Your post was a reply to someone, not a stand alone article. So in that case, “you” is read as referring to the person you are replying to, not some general reader.
If you were trying to write a stand-alone article and address things to “the reader”, you should have written a stand-alone article and put it on a blog or posted it in its own thread.
Because of what you just said. The point of Elliot’s article was about offloading work from your mind. It wasn’t an article about whether to do lists are better than calendars, or what different types of to do list apps or systems are best.
You are trying to write out your own ideas about what you think is best. You weren’t engaging with or arguing with the actual point of the article. The article wasn’t about the specifics of using to do lists vs using calendars.
You were agreeing with the main point of the article, but you wrote your post as if it were a disagreement. And most of your post was a tangent about your own ideas, not actually engaging with anything that the article said.
The point I wanted to make was that if you do, in fact, want unbounded criticism on your ideas, you should be posting them as stand-alone articles in their own threads in the unbounded section. Posting your ideas in the unbounded section as their own posts signals that you actually want unbounded criticism on them. Also, unbounded criticism can lead to long threads, which is a bit awkward to do in someone else’s topic. Posting your ideas as responses in someone else’s topic is a way to discourage other people from giving you very much criticism because people might be reluctant to derail someone else’s thread over some tangential issues that a different person posted.
If you are using your calendar to write down tasks that you want to do, that is a type of to do list. To do lists can have time allocation and still be to do lists. Adding time allocation doesn’t make it a different type of thing. You can even write specific times on to do tasks in a standard to do list app.
That is very different than your original opening sentence:
You said that todo lists are bad, and that Elliot should stop using them. I assumed that you meant he should stop using them at all, ever, for anything. Otherwise, why would you even say that? You don’t know anything about his problem situation, what he uses to do lists for, how often he uses them, or whether he uses a calendar. So why would you specifically tell him to stop using to do lists and that they are bad unless you meant that he should never use them?
I might write another post about that later.
Every one of those tips also applies to calendars used as task lists or to do lists. Do you think those points don’t apply to calendars? You have to remember to check your calendar at the right times and check it regularly. You should check your calendar in the morning and in the evening and several times in between, if you are regularly using it to keep track of things you have to do. It is good habit to check your calendar after you finish a task, before you decide what to do next, if you are regularly writing tasks or appointments on it.
If you don’t regularly use a calendar, and have very few appointments, then it makes sense to just check your calendar in the morning (to see if you have any appointments that day or coming up soon that you need to prepare for) and in the evening (to check if you have any appointments tomorrow), but not to regularly check it in between those times or after tasks if it is a day when you have nothing on it. But if you are using your calendar as a task list, then you should be checking it in the ways that Elliot talked about in the article.
The points in the article seemed to be about offloading the mental work of keeping track of everything that you have to do. Putting that onto paper, so that you don’t have to remember it all in your brain all the time, and keep track of it all mentally. That applies to using standard to do lists or to using calendars as to do lists.
They are. So are calendars. Neither one of those things alone is a complete solution to offloading tasks.