I tried this out on huggingface, and it has the same issue as every other multimodal AI OCR option (including MinerU, olmOCR, Gemini, ChatGPT, ...). It ignores pictures, charts, and other visual elements in a document, even though the models are pretty good at describing images and charts by themselves. What this means is that you can't use these tools yet to create fully accessible alternatives to PDFs.
There are separate contexts involved here: the coder, the compiler, the runtime, a person trying to understand the code (context of this article), etc. What's better for one context may not be better for another, and programming languages favor certain contexts over others.
In this case, since programming languages primarily favor making things easier for the compiler and have barely improved their design and usability in 50 years, both coders and readers should employ third party tools to assist them. AI can help the reader understand the code and the coder generate clearer documentation and labels, on top of using linters, test driven development, literate documentation practices, etc.
Students learn and understand college math more when the classes are contextualized (usually engineering, biology, but you can also use everyday examples). See decades of research on situated learning and related approaches.
https://careerladdersproject.org/docs/Contextual%20Approache...
Me personally I'd like to see something that supports easily creating and using different types of objects besides pages (such as: events, books, recipes, etc.), like content types and fields and views in wordpress or drupal, ideally aligned with schema.org like https://www.drupal.org/project/schemadotorg
I think Hugo might support content types in YAML or something.
Educational researcher here. There's no such thing as a "science of reading." It's part of the highly politicized "reading wars" (see also the "math wars" which has been going on for decades). It's no coincidence that Republicans are pushing phonics as the end all be all solution to teaching reading, and you can cherry pick educational research studies that support or disconfirm various teaching strategies. Phonics has its place, contexts where it is appropriate and beneficial, but it is not the sole strategy that works or should be used in every context.
The good news is there are a lot of strategies that help with reading in various contexts. There's even research on how reading to dogs (or even robots) helps students with reading :)
Wikipedia is unfortunately biased in many areas that have any kind of controversy/disagreement. Education is one other topic where Wikipedia has a lot of bias. Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" idea is not only false but unobtainable.
Persistence wins over logic or evidence.
You could do a similar 4GB RAM server setup for around $7/month using the Yunohost server app manager (free) + a VPS server host like Hetzner (or see lowendbox for others).
Logseq is free and open source https://logseq.com/
You have to sync yourself though (for now).
You can also publish to github pages.
My only issues are: they are focusing more on the desktop and (now) mobile apps, instead of the web app.
You can't quickly share items to the app or web version to quickly save links, etc.
They did have github integration built into the web version but are abandoning that to work on their own paid sync solution that isn't out yet. But you can manually sync the files as I mentioned.
For now I'm mainly sticking with a wiki but keeping an eye on developments to logseq and similar open source apps like Athens Research, Bangle, etc. See this twitter list of different knowledge management tools: https://twitter.com/i/lists/1396562498002825240
This Falstad animated circuit simulation has been the best at conceptually understanding what's going on in circuits:
https://falstad.com/circuit
Click on the 'Circuits' menu to see dozens of example circuits.
One issue with the hydraulic/fluid analogy is the "empty pipe" misconception - we forget or don't know that in electrical circuits, the circuit is a closed loop. An example of this misconception is that beginners sometimes think the current "wears out" as it goes along the wire. The Falstad simulation shows a line of moving dots that move faster or slower depending on the current - a little more like a train moving in a pipe - which helps counter this misconception, although it, too, isn't perfect. As a next level, I like showing animations/simulations that show the role of charge on the 'outside' of the wire in steering current flow, as well as magnetic fields surrounding the wire.
Of course we have limits to how much we can do at once, but learning isn't like filling a bucket. Learning takes active work, effort. An analogy would be like saying 'weight lifting is easier with tiny weights' or 'don't lift too much weight.' Yes, but that's obvious, useless, and forgets the presumed goal of weight lifting, which requires putting in some effort. Similarly, you wouldn't force kids to listen to lectures about baseball or other sports and memorizing all the rules before letting them play.
Some of the other things mentioned on the poster article are false or only apply to rote, trivial learning. Remember most of this type of traditional psych research “includes participants who have no specific interest in learning the domain involved and who are also given a very short study time.”
Worked examples, like other passive learning situations, can cause an 'illusion of knowledge' - feeling like you know and understand, but not really.
Look at pre-worked answers, build rote knowledge, etc, before trying to solve problems? We learn more doing the exact opposite - see research on 'productive failure'. We learn best in context, when we have a need to learn.
Our intuitions about learning, teaching, etc, are often the exact opposite of reality. Here are just a couple of examples: