Stopwatch1986

Thanks for doingthe digging. An archivist may know something more. Or the archive.is people.

I have been using Zotero every day for more than two decades and somehow it hasn't cross my mind. You may be on to something.

Zotero supports public and private shared bibliographies that you can subscribe to through the client or their web interface. Each entry contains the bibliographical details, notes attachments, file attachments and links to local files. It also captures webpages and metadata through the browser addon. The local database can be backed up and, if self-hosted, you have control. The best part is that academic researchers will be familiar with the software and process. One downside is that the cached file is not independently archived so it could be tampered with. Thanks for the idea.

A wiki is a good idea. Putting a Singlefile or similar all-in-one file in a repository and provide index numbers organised as a look-up table would also work for easy retrieval by a random research user. Both require some admin and more effort from the researchers.

I wish there was a hostable version of archive.is for near-zero maintenance. You just submit a URL over the internet and the web page is cached once along with a screenshot. Then, anyone can access the archived version. This can be done already with archive.is but we have no control over its future, which is critical for long-term dependable archiving.

One advantage and disadvantage of having webrecorder host our archived pages is that the archive may survive longer than, or not as long as our project.

I have been using singlefile for years. It's great but not for seamlessly making cached web pages available to the general public reading our reports and finding that cited links are now dead. And it doesn't support URLs point to PDF, CSV files. A public-facing repository of singlefile files with an index for ToC might do it though. Simplicity is good for future-proofing an archive.

Something like archive.org and archive.is would be ideal, but we have no control over its future and practices.

I wonder if an authorised remote user (ie an affiliated researcher) can easily instruct ArchiveBox to store a URL and later retrieve it. Also, ideally a random user should be able to retrieve the archived web page or file (eg a PDF, CSV etc). The idea is that authorised researchers can get URLs archived, and then any user reading our reports can click on a citation and get our archived source if the original is not available any more. I'll need to run it and see, but it looks promising.

Keeping the archive alive for years later, possibly after funding dries up, is another challenge but there are public repositories that may be suitable for that.

It is but creeping privatisation may change that, as does legislation becoming more hostile to unionisation since the 1980s.

The broader point is that individuals can try all they want to preserve their privacy, but then friends, family and organisations spy on them, often unwittingly, eg when we share with them calendar events or email messages. The only way forward is collective resistance, building alliances and influencing public policy. But it's always been like that with systemic issues.

And resistance can only be collective. Another reason unionisation is as important as it's ever been.

I thought it was Autonomy. You installed a program, instructed puppies agents, logged out, and while you were offline the puppies searched through several engines. Next time you logged in the findings waited for you. That was the time of 56k modems and metered connections.

Yes, and you might also say that time-starved humans just reviewing LLM output may generate more accurate reports than having to write them from scratch in a rush. That's until humans get complacent or are expected to do even more per minute. But there is a fundamental difference. Unlike humans, LLMs don't understand context and don't do sanity checks. When they hallucinate they can do so wildly, without a sense of implications, but always with confidence.

A policy I saw coming out of an NHS (UK) department mandated 'human-in-the-loop' which is essentially what the article mentions in the end. The risk is that over time clinicians may become complacent with 'good enough' and don't bother to review thoroughly. And it may be easy to spot mistakes, but not necessarily omissions unless you keep your own notes. More so after a long session, although medical appointments are typically short and focused.

On a positive note, in my experience clinicians using LLMs do indeed spend more time engaging with service users. In an ideal world, they would be given time to engage and take notes, but this is not going to happen.

I've been using this for a few weeks and it's great. In addition to offline-first, it would be nice to be able to ask Colota: List my trips between date1 and date2 when I was near (ie within x meters from) point y.

I am planning to use this for a long time too, so an export/import data for when I change my phone would be nice. I see Export but not Import.

Also, being able to delete trips between date1 and date2 would be useful. Currently, you can delete 1-by-1 or recent trips only.