While we're on the topic of nuclear pollution, "nuclear semiotics" is an interdisciplinary field of research focused on creating a "warning message intended to deter human intrusion at nuclear waste repositories in the far future, within or above the order of magnitude of 10,000 years."

While 10K is a few orders of magnitude greater than 500, I imagine the problems may be similar... if not more extreme.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-time_nuclear_waste_warnin...

To change your thinking about goals, you’ll need to recognize that goals aren’t for everyone.

And that’s completely okay.

Goals and problems are mentioned in your original post, but they are fundamentally different things.

Goals usually mean you’re adding value. Problems mean you’re fixing something. Mixing the two is likely what’s making things difficult. Sometimes we make a goal to solve a problem, and sometimes we try to solve a problem to achieve a goal.

But goals and problems are not the same thing.

This isn’t just semantics.

We’ve all witnessed those visionary folks that are born to set and achieve goals e.g. Steve Jobs.

Then there are the problem-solving geniuses who can break down and debug just about any problem you throw at them.

This is getting a bit too long, so I wrote up more to help figure out "Which one are you?": https://rayli.net/posts/goals-vs-problems/

I used to be a long-time user of Workflowy (since 2012), but I've recently switched to Dynalist (https://dynalist.io).

It's more actively developed and deviates a bit from the extreme simplicity of Workflowy. I haven't looked back though. :)

I've tried Dynalist and had numerous performance issues. Talked to developers a bit and switched back to Workflowy.

From the press release (https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/201...):

"...where there is not certain and irrefutable evidence, to conclude that there is a defect in a vaccine and a causal link between the defect and a disease on the basis of a set of evidence the seriousness, specificity and consistency of which allows it to consider, with a sufficiently high degree of probability, that such a conclusion corresponds to the reality of the situation, are compatible with the Directive.

Such evidentiary rules do not bring about a reversal of the burden of proof which it is for the victim to discharge, since that system places the burden on the victim to prove the various elements of his case which, taken together, will provide the court hearing the case with a basis for its conclusion as to the existence of a defect in the vaccine and a causal link between that defect and the damage suffered."

If I'm interpreting this correctly, this seems like it's meant to protect the victim.