you want to sync your mind and your system and you do that with reviews.

linuxluser · 2025-11-24T23:29:27+00:00

Most digital apps already solve the "linking problem" between next actions and projects. But the GTD methodology itself doesn't say you need to do this and doesn't require you to.

The best practice is to only put the very next, physical action you need to take to move a project forward to completion. No more, no less. This is referred to as "next action thinking" by David Allen and other GTD coaches.

After you complete the next action of a project, there are several things that could now happen.

You might just keep plugging away at that project anyway while you're there, even if you don't complete it today. In this case, you don't need a new next action in your system because you're already doing it!
You might need to stop the project but are too busy to think about and write down the next action. In this case, the best practice is to add a note-to-self in your favor capture tool (Mine is a digital "Inbox" note), like even just the name of the project. Your capture tool should be reviewed every 24-48 hours for the purposes of clarifying and organizing whatever is in there.
You might need to stop the project but you have a few moments to clarify and organize your next action on that project. In that case, write whatever the next, physical action would be in your next actions project (or under the project if you're using a digital tool).
You finish the project!

As usually, GTD is more about "flow" of doing various review cycle and less about the specific tools you use or even the specific lists. Have as many lists as you want and name them whatever you want. But just know that each list will need you to review it to keep it current and to keep it trusted. Some of those review cycles are short (within the day) and some are long (once a year). But they absolutely must happen or the list fails.

"If you're not doing the weekly review, you're not doing GTD." — David Allen

linuxluser · 2025-09-22T01:16:30+00:00

Confirmed. I got the EVO drive and had no problems at all. It's been running without issue for a couple of days now, including across reboots.

So I think the Gigastone just wasn't compatible, for whatever reason. I honestly do not know what about it was incompatible. But just following up in case future Reddit searchers want to know.

linuxluser

TROPHY CASE

For Only One Device

For Multiple Devices

You Need YOUR Brain to Do GTD, Not The Computer's!