[knight17]

Why don't we see more powerful tools for thoughts?

>> Put another way, many tools for thought are public goods. They often cost a lot to develop initially, but it’s easy for others to duplicate and improve on them, free riding on the initial investment. While such duplication and improvement is good for our society as a whole, it’s bad for the companies that make that initial investment. And so such tools for thought suffer the fate of many public goods: our society collectively underinvests in them, relative to the benefits they provide.

[mikewarot]

Thoughts themselves used to be public goods, but thanks to aggressive copyright laws and customs, even the most basic implementation of Bush's Memex from 1945 is illegal to use.

We're no longer free to copy and improve the thoughts of others by law, custom or practice, except for some limited areas like HN.

In this environment, the tools can't be built that we most desperately need

[nl]

> Thoughts themselves used to be public goods, but thanks to aggressive copyright laws and customs, even the most basic implementation of Bush's Memex from 1945 is illegal to use.

I don't believe this is true at all.

[Terretta]

> tools for thoughts

Given his dedication to the concept through decades, arguably iPad — together with apps for it like LiquidText[1] — embodies Job’s “bicycle for the mind”.

1. https://www.liquidtext.net/

Speaking of, not just for iPad, and with emphasis on “tool”, Obsidian[2] is emerging as a remarkable tool for thoughts.

2. https://obsidian.md/

One key to popularity seems to be the plugin ecosystem which ratchets up a swiss army knife aspect of tool, suggesting its macro power may be any number of “scratches exactly that itch” micro tools for thought.

While other tools are more extensible or easier to use, this one pulled the plugin ecosystem into first class citizen status very early, with browser and manager built in. This let the “public” not just ride, but contribute early and often, cementing investment.