Does 9.2.0 Tinderbox support Simple note sync?


I have Tinderbox 9.2.0 and wanted to sync with simplenotes. Does Tinderbox 9.2 support simplenote?

Simplenote sync support was discontinued in v8.0.0.

1 Like

Tot is a commonly-used option for Tinderbox – and much more reliable than Simplenote was. Unidirectional, however.

1 Like

Is the TOT sync bi-directional?

“Undirectional” means “not bi-directional”.

1 Like

Dunno, I checked your docs and it said Simple notes works


I’m calling a foul on this. You’ve concocted a pseudo LLM based on your scrapping of @mwra’s document and others, then “queried” that language model to come up with an answer that you claim supports the answer you want to hear.

aTbRef explicitly has the following statements

If you doubt the veracity of any statement made by anyone about Tinderbox, then follow the correct approach: crank up Tinderbox and experiment for yourself. (And maybe not rely on the tin man.)



I’ll freely admit I occasionally miss things. But, the grab above is correct. The italicised note was added 2 Aug 2023 after a forum question prompted me to check this back in the original release notes. I thought I’d recorded the dropping of support, but I hadn’t, ergo instance update (LLMs instantly out of date).

As aTbRef is often updated daily, an LLM is always out of date so not good as a reference for others, even if undoubtably helpful for personal learning. Still, from a research standpoint the useful takeaway is how immature AI is for this sort of task. I’m quite sure it will get better but in the future and not as fast as we’d like (understanding the nuance of textual meaning is far more complex than the image based work with which AI is currently doing well)—I don’t count the pastiche text of ChatGPT as meaningful.

†. RNs for b472 (en route to v8.8.0.b479): Simplenote syncing has been discontinued. Simplenote account credentials no long appear in Document Settings.

‡. Full disclosure: I actually missed this in the v9 baseline, as can still be seen here: Simplenote support. I’m not going back to correct that as old baselines are fixed and there for just this sort of referencing. The v9.5 baseline was also wrong until I corrected it.

1 Like

Hey, I wasn’t trying to prove anyone wrong. So please cool down, @mwra did ask me on another thread to give him feedback on my LLM. Unfortunately, the PDF was shared a month ago perhaps, so I still thought it is a good updated version.

I might cross reference the website, but I find LLM easy to learn

Sure, sorry if my last was a bit bitey. But, it gets to the centre of something of the unjustified entitlement I recall form Web V1.0. I’m not suggesting bad faith by people, but we do need to consider our naïvety when faced by new tech. Because we can, should we?

To paraphrase form before. Learning from LLM: OK if if suits. Using LLM as a trustable reference: definitely not at the current state of the tech.

(Yet another ) societal problem: at present we lack the experience at present to be able to tell if AI output is meaningful—or even true. So, we need to use caution: free unsourced answers are as useful/believable/valuable as what we don’t pay for them (free!=better|true). I write that with conscious irony as the author of a resource provided freely to others—but I’d like to think I’m a bit more thoughtful than a (dumb) AI.


Oh I replied to @PaulWalters

See I did a site search for evernote sync and it gives me this number of results which are not even related. Too much cognitive burden. So I am find an efficient way of getting answers.

But all that search shows is DuckDuckGo’s content analysis is rubbish as the pages it ought to find have been up online for years. The domain is open to we search spiders and even provides assisting files like a Google-format XML sitemap. But content owners don’t control the periodicty of spidering or the quality of the search engines content. Testing both Google and Duckduckgo are pretty rubbish. Why, I’ve no idea which is annoying given the time I’ve put into setting up and maintain google’s ever-changing demands for howe a site is configured. With google’s billions of $, you’d think they’s be a bit smarter.

Aside, Evernote is better compared to DEVONthink than Tinderbox. Just because you can make a note in Evernote doesn’t make it like Tinderbox. The apps have different purposes, and false comparisons, even if unintentional, merely confuse new/potential users of either app.

Evernote support was dropped in Tinderbox v9.0+ due to changes in the Evernote [sic] app (and a presumed unwillingness to co-operate with other app developers).That chimes with that app’s apparent drift to being a roach motel for your info—it goes in but doesn’t leave. Export has been crippled to lock in customers. DEVONthink is a far superior alternative as an everything-bucket.

Tip. The best way to use aTbRef is the website. Just this morning, I’ve edited 9 articles to reflect issue raised here and in the Backstage. The PDFs of the site are only as up to date as the version’s release as the website is the active record.

†. The inter-operability of apps like Tinderbox, DEVONthink, Bookends, Marked2, etc., is because the developers communicate. Many of the inter-op feature we users want require developer attention in both apps. Evernote’s approach seems to be about locking in their users’s data on the false assumption it retains user (income).

1 Like