Flashcard content is stored as a plain text Markdown file that you can easily edit as you would with any text editor, or you can track changes through Git. Flashcards are marked with hashes, so editing content resets learning progress; You can create Q/A flashcards (e.g., C Frictionless). This zero-barrier approach allows you to learn more efficiently without the need for complex applications
We often misunderstand “learning” and “thinking” as one thing:
Be able to keep things organized.
So we are used to:
- Classify first, then think
- Build the structure first, then write the content
- First think about “where to put it”, and then think about “what is it”
But the HashCards project is questioning this default premise.
A neglected issue:
Why do you need to organize it before recording?
Most note-taking systems default to having three abilities:
- You know where this content “belongs”
- You can give it a suitable name
- You can predict how it will be used in the future
But the reality is:
- Truly valuable ideas often appear suddenly
- They are in the present, and there is no place yet
- Not even fully understood by you
If a system asks you to “think before remembering”,
Then you most likely won’t remember.
What HashCards are opposing is not tools, but habits
HashCards is not telling you to:
“It’s a better note-taking software”
Instead, it expresses a lower-level attitude:
Records should not rely on collation capabilities.
It assumes that:
- Human understanding is gradually formed
- Thinking itself is chaotic
- The structure should come from “use after”, not “planning at the beginning”
What is HashCard? From a thinking point of view
Technically, a HashCard is a piece of content + a hash.
But in terms of thinking, it is more like:
Respect for “single ideas”.
A HashCard that cares about only one thing:
- What are you thinking about at the moment?
It doesn’t care about:
- How do you organize in the future?
- How do you name it now
- Do you have a complete system?
You only need to be responsible for “this one thought”.
Why Hash, not Title?
Titles are an “act of interpretation”.
Hash is an act of “admitting facts”.
- Title: Here’s what I think it is
- Hash: This is what it looks like now
Hash doesn’t require you to understand it.
Only ask you to document it authentically.
From this perspective:
Hash is an inclusion of “not fully understanding the state”.
From “building a system” to “storing atoms”
Many people have a kind of anxiety when learning things:
“What I remember now, will it be difficult to organize it in the future?”
HashCards answers:
That’s a question for later.
It chooses to save “atomic content” first:
- A judgment
- A corollary
- An idea that is not yet mature
As for the system, it emerges naturally after repeated use of these atoms.
It’s not about having a map and then walking;
But after walking too much, the map slowly emerged.
This is actually a very counterintuitive view of learning
The default behind it is:
- Thinking is not a tree-like unfolding
- Rather, fragments → combined → recombined
- Structure is the result, not the premise
This is for people who are used to “chapter-table of contents-outlines”,
It will be very uncomfortable.
But it is closer to the real cognitive process.
A sentence at the heart of HashCards
If I were to keep just one sentence, it would be:
Don’t sacrifice “real thinking” for the sake of “looking good”.
A lot of note-taking systems, which look organized,
But there are no really new ideas in it.
And HashCards prefer to be messy,
Nor do you force you to jump to conclusions too early.
Written at the end
HashCards don’t require you to use it.
It doesn’t even require you to identify with it.
But it raises a valuable rhetorical question:
If you don’t need to tidy up, would you be more willing to think?
Sometimes,
giving up a sense of control,
Instead, it is closer to understanding itself.
Github：https://github.com/eudoxia0/hashcards
Tubing: