Hi @brsma, I’m really struggling with your idea that using filesystem hierarchy is an utter waste of time as in my experience it’s exactly the opposite.
Especially with the current state of logseq, promoting the use of namespaces as an answer to this problem and the current implementation in logseq - discarding any fs related structure - as well as the team’s vision towards handling fs hierarchy in general. I wrote an elaborate reply on a related feature request and a similar confusion arises with your standpoint here, hence my direct question. - link to post
I’m obviously a software developer and just struggling with your words, stating that fs hierarchy is a waste of time - I really fail to understand: it’s just unthinkable to me to run a reasonably complex software project without fs hierarchy… I’m fine with being labeled an OCD sensitive person as I consider this a compliment instead of a blame: more often than not my “OCD like features” have saved me from massive disasters and huge setbacks so I’m obviously proudly defending fs hierarchy, or as @Gary_O already put it so eloquently: “they’re in my blood and in my fingers”
I get that to cover all kinds of hierarchy is way more complicated than a file system can handle, but classifying a fs driven tree based structure as a waste of time is just a bridge too far in my humble opinion. Since you have experience as an architect I’d really value your feedback as I’m growing into a similar position myself and I’m always eager to learn, so pretty please? 
Can you share your experience here on how you got to these statements, I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one being confused by them…
Kind regards,