data-star isn't a successor to htmx, it's a pretty different take on hypermedia, using SSE for a streaming, dynamic hypermedia driven system. cool, definitely capable, but significantly different
htmx generalizes hypermedia controls, and that's all it will do, forever
"No Valkey move", I like it! That should be come it's own meme!
Being free but not open source makes no sense at all. It is just our little ego that wants to "keep" what we think of as "ours" to ourselves.
Give all you have to all and progress will go so much faster. Others may learn from the implementation of Datomic and make something better. So your ego is hurt, but humanity wins!!
Give all you have, and it will never be enough! Give anyway!
I recommend using frappe framework, as the ones mentioned are not as "open" as frappe. Odoo was quite a disappointment, because everything you really need is locked behind a paywall...
If you should decide to go inhouse, I can warmly recommend checking the *frappe framework*, with which the open-source ERPNext was built.
Compared to other such things this is truly open source (not like odoo and others, which really try to catch you in with being "open-source" and then let you pay up for the features you really need).
It is very powerful and comes with so many batteries included and is actually quite fun to develop with.
I created https://floatynotes.app a while ago, which might fit your list :). It provides virtual sticky notes, using the new Document Picture-in-Picture API.
Ideally, note capture is as easy as screenshots. It means removing nonessential menus, decisionmaking, buttons, etc. For example, having the app start with an editor and keyboard open, versus having the app start with a list of existing notes. It may mean gesture shortcuts.
These days we have some theory about this. See Stuart Hameroff MD, a Professor of Anesthesiology and Psychology, and Director of the Center for Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona.
To sum it up from my limited understanding: This disturbs the quantum coherance in the microtubelies in all cells (But mostly nurons) which is needed for consciousness to "limit" itself to a identity.
I am not aware of any proof that "Consiousness is a emerging feature of our brains complexity". For all that I know throwing around such statements of truth is mere stupidity and anti scientific
Hameroff is one of those common pseudo-psy frauds. Dawkins hit the nail on the head when he said consciousness is hard to grasp and understand so everytime something in science comes along that is also hard to grasp, people latch on to it as an explanation. 70s it was chaos theory, then everyone switch to quantum entanglement, and already seeing it leak into AGI.
No no, Dawkins is just a old scientist and even though I admire him, he is just repeating the same old lines. These days there is research and qunatum effects in the structures of microtubelins was shown by other research groups also:
It is best to really do the research and not rely on people who already have made up their mind (that Dawkins guy for example seems like he really wants Materialism to be true).
You’re already polling way over what you’ve just said, though.
There is no doubt that small structures exhibit quantum effects. There is absolutely no demonstrable relationship between small things exhibiting quantum effects and consciousness.
You give your whole game away when you say
’which is needed for consciousness to "limit" itself to an identity.’
This is actually mysticism. You’re already making absolutely extreme claims for what you believe consciousness to be.
It may well be that consciousness is ‘in the microtubules’. But today we have no evidence of this. Nor do we have effective understandings of why anaesthetic drugs work (as opposed to, say, our mechanistic understanding of how opioids cause analgesia, or other pharmapsychophysiological relationships).
Keep an open mind, but don’t let your brain fall out
You are right, what I claimed is byond the current scope of science. It is a bit like saying 'A brain can "see" an apple even when the eyes are closed" (alluding to what we call "imagination"). You _know_ it can, but science can not prove it. It is based on your very own experience
Let me humbly suggest to you to not make such (Truth) statements!
I dont know of any hard evidence that supports this. I know this is what most people believe, but the focus is on believe.
It is called HTMX and its successor data-star.dev