Search
1000 results for “objectref”
-
Smart Lamp Keeps Students on Track with Image Recognition https://hackaday.com/2025/06/15/smart-lamp-keeps-students-on-track-with-image-recognition/ #ArtificialIntelligence #SeeedGroveAIVision #objectrecognition #ws2182b
-
Smart Lamp Keeps Students on Track with Image Recognition - It’s a common enough problem: you’re hitting the books, your phone dings with a no... - https://hackaday.com/2025/06/15/smart-lamp-keeps-students-on-track-with-image-recognition/ #artificialintelligence #seeedgroveaivision #objectrecognition #ws2182b
-
Smart Lamp Keeps Students on Track with Image Recognition - It’s a common enough problem: you’re hitting the books, your phone dings with a no... - https://hackaday.com/2025/06/15/smart-lamp-keeps-students-on-track-with-image-recognition/ #artificialintelligence #seeedgroveaivision #objectrecognition #ws2182b
-
Smart Lamp Keeps Students on Track with Image Recognition - It’s a common enough problem: you’re hitting the books, your phone dings with a no... - https://hackaday.com/2025/06/15/smart-lamp-keeps-students-on-track-with-image-recognition/ #artificialintelligence #seeedgroveaivision #objectrecognition #ws2182b
-
Smart Lamp Keeps Students on Track with Image Recognition - It’s a common enough problem: you’re hitting the books, your phone dings with a no... - https://hackaday.com/2025/06/15/smart-lamp-keeps-students-on-track-with-image-recognition/ #artificialintelligence #seeedgroveaivision #objectrecognition #ws2182b
-
DE SLUITER ONTSLOTEN
Als je fotografeert kan je beter de sluitertijd aanpassen aan het brandpuntafstand van je objectief. Als je een brandpunt hebt van 100 mm volstaat eigenlijk 1/100 seconde wel om een scherpe foto te hebben. Een brandpunt van 320 mm vereist eigenlijk 1/320 seconde voor een scherpe foto. Dat is een vuistregel. Dat is het korte verhaal. In de blog staat een nadere uitleg!
De sluitertijd - Candela Fotografie https://www.candela-fotografie.nl/workshop/de-sluitertijd/
-
Dit. #raar #bizar #abnormaal
#kutkabinet #PVV #VVD #NSC #BBB
‘Objectief abnormaal is ook het idee van minister Faber om afschrikkingsborden bij vluchtelingencentra te zetten. Net als het plan om noodrecht in te roepen voor de ‘asielcrisis’ omdat er geen tijd is voor democratische procedures, en daar dan wekenlang op te studeren. Is er nou haast of niet?’ -
Attending the Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica (CWI) Lectures on Digital Cultural Heritage today.
Great to see the intersection between CWI and the Humanities, I'm looking forward to the lectures.
Kicking off with Peter Bell (Philipps University Marburg, Germany), speaking about: "Objects in Pictures, Objects in Time. Art History and Computer Vision"
-
En 2020, j'ai développé un logiciel capable de reconnaître les objets sur une image. Aujourd'hui, il est capable de reconnaître plus de 700 objets différents et ses capacités s'améliorent chaque jour! #IA #Robotique #ObjectRecognition
-
@erikvanbeek @Ronald @Marielvd Maar t vreemde is dat ze ook veel stemmen trekken van mensen die objectief niets bij ze te zoeken hebben #raadsel
-
Ik ben soms een beetje jaloers op het programma #jehuisoporde niet dat we zoveel rommel hebben maar iemand die even objectief over je schouder meekijkt is best handig
-
What is a ‘true self’ and what is a ‘false self’?
I’ve always been instinctively suspicious of Winnicott’s notion of the ‘true self‘. Not because I doubt that it’s a frequent experience to find oneself relating in a manner which is in some fundamental way fake, somehow untrue to who we are. To the extent this is a routine feature of human experience it implies as a corollary forms of relating which are in some fundamental sense true to who we are. Likewise it is a common experience that these forms of relating feel good in some diffuse yet profound way. In essence I understand Winnicott to have been saying that relating from the true self keeps us in touch with our fundamental creativity, enabling us to act spontaneously in terms of who we are rather than acting defensively in order to comply with the (imagined) expectations of those around us. In essence the false self acts as a defensive carapace which forms to protect ourselves developmentally when we encounter situations in which we cannot be ourselves in this more spontaneous way. It’s what Gabor Mate describes with admirable clarity as the tension between attachment and authenticity:
The seed of woe does not lie in our having these two needs, but in the fact that life too often orchestrates a face-off between them. The dilemma is this: What happens if our needs for attachment are imperiled by our authenticity, our connection to what we truly feel? What happens, in other words, when one nonnegotiable need is pitted by circumstance against the other? These circumstances might include parental addiction, mental illness, family violence and poverty, overt conflict, or profound unhappiness—the stresses imposed by society, on children as well as adults. Even without these, the tragic tension between attachment and authenticity can arise. Not being seen and accepted for who we are is sufficient.
Myth of Normal, pg 147
As Mate later observes, “That some attachments may not survive the choice for authenticity is one of the most agonizing realizations one can come to” (pg 476). In this sense we could think of Winnicott’s concept as a way of describing how this tension plays itself out (or fails to) i.e. the manner in which we learn to pretend to be something other than what we are in pursuit of a sense of safety in our relations with others. In its more extreme forms this issues in a complete compliance with our environment and the demands we encounter within it, even preemptively so such that we are contorting ourselves to demands which no one is actually making of us. This is part of all childhood experience, as I understand Winnicott, with the difference being the degree to which the false self crowds out the true self and how deeply embedded the legacy of this becomes in adult life and with what consequences.
The problem I see is the tacitly essentialist register of ‘true self’ and ‘false self’. Not only does it lend itself so readily to simplification, such that we might simply seek to replace the (bad) ‘false self’ with the (good) ‘true self’, it fails to register the dynamic character of the process which is being captured. As I understand it these are more like psychic sources which become more or less integrated into the structure of our quotidian engagement with the world around us: the source of spontaneous and creative action which keeps us rooted in the present and the anticipatory and fearful action which is orientated to the future. It’s untenable to live entirely in the first mode as an adult so it’s more a question of how readily accessible that source is and how much it infuses our interaction with others and the world around us. Likewise the second mode provides a necessary feature for survival in an unpredictable world but it can squeeze out the possibility for authentic relating such that it makes any relating in the first mode untenable. Everything becomes about projection, performance and preparation rather than simply being and doing. The tension isn’t a one-time trade off, particularly outside of clinical settings, but rather a life long struggle between two modes that are essential to being human and thriving in a complex and open world. This is why I like so much Christopher Bollas who talks about this as an idiom:
Winnicott’s important statement that the true self is the inherited ‘personality potential’. From my point of view, this is exactly what it is: a complex inherited core of personality present at birth, an idiom of being and relating that will evolve and become activated according to the infant’s experience of the mother.
Essential Aloneness, loc 395
The other main quality of the true self is ‘spontaneity’: the gesture made real. We see somebody we would like to talk to, and we approach them and introduce ourselves. This is the gesture made real. If we merely think about doing this but we don’t actually move towards the person, the gesture is accomplished only as an inner mental representation. So one of the ways to evaluate the evolution of an individual’s true self is to note the extent to which their gestures have been made real.
Essential Aloneness, loc 407
It’s this movement from internal towards external gesture which is mediated by caregivers who meet the infant’s developing idiom and support its elaboration. For Bollas our personal idiom is defined through such elaboration as we relate to objects, including crucially cultural objects, in a manner which unfolds a particular sense in which I’m this person relating to these objects in this specific way. I develop my own specific idiom through the objects I select, how I engage with them and the way I’m changed in the process. There are objects which, as he puts it in Being a Character, act as ‘keys’ which unlock elements of our idiom:
Certain objects, like psychic “keys,” open doors to unconsciously intense—and rich—experience in which we articulate the self that we are through the elaborating character of our response. This selection constitutes the jouissance of the true self, a bliss released through the finding of specific objects that free idiom to its articulation.
Loc 208
The people we feel an affinity with. The places we find we belong. The music which moves us. The books which leave us changed after reading. As he puts it in Hysteria loc 100:
So each self will find particular individuals more attractive than others, will find certain actual objects — works of fiction, pieces of music, hobbies, recreational interests — of more interest than others, and in the course of living a life will have constructed a world which, although holding objects in common with other selves, will have shaped them into a form as unique as their fingerprint.
To be a ‘true self’ involves living in a way that is consistent with our idiom. This also means living in a way that calls for the continual elaboration of our idiom because to live with it consistently involves a continual encounter with objects that provoke this potential through their relations. The objects call forth experiences in us, activate potential that were previously latent, leaving us changed in all manner of ways. This I think is what is at work when cultural bingeing is edifying rather than deadening, a sense of being immersed in something that moves you rather than being caught in the circuits of drive to avoid something else. Indeed I’m currently bingeing on Bollas because I’m finding things here which express my idiom, particularly in the intellectual register of the sociological account of psychodynamics I’ve inarticulately groped towards over a long period of time. There is something about how I see the world, as well as how I want to account for what I see, which is being elaborated through reading his work. In doing so I’m changed in a manner which is deeply satisfying.
It suggests to me that cultural engagement can be a crucial source of connection to spontaneity. To write because you have the ‘feel of an idea’ (in my favourite phrase of C Wright Mills) rather than because you want to elicit a response in your readers. To read something because it’s gripping you rather than because you want to be someone seen to read things like that or to be someone who has read it. To listen to what moves you and leaves you feeling alive in the immersion. In the jouissance associated with these experiences we connect to something fundamental in ourselves: our personal idiom or ‘true self’. That enjoyment can be rich and generative because it touches something fundamental about who we are. Why am I the person so moved by this music? Why am I the person so fascinated by this author? It follows from Bollas that I think we ought to sit with these experiences, to linger in them so that we can sensitise ourselves to what is at work in them without allowing analysis to substitute for immersion. It’s how to really enjoy cultural engagement but it also has a broader psychic significance as a manner in which we connect with ourselves and what matters to us.
It’s less clear to me though what this means interpersonally. There’s a greater complexity to our object relating with people because they are, well… people. They too have their own idiom. The ruthlessness in object relating which Winnicott argued was essential to our psychic development becomes potential sources of harm in our relating with others. But conversely the fear of hurting others can be a stifling constraint on the possibility of authentic relating. The term which comes to mind here is atmosphere: the space that exists interpersonally and what it means for the possible expressions of idiom in the reciprocal relating that takes place. It’s also the question of what’s energising and what isn’t. How does it feel to be-with a particular person? Do you come across feeling energised or depleted? Do you feel elaborated or diminished? Do you feel sharper edged or somehow blurry? The complexity arises because relating in terms of our personal idiom can be genuinely harmful for the other. Indeed as Mate observes attachment and authenticity often cannot be reconciled. But there’s something here I think about finding who your people are as a matter of converging idioms and the atmosphere which prevails as a consequence of this convergence.
#christopherBollas #falseSelf #gaborMate #objectRelations #relating #trueSelf #Winnicott
-
What is a ‘true self’ and what is a ‘false self’?
I’ve always been instinctively suspicious of Winnicott’s notion of the ‘true self‘. Not because I doubt that it’s a frequent experience to find oneself relating in a manner which is in some fundamental way fake, somehow untrue to who we are. To the extent this is a routine feature of human experience it implies as a corollary forms of relating which are in some fundamental sense true to who we are. Likewise it is a common experience that these forms of relating feel good in some diffuse yet profound way. In essence I understand Winnicott to have been saying that relating from the true self keeps us in touch with our fundamental creativity, enabling us to act spontaneously in terms of who we are rather than acting defensively in order to comply with the (imagined) expectations of those around us. In essence the false self acts as a defensive carapace which forms to protect ourselves developmentally when we encounter situations in which we cannot be ourselves in this more spontaneous way. It’s what Gabor Mate describes with admirable clarity as the tension between attachment and authenticity:
The seed of woe does not lie in our having these two needs, but in the fact that life too often orchestrates a face-off between them. The dilemma is this: What happens if our needs for attachment are imperiled by our authenticity, our connection to what we truly feel? What happens, in other words, when one nonnegotiable need is pitted by circumstance against the other? These circumstances might include parental addiction, mental illness, family violence and poverty, overt conflict, or profound unhappiness—the stresses imposed by society, on children as well as adults. Even without these, the tragic tension between attachment and authenticity can arise. Not being seen and accepted for who we are is sufficient.
Myth of Normal, pg 147
As Mate later observes, “That some attachments may not survive the choice for authenticity is one of the most agonizing realizations one can come to” (pg 476). In this sense we could think of Winnicott’s concept as a way of describing how this tension plays itself out (or fails to) i.e. the manner in which we learn to pretend to be something other than what we are in pursuit of a sense of safety in our relations with others. In its more extreme forms this issues in a complete compliance with our environment and the demands we encounter within it, even preemptively so such that we are contorting ourselves to demands which no one is actually making of us. This is part of all childhood experience, as I understand Winnicott, with the difference being the degree to which the false self crowds out the true self and how deeply embedded the legacy of this becomes in adult life and with what consequences.
The problem I see is the tacitly essentialist register of ‘true self’ and ‘false self’. Not only does it lend itself so readily to simplification, such that we might simply seek to replace the (bad) ‘false self’ with the (good) ‘true self’, it fails to register the dynamic character of the process which is being captured. As I understand it these are more like psychic sources which become more or less integrated into the structure of our quotidian engagement with the world around us: the source of spontaneous and creative action which keeps us rooted in the present and the anticipatory and fearful action which is orientated to the future. It’s untenable to live entirely in the first mode as an adult so it’s more a question of how readily accessible that source is and how much it infuses our interaction with others and the world around us. Likewise the second mode provides a necessary feature for survival in an unpredictable world but it can squeeze out the possibility for authentic relating such that it makes any relating in the first mode untenable. Everything becomes about projection, performance and preparation rather than simply being and doing. The tension isn’t a one-time trade off, particularly outside of clinical settings, but rather a life long struggle between two modes that are essential to being human and thriving in a complex and open world. This is why I like so much Christopher Bollas who talks about this as an idiom:
Winnicott’s important statement that the true self is the inherited ‘personality potential’. From my point of view, this is exactly what it is: a complex inherited core of personality present at birth, an idiom of being and relating that will evolve and become activated according to the infant’s experience of the mother.
Essential Aloneness, loc 395
The other main quality of the true self is ‘spontaneity’: the gesture made real. We see somebody we would like to talk to, and we approach them and introduce ourselves. This is the gesture made real. If we merely think about doing this but we don’t actually move towards the person, the gesture is accomplished only as an inner mental representation. So one of the ways to evaluate the evolution of an individual’s true self is to note the extent to which their gestures have been made real.
Essential Aloneness, loc 407
It’s this movement from internal towards external gesture which is mediated by caregivers who meet the infant’s developing idiom and support its elaboration. For Bollas our personal idiom is defined through such elaboration as we relate to objects, including crucially cultural objects, in a manner which unfolds a particular sense in which I’m this person relating to these objects in this specific way. I develop my own specific idiom through the objects I select, how I engage with them and the way I’m changed in the process. There are objects which, as he puts it in Being a Character, act as ‘keys’ which unlock elements of our idiom:
Certain objects, like psychic “keys,” open doors to unconsciously intense—and rich—experience in which we articulate the self that we are through the elaborating character of our response. This selection constitutes the jouissance of the true self, a bliss released through the finding of specific objects that free idiom to its articulation.
Loc 208
The people we feel an affinity with. The places we find we belong. The music which moves us. The books which leave us changed after reading. As he puts it in Hysteria loc 100:
So each self will find particular individuals more attractive than others, will find certain actual objects — works of fiction, pieces of music, hobbies, recreational interests — of more interest than others, and in the course of living a life will have constructed a world which, although holding objects in common with other selves, will have shaped them into a form as unique as their fingerprint.
To be a ‘true self’ involves living in a way that is consistent with our idiom. This also means living in a way that calls for the continual elaboration of our idiom because to live with it consistently involves a continual encounter with objects that provoke this potential through their relations. The objects call forth experiences in us, activate potential that were previously latent, leaving us changed in all manner of ways. This I think is what is at work when cultural bingeing is edifying rather than deadening, a sense of being immersed in something that moves you rather than being caught in the circuits of drive to avoid something else. Indeed I’m currently bingeing on Bollas because I’m finding things here which express my idiom, particularly in the intellectual register of the sociological account of psychodynamics I’ve inarticulately groped towards over a long period of time. There is something about how I see the world, as well as how I want to account for what I see, which is being elaborated through reading his work. In doing so I’m changed in a manner which is deeply satisfying.
It suggests to me that cultural engagement can be a crucial source of connection to spontaneity. To write because you have the ‘feel of an idea’ (in my favourite phrase of C Wright Mills) rather than because you want to elicit a response in your readers. To read something because it’s gripping you rather than because you want to be someone seen to read things like that or to be someone who has read it. To listen to what moves you and leaves you feeling alive in the immersion. In the jouissance associated with these experiences we connect to something fundamental in ourselves: our personal idiom or ‘true self’. That enjoyment can be rich and generative because it touches something fundamental about who we are. Why am I the person so moved by this music? Why am I the person so fascinated by this author? It follows from Bollas that I think we ought to sit with these experiences, to linger in them so that we can sensitise ourselves to what is at work in them without allowing analysis to substitute for immersion. It’s how to really enjoy cultural engagement but it also has a broader psychic significance as a manner in which we connect with ourselves and what matters to us.
It’s less clear to me though what this means interpersonally. There’s a greater complexity to our object relating with people because they are, well… people. They too have their own idiom. The ruthlessness in object relating which Winnicott argued was essential to our psychic development becomes potential sources of harm in our relating with others. But conversely the fear of hurting others can be a stifling constraint on the possibility of authentic relating. The term which comes to mind here is atmosphere: the space that exists interpersonally and what it means for the possible expressions of idiom in the reciprocal relating that takes place. It’s also the question of what’s energising and what isn’t. How does it feel to be-with a particular person? Do you come across feeling energised or depleted? Do you feel elaborated or diminished? Do you feel sharper edged or somehow blurry? The complexity arises because relating in terms of our personal idiom can be genuinely harmful for the other. Indeed as Mate observes attachment and authenticity often cannot be reconciled. But there’s something here I think about finding who your people are as a matter of converging idioms and the atmosphere which prevails as a consequence of this convergence.
#christopherBollas #falseSelf #gaborMate #objectRelations #relating #trueSelf #Winnicott
-
What is a ‘true self’ and what is a ‘false self’?
I’ve always been instinctively suspicious of Winnicott’s notion of the ‘true self‘. Not because I doubt that it’s a frequent experience to find oneself relating in a manner which is in some fundamental way fake, somehow untrue to who we are. To the extent this is a routine feature of human experience it implies as a corollary forms of relating which are in some fundamental sense true to who we are. Likewise it is a common experience that these forms of relating feel good in some diffuse yet profound way. In essence I understand Winnicott to have been saying that relating from the true self keeps us in touch with our fundamental creativity, enabling us to act spontaneously in terms of who we are rather than acting defensively in order to comply with the (imagined) expectations of those around us. In essence the false self acts as a defensive carapace which forms to protect ourselves developmentally when we encounter situations in which we cannot be ourselves in this more spontaneous way. It’s what Gabor Mate describes with admirable clarity as the tension between attachment and authenticity:
The seed of woe does not lie in our having these two needs, but in the fact that life too often orchestrates a face-off between them. The dilemma is this: What happens if our needs for attachment are imperiled by our authenticity, our connection to what we truly feel? What happens, in other words, when one nonnegotiable need is pitted by circumstance against the other? These circumstances might include parental addiction, mental illness, family violence and poverty, overt conflict, or profound unhappiness—the stresses imposed by society, on children as well as adults. Even without these, the tragic tension between attachment and authenticity can arise. Not being seen and accepted for who we are is sufficient.
Myth of Normal, pg 147
As Mate later observes, “That some attachments may not survive the choice for authenticity is one of the most agonizing realizations one can come to” (pg 476). In this sense we could think of Winnicott’s concept as a way of describing how this tension plays itself out (or fails to) i.e. the manner in which we learn to pretend to be something other than what we are in pursuit of a sense of safety in our relations with others. In its more extreme forms this issues in a complete compliance with our environment and the demands we encounter within it, even preemptively so such that we are contorting ourselves to demands which no one is actually making of us. This is part of all childhood experience, as I understand Winnicott, with the difference being the degree to which the false self crowds out the true self and how deeply embedded the legacy of this becomes in adult life and with what consequences.
The problem I see is the tacitly essentialist register of ‘true self’ and ‘false self’. Not only does it lend itself so readily to simplification, such that we might simply seek to replace the (bad) ‘false self’ with the (good) ‘true self’, it fails to register the dynamic character of the process which is being captured. As I understand it these are more like psychic sources which become more or less integrated into the structure of our quotidian engagement with the world around us: the source of spontaneous and creative action which keeps us rooted in the present and the anticipatory and fearful action which is orientated to the future. It’s untenable to live entirely in the first mode as an adult so it’s more a question of how readily accessible that source is and how much it infuses our interaction with others and the world around us. Likewise the second mode provides a necessary feature for survival in an unpredictable world but it can squeeze out the possibility for authentic relating such that it makes any relating in the first mode untenable. Everything becomes about projection, performance and preparation rather than simply being and doing. The tension isn’t a one-time trade off, particularly outside of clinical settings, but rather a life long struggle between two modes that are essential to being human and thriving in a complex and open world. This is why I like so much Christopher Bollas who talks about this as an idiom:
Winnicott’s important statement that the true self is the inherited ‘personality potential’. From my point of view, this is exactly what it is: a complex inherited core of personality present at birth, an idiom of being and relating that will evolve and become activated according to the infant’s experience of the mother.
Essential Aloneness, loc 395
The other main quality of the true self is ‘spontaneity’: the gesture made real. We see somebody we would like to talk to, and we approach them and introduce ourselves. This is the gesture made real. If we merely think about doing this but we don’t actually move towards the person, the gesture is accomplished only as an inner mental representation. So one of the ways to evaluate the evolution of an individual’s true self is to note the extent to which their gestures have been made real.
Essential Aloneness, loc 407
It’s this movement from internal towards external gesture which is mediated by caregivers who meet the infant’s developing idiom and support its elaboration. For Bollas our personal idiom is defined through such elaboration as we relate to objects, including crucially cultural objects, in a manner which unfolds a particular sense in which I’m this person relating to these objects in this specific way. I develop my own specific idiom through the objects I select, how I engage with them and the way I’m changed in the process. There are objects which, as he puts it in Being a Character, act as ‘keys’ which unlock elements of our idiom:
Certain objects, like psychic “keys,” open doors to unconsciously intense—and rich—experience in which we articulate the self that we are through the elaborating character of our response. This selection constitutes the jouissance of the true self, a bliss released through the finding of specific objects that free idiom to its articulation.
Loc 208
The people we feel an affinity with. The places we find we belong. The music which moves us. The books which leave us changed after reading. As he puts it in Hysteria loc 100:
So each self will find particular individuals more attractive than others, will find certain actual objects — works of fiction, pieces of music, hobbies, recreational interests — of more interest than others, and in the course of living a life will have constructed a world which, although holding objects in common with other selves, will have shaped them into a form as unique as their fingerprint.
To be a ‘true self’ involves living in a way that is consistent with our idiom. This also means living in a way that calls for the continual elaboration of our idiom because to live with it consistently involves a continual encounter with objects that provoke this potential through their relations. The objects call forth experiences in us, activate potential that were previously latent, leaving us changed in all manner of ways. This I think is what is at work when cultural bingeing is edifying rather than deadening, a sense of being immersed in something that moves you rather than being caught in the circuits of drive to avoid something else. Indeed I’m currently bingeing on Bollas because I’m finding things here which express my idiom, particularly in the intellectual register of the sociological account of psychodynamics I’ve inarticulately groped towards over a long period of time. There is something about how I see the world, as well as how I want to account for what I see, which is being elaborated through reading his work. In doing so I’m changed in a manner which is deeply satisfying.
It suggests to me that cultural engagement can be a crucial source of connection to spontaneity. To write because you have the ‘feel of an idea’ (in my favourite phrase of C Wright Mills) rather than because you want to elicit a response in your readers. To read something because it’s gripping you rather than because you want to be someone seen to read things like that or to be someone who has read it. To listen to what moves you and leaves you feeling alive in the immersion. In the jouissance associated with these experiences we connect to something fundamental in ourselves: our personal idiom or ‘true self’. That enjoyment can be rich and generative because it touches something fundamental about who we are. Why am I the person so moved by this music? Why am I the person so fascinated by this author? It follows from Bollas that I think we ought to sit with these experiences, to linger in them so that we can sensitise ourselves to what is at work in them without allowing analysis to substitute for immersion. It’s how to really enjoy cultural engagement but it also has a broader psychic significance as a manner in which we connect with ourselves and what matters to us.
It’s less clear to me though what this means interpersonally. There’s a greater complexity to our object relating with people because they are, well… people. They too have their own idiom. The ruthlessness in object relating which Winnicott argued was essential to our psychic development becomes potential sources of harm in our relating with others. But conversely the fear of hurting others can be a stifling constraint on the possibility of authentic relating. The term which comes to mind here is atmosphere: the space that exists interpersonally and what it means for the possible expressions of idiom in the reciprocal relating that takes place. It’s also the question of what’s energising and what isn’t. How does it feel to be-with a particular person? Do you come across feeling energised or depleted? Do you feel elaborated or diminished? Do you feel sharper edged or somehow blurry? The complexity arises because relating in terms of our personal idiom can be genuinely harmful for the other. Indeed as Mate observes attachment and authenticity often cannot be reconciled. But there’s something here I think about finding who your people are as a matter of converging idioms and the atmosphere which prevails as a consequence of this convergence.
#christopherBollas #falseSelf #gaborMate #objectRelations #relating #trueSelf #Winnicott
-
What is a ‘true self’ and what is a ‘false self’?
I’ve always been instinctively suspicious of Winnicott’s notion of the ‘true self‘. Not because I doubt that it’s a frequent experience to find oneself relating in a manner which is in some fundamental way fake, somehow untrue to who we are. To the extent this is a routine feature of human experience it implies as a corollary forms of relating which are in some fundamental sense true to who we are. Likewise it is a common experience that these forms of relating feel good in some diffuse yet profound way. In essence I understand Winnicott to have been saying that relating from the true self keeps us in touch with our fundamental creativity, enabling us to act spontaneously in terms of who we are rather than acting defensively in order to comply with the (imagined) expectations of those around us. In essence the false self acts as a defensive carapace which forms to protect ourselves developmentally when we encounter situations in which we cannot be ourselves in this more spontaneous way. It’s what Gabor Mate describes with admirable clarity as the tension between attachment and authenticity:
The seed of woe does not lie in our having these two needs, but in the fact that life too often orchestrates a face-off between them. The dilemma is this: What happens if our needs for attachment are imperiled by our authenticity, our connection to what we truly feel? What happens, in other words, when one nonnegotiable need is pitted by circumstance against the other? These circumstances might include parental addiction, mental illness, family violence and poverty, overt conflict, or profound unhappiness—the stresses imposed by society, on children as well as adults. Even without these, the tragic tension between attachment and authenticity can arise. Not being seen and accepted for who we are is sufficient.
Myth of Normal, pg 147
As Mate later observes, “That some attachments may not survive the choice for authenticity is one of the most agonizing realizations one can come to” (pg 476). In this sense we could think of Winnicott’s concept as a way of describing how this tension plays itself out (or fails to) i.e. the manner in which we learn to pretend to be something other than what we are in pursuit of a sense of safety in our relations with others. In its more extreme forms this issues in a complete compliance with our environment and the demands we encounter within it, even preemptively so such that we are contorting ourselves to demands which no one is actually making of us. This is part of all childhood experience, as I understand Winnicott, with the difference being the degree to which the false self crowds out the true self and how deeply embedded the legacy of this becomes in adult life and with what consequences.
The problem I see is the tacitly essentialist register of ‘true self’ and ‘false self’. Not only does it lend itself so readily to simplification, such that we might simply seek to replace the (bad) ‘false self’ with the (good) ‘true self’, it fails to register the dynamic character of the process which is being captured. As I understand it these are more like psychic sources which become more or less integrated into the structure of our quotidian engagement with the world around us: the source of spontaneous and creative action which keeps us rooted in the present and the anticipatory and fearful action which is orientated to the future. It’s untenable to live entirely in the first mode as an adult so it’s more a question of how readily accessible that source is and how much it infuses our interaction with others and the world around us. Likewise the second mode provides a necessary feature for survival in an unpredictable world but it can squeeze out the possibility for authentic relating such that it makes any relating in the first mode untenable. Everything becomes about projection, performance and preparation rather than simply being and doing. The tension isn’t a one-time trade off, particularly outside of clinical settings, but rather a life long struggle between two modes that are essential to being human and thriving in a complex and open world. This is why I like so much Christopher Bollas who talks about this as an idiom:
Winnicott’s important statement that the true self is the inherited ‘personality potential’. From my point of view, this is exactly what it is: a complex inherited core of personality present at birth, an idiom of being and relating that will evolve and become activated according to the infant’s experience of the mother.
Essential Aloneness, loc 395
The other main quality of the true self is ‘spontaneity’: the gesture made real. We see somebody we would like to talk to, and we approach them and introduce ourselves. This is the gesture made real. If we merely think about doing this but we don’t actually move towards the person, the gesture is accomplished only as an inner mental representation. So one of the ways to evaluate the evolution of an individual’s true self is to note the extent to which their gestures have been made real.
Essential Aloneness, loc 407
It’s this movement from internal towards external gesture which is mediated by caregivers who meet the infant’s developing idiom and support its elaboration. For Bollas our personal idiom is defined through such elaboration as we relate to objects, including crucially cultural objects, in a manner which unfolds a particular sense in which I’m this person relating to these objects in this specific way. I develop my own specific idiom through the objects I select, how I engage with them and the way I’m changed in the process. There are objects which, as he puts it in Being a Character, act as ‘keys’ which unlock elements of our idiom:
Certain objects, like psychic “keys,” open doors to unconsciously intense—and rich—experience in which we articulate the self that we are through the elaborating character of our response. This selection constitutes the jouissance of the true self, a bliss released through the finding of specific objects that free idiom to its articulation.
Loc 208
The people we feel an affinity with. The places we find we belong. The music which moves us. The books which leave us changed after reading. As he puts it in Hysteria loc 100:
So each self will find particular individuals more attractive than others, will find certain actual objects — works of fiction, pieces of music, hobbies, recreational interests — of more interest than others, and in the course of living a life will have constructed a world which, although holding objects in common with other selves, will have shaped them into a form as unique as their fingerprint.
To be a ‘true self’ involves living in a way that is consistent with our idiom. This also means living in a way that calls for the continual elaboration of our idiom because to live with it consistently involves a continual encounter with objects that provoke this potential through their relations. The objects call forth experiences in us, activate potential that were previously latent, leaving us changed in all manner of ways. This I think is what is at work when cultural bingeing is edifying rather than deadening, a sense of being immersed in something that moves you rather than being caught in the circuits of drive to avoid something else. Indeed I’m currently bingeing on Bollas because I’m finding things here which express my idiom, particularly in the intellectual register of the sociological account of psychodynamics I’ve inarticulately groped towards over a long period of time. There is something about how I see the world, as well as how I want to account for what I see, which is being elaborated through reading his work. In doing so I’m changed in a manner which is deeply satisfying.
It suggests to me that cultural engagement can be a crucial source of connection to spontaneity. To write because you have the ‘feel of an idea’ (in my favourite phrase of C Wright Mills) rather than because you want to elicit a response in your readers. To read something because it’s gripping you rather than because you want to be someone seen to read things like that or to be someone who has read it. To listen to what moves you and leaves you feeling alive in the immersion. In the jouissance associated with these experiences we connect to something fundamental in ourselves: our personal idiom or ‘true self’. That enjoyment can be rich and generative because it touches something fundamental about who we are. Why am I the person so moved by this music? Why am I the person so fascinated by this author? It follows from Bollas that I think we ought to sit with these experiences, to linger in them so that we can sensitise ourselves to what is at work in them without allowing analysis to substitute for immersion. It’s how to really enjoy cultural engagement but it also has a broader psychic significance as a manner in which we connect with ourselves and what matters to us.
It’s less clear to me though what this means interpersonally. There’s a greater complexity to our object relating with people because they are, well… people. They too have their own idiom. The ruthlessness in object relating which Winnicott argued was essential to our psychic development becomes potential sources of harm in our relating with others. But conversely the fear of hurting others can be a stifling constraint on the possibility of authentic relating. The term which comes to mind here is atmosphere: the space that exists interpersonally and what it means for the possible expressions of idiom in the reciprocal relating that takes place. It’s also the question of what’s energising and what isn’t. How does it feel to be-with a particular person? Do you come across feeling energised or depleted? Do you feel elaborated or diminished? Do you feel sharper edged or somehow blurry? The complexity arises because relating in terms of our personal idiom can be genuinely harmful for the other. Indeed as Mate observes attachment and authenticity often cannot be reconciled. But there’s something here I think about finding who your people are as a matter of converging idioms and the atmosphere which prevails as a consequence of this convergence.
#christopherBollas #falseSelf #gaborMate #objectRelations #relating #trueSelf #Winnicott
-
Nieuwe fundamenten voor de digitale overheid
Wat is gegevensdelingsbeleid? Welke rollen en verantwoordelijkheden brengt dit beleid met zich mee? En welke innovaties vallen daarbij op? Tijdens het CIO-café op dinsdag 24 februari, in het sfeervolle Haagse café Rootz, lieten bijna 40 bestuurders, beleidsmakers en IT-professionals zich bijpraten over deze actuele onderwerpen.
Floor Kloosterman, afdelingshoofd I-stelsel en Vakmanschap bij CIO Rijk, heette alle aanwezigen van harte welkom. “Gegevens die we binnen de overheid hebben vastgelegd, bieden enorme kansen om onze publieke taken effectiever, efficiënter en met oog voor de publieke waarden uit te voeren.”
Daar is wel adequaat gegevensdelingsbeleid voor nodig. “Niet alleen uit oogpunt van compliance en risicobeheersing, maar ook voor een betere beleids- en besluitvorming en effectievere samenwerking binnen het Rijk. Het standaardiseren en professionaliseren van gegevensdeling is dan ook essentieel. Een belangrijke bouwsteen daarbij is de gegevensboekhouding.”
Sleutelrol voor data
Bij die standaardisering en professionalisering is een belangrijke rol weggelegd voor de Chief Data Officer (CDO). Hedwig Miessen, CDO van de ministeries van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties (BZK) en Volkshuisvesting en Ruimtelijke Ordening (VRO): “De CDO is een betrekkelijk nieuwe rol binnen de overheid, die wordt ingezet om te sturen op doelmatig, veilig en ethisch gebruik van gegevens.”
CDO Office
Het CDO Office van Hedwig Miessen heeft een vaste bezetting met, naast de CDO zelf, een data-adviseur en een projectleider. Met daaromheen een flexibele schil van onder meer data-architecten en -engineers. De grote uitdaging voor het CDO Office is volgens Hedwig het continu afstemmen en op 1 lijn brengen van alle werkzaamheden; niet alleen intern met bestuursadviseurs, beleidsmedewerkers en juristen, maar ook extern met gemeenten, provincies en de Europese Unie.Hedwig begon 5 jaar geleden als kwartiermaker Data bij BZK en VRO. “Destijds wilden diverse beleidsonderdelen beleid kunnen maken, gebaseerd op een gedeeld en objectief beeld van wat écht speelt. Gegevens spelen daarbij een sleutelrol. Bovendien leefde de wens om bij crises snel gegevens te kunnen verwerken om zo meer grip te kunnen krijgen op maatschappelijke opgaven. Denk aan gegevens over demografische ontwikkelingen, waarmee je bij woningtekort snel kunt visualiseren waar welk type woning nodig is.”
3 sporen
De CDO ondersteunt vooral het primaire proces om maatschappelijke vraagstukken op te lossen. “Dit impliceert coördinatie en regie, toezicht op datakwaliteit en kennisdeling”, vertelt Hedwig. “Daarbij onderscheiden we 3 sporen. Het eerste spoor is gegevensmanagement: hoe kunnen we de datakwaliteit verhogen en gegevens (her)gebruiken om onze maatschappelijke taken beter te kunnen uitvoeren?”
En de CDO werkt aan governance: aan het inrichten van rechten, plichten en verantwoordelijkheden. “Met als doel om te voldoen aan alle wet- en regelgeving, en zodat we gegevens optimaal en veilig kunnen benutten en delen. Ook houden we ons bezig met het zogenoemde gezamenlijke speelveld. Denk aan gemeenschappelijke voorzieningen, zoals een datacatalogus. Ook gaat het om samenwerking met marktpartijen en kennisinstituten. En om het versterken van de data- en AI-geletterdheid van ambtenaren.”
Digital Twin
Daarna liet Hedwig zien hoe het datagestuurde 3D-model ‘Digital Twin Groningen’ beleidsmakers helpt. Vooral bij ruimtelijke ordening: dit model maakt plannen efficiënter en besluitvorming beter. “Digital Twin Groningen wordt gebruikt als een digitale kopie van de fysieke leefomgeving. Het model helpt bij het visualiseren, simuleren en analyseren van ruimtelijke vraagstukken, bouwplannen en infrastructuur. Bovendien draagt het bij aan burgerparticipatie, omdat bewoners in de interactieve 3D-omgeving kunnen zien hoe hun buurt verandert.”
Bij gegevens kun je denken aan panden, afkomstig uit de Basisregistratie Adressen en Gebouwen (BAG) en de Basisregistratie Grootschalige Topografie (BGT), en ook aan bomen, riolering, kabels, leidingen en openbare verlichting. “Je kunt het model bijvoorbeeld gebruiken bij het plaatsen van zonnepanelen op monumentale daken. Via zichtanalyses is het mogelijk nauwkeurig te bepalen welke daken daar wel of niet geschikt voor zijn.”
Kleine foutjes, grote gevolgen
Daarna was de beurt aan Erik Lubbe en Robin Hildebrand van de CDO Offices van de ministeries van Justitie en Veiligheid (JenV) en Asiel en Migratie (AenM). Zij legden uit wat het belang is van een gegevensboekhouding.
Erik gaf 2 voorbeelden. “Door een foutje van de overheid stond een burger een paar jaar geleden onterecht in een systeem vermeld als verdachte van een drugsdelict. Daardoor kreeg hij jarenlang een reeks overheidsorganisaties achter zich aan. Of neem een Rotterdammer die in 2017 per abuis werd doodverklaard. Via de digitale snelweg ging de boodschap dat hij was overleden razendsnel rond bij tal van organisaties. Het in diverse systemen terugdraaien van zijn dood leek een vrijwel onmogelijke opgave. Deze voorbeelden laten zien dat gebrekkig gegevensbeheer tot fouten leidt, met ernstige gevolgen voor burgers. Gegevensboekhouding kan helpen deze fouten in de toekomst te voorkomen.”
Overal op dezelfde manier met gegevens werken
De 2 voorbeelden tonen volgens Erik aan dat effectief omgaan met gegevens een gezamenlijke verantwoordelijkheid is. “De komende jaren streven we naar een zorgvuldige, rechtmatige en rechtvaardige gegevenshuishouding komen. Hoe beter we samen tot consensus komen over ons gegevensbeleid, hoe effectiever we gegevens kunnen inzetten voor maatschappelijke opgaven. Dat effect wordt nog groter als we dat beleid ook standaardiseren.”
Concreet werkt het CDO Office van JenV en AenM aan het Afsprakenstelsel Gegevens en Algoritmes (JAGA). Erik: “Dit is een set uniforme regels, standaarden en modellen die zorgen voor een veilige, transparante en gestructureerde manier van gegevensdeling. Denk aan rollen en verantwoordelijkheden, handreikingen en eenheid van taal. Zo werken we straks overheidsbreed op dezelfde manier met gegevens, en bevorderen we hergebruik, efficiëntie en innovatie in de publieke sector.”
Demo: Motie#21
Aan de hand van Motie#21 demonstreerde Robin vervolgens de werking van de gegevensboekhouding. Deze in de Tweede Kamer aangenomen motie verzocht het kabinet het gebruik van nationaliteit, etniciteit en geboorteplaats in data- en risicomodellen te inventariseren. Ook moest het kabinet dit gebruik stopzetten als het onrechtmatig of onbehoorlijk zou zijn.
Robin liet zien hoe je deze informatie snel kunt opzoeken, welke gegevens voor de motie relevant waren, waar deze gegevens vandaan kwamen en wie daarvoor verantwoordelijk was. Robin: “Dit soort informatie kan niet alleen de kwaliteit van beleid en uitvoering versterken, maar ook het vertrouwen van burgers in de overheid.”
Meer informatie
Gegevensdeling en de Gegevensboekhouding
Dit is een automatisch geplaatst bericht. Vragen of opmerkingen kun je richten aan @[email protected]
#cdo #ChiefDataOfficers #CIORijk #CIOCafé #data #datacatalogus #digitalTwin #gegevensboekhouding #gegevensdeling #gegevenshuishouding #gezamenlijkeVerantwoordelijkheid
-
@RoosVonk groot gemaakt door de corrupte media. Zoals #fortuyn #lpf #leefbaar #fvd #pvv #bbb en ondersteund door de #yesilgoz #vvd retoriek over asielzoekers. Corrupt omdat de grote media in handen zijn van een handvol ceo’s met als enig objectief zoveel mogelijk geld verdienen in zo’n kort mogelijke tijd. In het #internet tijdperk betekent dat zoveel mogelijk #clicks
-
📣 Presentation at Glücksspielsymposium #SympGS24Forschungsstelle Glücksspiel (Universität Hohenheim)
🎲 Adding to notions of #nudging and #DarkPatterns I spoke about other forms of Human-Technology Relations through #AdversarialAttacks, #Jailbreaking, and #SpecificationGaming
👾 Technical objects always afford more than what is intended by providers in their marketing logic. The spaces of possibility that lie beyond the logic of exploitation in the nature of the object indicate what will happen sooner or later in the application of technologies anyway- and the better you know your way around, the easier it is to help shape, counteract, be creative, make informed decisions and act in a self-determined way.
What's more, dealing with these things is simply a lot of fun. Thank you very much for the invitation and the positive feedback! The slides will soon be available on the University of Hohenheim website.
#genAI #objectrecognition #philosophy #philosophyoftechnology
-
Нормализация vs Денормализация: Mongo, Postgres и реальная жизнь
Нормализация vs Денормализация: Mongo, Postgres и реальная жизнь. Почему у нас вырастает 160 таблиц там, где мог быть один jsonb? И как понять, когда денормализация — это костыль, а когда осознанный выбор? Если при слове ‘нормализация’ у тебя начинается зевота, а менеджер с порога предлагает ‘спроектировать базу’ — этот текст для тебя.
https://habr.com/ru/articles/948612/
#нормализация #денормализация #jsonb #агрегаты_DDD #objectrelational_mismatch #ORM_грабли #Polyglot_persistence #Postgres_vs_Mongo #архитектура_данных #микросервисы_и_базы_данных
-
People who dislike the area where they live are in a sad state of disrepair
From The Evocative Object World by Christopher Bollas pg 63:
Without thinking about it much, when we traverse a city – or walk in our district – we are engaged in a type of dreaming. Each gaze that falls upon an object of interest may yield a moment’s reverie – when we think of something else, inspired by the point of emotional contact – and during our day we will have scores of such reveries, which Freud termed psychic intensities, and which he believed were the stimuli for the dream that night. But as a type of dreaming in their own right, the reveries wrought by evocative objects constitute an important feature of our psychic lives.
People who dislike the area where they live are in a sad state of disrepair, for they are denied the vital need for personal reverie. Each person needs to feed on evocative objects, so-called ‘food for thought’, which stimulate the self’s psychic interests and elaborate the self’s desire through engagement with the world of objects.
#bollas #cities #evocativeObjects #objectRelating #Thinking #urbanism
-
People who dislike the area where they live are in a sad state of disrepair
From The Evocative Object World by Christopher Bollas pg 63:
Without thinking about it much, when we traverse a city – or walk in our district – we are engaged in a type of dreaming. Each gaze that falls upon an object of interest may yield a moment’s reverie – when we think of something else, inspired by the point of emotional contact – and during our day we will have scores of such reveries, which Freud termed psychic intensities, and which he believed were the stimuli for the dream that night. But as a type of dreaming in their own right, the reveries wrought by evocative objects constitute an important feature of our psychic lives.
People who dislike the area where they live are in a sad state of disrepair, for they are denied the vital need for personal reverie. Each person needs to feed on evocative objects, so-called ‘food for thought’, which stimulate the self’s psychic interests and elaborate the self’s desire through engagement with the world of objects.
#bollas #cities #evocativeObjects #objectRelating #Thinking #urbanism
-
📹 Part 3 of our playlist 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘶𝘮 𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘴 is online!
𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭:
-> Object-recognition with AI on the example of insects.
-> Use cases of Segment Anything and Grounding DINO#WiNoDa #naturalscience #collections #museumcollections #museum #objectrecognition
-
New preprint paper from the Desimone gang! Hopefully, the first of a few from us this year.
"Stimulus representations in visual cortex shaped by spatial attention and microsaccades"
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.02.25.529300v1
Work done with @elowet, Bruno Gomes, and of course the boss!
#SpatialAttention #Microsaccades #V4 #ITcortex #Pulvinar #Attention #ObjectRepresentation
-
Add Salesforce Files and Attachments to Multiple Related Lists On Content Document Trigger
Flow builders, rejoice! Now with the Spring 26 Release you can trigger your flow automations on ContentDocument and ContentVersion Flow objects for Files and Attachments. Salesforce had delivered a new event type in the previous release that supported flow triggers for standard object files and attachments. The functionality was limited. In this release, Salesforce gave us the ability to trigger on all new files/attachments and their updates for all objects.
Use case: When a document is uploaded to a custom object with lookups to other objects like contact and account, add links to these objects, so that the same file is visible and listed under the related lists.You could easily expand this use case to add additional sharing to the uploaded file, which is also a common pain point in many organizations. I will leave out this use case for now which you can easily explore by expanding the functionality of this flow.
Objects that are involved when you upload a file
In Salesforce, three objects work together to manage files: ContentDocument, ContentVersion and ContentDocumentLink.
Think of them as a hierarchy that separates the file record, the actual data, and the location where it is shared. The definition for these three core objects are:
ContentDocument: Represents the “shell” or the permanent ID of a file. It doesn’t store the data itself but acts as a parent container that remains constant even if you upload new versions.
ContentVersion: This is where the actual file data (the “meat”) lives. Every time you upload a new version of a file, a new ContentVersion record is created. It tracks the size, extension, and the binary data.
lass=”yoast-text-mark” />>ContentDocumentLink: This is a junction object that links a file to other records (like an Account, Opportunity, or Case) or users. It defines who can see the file and what their permissions are.Object Relationships:
The relationship is structured to allow for version control and many-to-many sharing:
ContentDocument > ContentVersion: One-to-Many. One document can have many versions, but only one is the “Latest Published Version.
ContentDocument > ContentDocumentLink: One-to-Many. One document can be linked to many different records or users simultaneously.ContentDocumentLink is a junction object that does not allow duplicates. If you attempt to create the relationship between a linked entity and the content document when it already exists, your attempt will fail.
What happens when a file is uploaded to the files related list under an object?
Salesforce creates the ContentDocument and ContentVersion records. Salesforce will also create the necessary ContentDocumentLink records; often one for the object record relationship, one for the user who uploaded the file.
For each new file (not a new version of the same file) a new ContentDocument record will be created. You can trigger your automation based on this record being created, and then create additional ContentDocumentLink records to expand relationships and sharing.
Building Blocks of the Content Document Triggered Automation
For this use case I used a custom object named Staging Record which has dedicated fields for Contact and Account (both lookups). This method of uploading new documents and updating new field values to a custom record is often used when dealing with integrations and digital experience users. You can easily build a similar automation if a ContentDocumentLink for the Account needs to be created when the file is uploaded to a standard object like Contact.
Follow these steps to build your flow:
- Trigger your record-triggered flow when a ContentDocument record is created (no criteria)
- Add a scheduled path to your flow and set it up to execute with 0 min delay. Under advanced settings, set up the batch size as 1. Async seems to work, as well. I will explain the reason for this at the end of the post.
- Get all ContentDocumentLink records for the ContentDocument
- Check null for the get in the previous step (may not be necessary, but for good measure)
- <span style=”font-weight: 400;”>If not null, use a collection filter to filter for all records where the LinkedEntity Id starts with the prefix of your custom object record (I pasted the 3 character prefix into a constant and referenced it). Here is the formula I used:
LEFT({!currentItem_Filter_Staging.LinkedEntityId},3)= {!ObjectPrefixConstant} - Loop through the filtered records. There should be only one max. You have to loop, because the collection filter element creates a collection as an output even for one record.
- Inside the loop, get the staging record. I know, it is a get inside the loop, but this will execute once. You can add a counter and a decision to execute it only in the first iteration if you want.
- Build two ContentDocumentLink records using an assignment. One between the ContentDocument and the Contact on the staging record, the other one between the ContentDocument and the Account. You could add additional records here for sharing.
- Add your ContentDocumentLink records to a collection.
- Exit the loop and create the ContentDocumentLink records using the collection you built in one shot.
Here is a screenshot of the resulting flow.
Here is what happens when you create a staging record and upload a file to Salesforce using the related list under this record.
Here is the resulting view on the Contact and Account records.
Why is the Scheduled Path or Async Path Necessary?
When you build the automation on the immediate path, the ContentDocumentLink records are not created. You don’t receive a fault email, either, although the automation runs well in debug mode. I wondered about why that is and set up a user trace to see what is happening. This is the message I have found that is stopping the flow from executing:
(248995872)|FLOW_BULK_ELEMENT_NOT_SUPPORTED|FlowRecordLookup|Get_Contact_Document_Links|ContentDocumentLink
According to this the get step for ContentDocumentLink records cannot be bulkified, and therefore the flow cannot execute. Flow engine attempts to always bulkify gets. There is nothing fancy about the get criteria here. What must give us trouble is the unique nature of the ContentDocumentLink object.The async path seems to bypass this issue. However, if you want to ensure this element is never executed in bulk, the better approach is to use a scheduled path with zero delay and set the batch size to one record in advanced settings.
Please note that the scheduled path takes a minute to execute in my preview org. Be patient and check back if you don’t initially see the new ContentDocumentLink records.
Conclusion
In the past, handling file uploads gave flow builders a lot of trouble, because the related objects did not support flow triggers.
Now that we have this functionality rolling out in the latest release, the opportunities are pretty much limitless. The functionality still has its quirks as you can see above.
I would recommend that you set up a custom metadata kill switch for this automation so that it can easily be turned off for bulk upload scenarios.
Explore related content:
Top Spring 26 Salesforce Flow Features
Should You Use Fault Paths in Salesforce Flows?
How to Use Custom Metadata Types in Flow
See the Spring 26 Release Notes HERE.
#Automation #Salesforce #SalesforceAdmins #SalesforceDevelopers #SalesforceTutorials #Spring26 #UseCases -
Add Salesforce Files and Attachments to Multiple Related Lists On Content Document Trigger
Flow builders, rejoice! Now with the Spring 26 Release you can trigger your flow automations on ContentDocument and ContentVersion Flow objects for Files and Attachments. Salesforce had delivered a new event type in the previous release that supported flow triggers for standard object files and attachments. The functionality was limited. In this release, Salesforce gave us the ability to trigger on all new files/attachments and their updates for all objects.
Use case: When a document is uploaded to a custom object with lookups to other objects like contact and account, add links to these objects, so that the same file is visible and listed under the related lists.You could easily expand this use case to add additional sharing to the uploaded file, which is also a common pain point in many organizations. I will leave out this use case for now which you can easily explore by expanding the functionality of this flow.
Objects that are involved when you upload a file
In Salesforce, three objects work together to manage files: ContentDocument, ContentVersion and ContentDocumentLink.
Think of them as a hierarchy that separates the file record, the actual data, and the location where it is shared. The definition for these three core objects are:
ContentDocument: Represents the “shell” or the permanent ID of a file. It doesn’t store the data itself but acts as a parent container that remains constant even if you upload new versions.
ContentVersion: This is where the actual file data (the “meat”) lives. Every time you upload a new version of a file, a new ContentVersion record is created. It tracks the size, extension, and the binary data.
ContentDocumentLink: This is a junction object that links a file to other records (like an Account, Opportunity, or Case) or users. It defines who can see the file and what their permissions are.Object Relationships:
The relationship is structured to allow for version control and many-to-many sharing:
ContentDocument > ContentVersion: One-to-Many. One document can have many versions, but only one is the “Latest Published Version.
ContentDocument > ContentDocumentLink: One-to-Many. One document can be linked to many different records or users simultaneously.ContentDocumentLink is a junction object that does not allow duplicates. If you attempt to create the relationship between a linked entity and the content document when it already exists, your attempt will fail.
What happens when a file is uploaded to the files related list under an object?
Salesforce creates the ContentDocument and ContentVersion records. Salesforce will also create the necessary ContentDocumentLink records; often one for the object record relationship, one for the user who uploaded the file.
For each new file (not a new version of the same file) a new ContentDocument record will be created. You can trigger your automation based on this record being created, and then create additional ContentDocumentLink records to expand relationships and sharing.
Building Blocks of the Content Document Triggered Automation
For this use case I used a custom object named Staging Record which has dedicated fields for Contact and Account (both lookups). This method of uploading new documents and updating new field values to a custom record is often used when dealing with integrations and digital experience users. You can easily build a similar automation if a ContentDocumentLink for the Account needs to be created when the file is uploaded to a standard object like Contact.
Follow these steps to build your flow:
- Trigger your record-triggered flow when a ContentDocument record is created (no criteria)
- Add a scheduled path to your flow and set it up to execute with 0 min delay. Under advanced settings, set up the batch size as 1. Async seems to work, as well. I will explain the reason for this at the end of the post.
- Get all ContentDocumentLink records for the ContentDocument
- Check null for the get in the previous step (may not be necessary, but for good measure)
- If not null, use a collection filter to filter for all records where the LinkedEntity Id starts with the prefix of your custom object record (I pasted the 3 character prefix into a constant and referenced it). Here is the formula I used:
LEFT({!currentItem_Filter_Staging.LinkedEntityId},3)= {!ObjectPrefixConstant} - Loop through the filtered records. There should be only one max. You have to loop, because the collection filter element creates a collection as an output even for one record.
- Inside the loop, get the staging record. I know, it is a get inside the loop, but this will execute once. You can add a counter and a decision to execute it only in the first iteration if you want.
- Build two ContentDocumentLink records using an assignment. One between the ContentDocument and the Contact on the staging record, the other one between the ContentDocument and the Account. You could add additional records here for sharing.
- Add your ContentDocumentLink records to a collection.
- Exit the loop and create the ContentDocumentLink records using the collection you built in one shot.
Here is a screenshot of the resulting flow.
Here is what happens when you create a staging record and upload a file to Salesforce using the related list under this record.
Here is the resulting view on the Contact and Account records.
Why is the Scheduled Path or Async Path Necessary?
When a file is uploaded, a ContentDocument record and a ContenDocumentVersion record are created. The junction object for the ContentDocumentLink record will need to be created after these records are created, because the relationship is established by populating these Ids on this record. When you build the automation on the immediate path, your get will not find the ContentDocumentLink record. To ensure Salesforce flow can find the record, use either async path or scheduled path.
When you build the automation on the immediate path, the ContentDocumentLink records are not created. You don’t receive a fault email, either, although the automation runs well in debug mode. I wanted to observe this behavior in detail, and therefore I set up a user trace to log the steps involved. This is the message I have found that is stopping the flow from executing:
(248995872)|FLOW_BULK_ELEMENT_NOT_SUPPORTED|FlowRecordLookup|Get_Contact_Document_Links|ContentDocumentLink
According to this the get step for ContentDocumentLink records cannot be bulkified, and therefore the flow cannot execute. Flow engine attempts to always bulkify gets. There is nothing fancy about the get criteria here. What must give us trouble is the unique nature of the ContentDocumentLink object.The async path seems to bypass this issue. However, if you want to ensure this element is never executed in bulk, the better approach is to use a scheduled path with zero delay and set the batch size to one record in advanced settings. I have communicated this message to the product team.
Please note that the scheduled path takes a minute to execute in my preview org. Be patient and check back if you don’t initially see the new ContentDocumentLink records.
Conclusion
In the past, handling file uploads gave flow builders a lot of trouble, because the related objects did not support flow triggers.
Now that we have this functionality rolling out in the latest release, the opportunities are pretty much limitless. The functionality still has its quirks as you can see above.
I would recommend that you set up a custom metadata kill switch for this automation so that it can easily be turned off for bulk upload scenarios.
Watch the video on our YouTube channel.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl0XCtMAhmc?feature=oembed&w=800&h=450]
Explore related content:
Top Spring 26 Salesforce Flow Features
Should You Use Fault Paths in Salesforce Flows?
How to Use Custom Metadata Types in Flow
See the Spring 26 Release Notes HERE.
#Automation #Salesforce #SalesforceAdmins #SalesforceDevelopers #SalesforceTutorials #Spring26 #UseCases -
Add Salesforce Files and Attachments to Multiple Related Lists On Content Document Trigger
Flow builders, rejoice! Now with the Spring 26 Release you can trigger your flow automations on ContentDocument and ContentVersion Flow objects for Files and Attachments. Salesforce had delivered a new event type in the previous release that supported flow triggers for standard object files and attachments. The functionality was limited. In this release, Salesforce gave us the ability to trigger on all new files/attachments and their updates for all objects.
Use case: When a document is uploaded to a custom object with lookups to other objects like contact and account, add links to these objects, so that the same file is visible and listed under the related lists.You could easily expand this use case to add additional sharing to the uploaded file, which is also a common pain point in many organizations. I will leave out this use case for now which you can easily explore by expanding the functionality of this flow.
Objects that are involved when you upload a file
In Salesforce, three objects work together to manage files: ContentDocument, ContentVersion and ContentDocumentLink.
Think of them as a hierarchy that separates the file record, the actual data, and the location where it is shared. The definition for these three core objects are:
ContentDocument: Represents the “shell” or the permanent ID of a file. It doesn’t store the data itself but acts as a parent container that remains constant even if you upload new versions.
ContentVersion: This is where the actual file data (the “meat”) lives. Every time you upload a new version of a file, a new ContentVersion record is created. It tracks the size, extension, and the binary data.
ContentDocumentLink: This is a junction object that links a file to other records (like an Account, Opportunity, or Case) or users. It defines who can see the file and what their permissions are.Object Relationships:
The relationship is structured to allow for version control and many-to-many sharing:
ContentDocument > ContentVersion: One-to-Many. One document can have many versions, but only one is the “Latest Published Version.
ContentDocument > ContentDocumentLink: One-to-Many. One document can be linked to many different records or users simultaneously.ContentDocumentLink is a junction object that does not allow duplicates. If you attempt to create the relationship between a linked entity and the content document when it already exists, your attempt will fail.
What happens when a file is uploaded to the files related list under an object?
Salesforce creates the ContentDocument and ContentVersion records. Salesforce will also create the necessary ContentDocumentLink records; often one for the object record relationship, one for the user who uploaded the file.
For each new file (not a new version of the same file) a new ContentDocument record will be created. You can trigger your automation based on this record being created, and then create additional ContentDocumentLink records to expand relationships and sharing.
Building Blocks of the Content Document Triggered Automation
For this use case I used a custom object named Staging Record which has dedicated fields for Contact and Account (both lookups). This method of uploading new documents and updating new field values to a custom record is often used when dealing with integrations and digital experience users. You can easily build a similar automation if a ContentDocumentLink for the Account needs to be created when the file is uploaded to a standard object like Contact.
Follow these steps to build your flow:
- Trigger your record-triggered flow when a ContentDocument record is created (no criteria)
- Add a scheduled path to your flow and set it up to execute with 0 min delay. Under advanced settings, set up the batch size as 1. Async seems to work, as well. I will explain the reason for this at the end of the post.
- Get all ContentDocumentLink records for the ContentDocument
- Check null for the get in the previous step (may not be necessary, but for good measure)
- If not null, use a collection filter to filter for all records where the LinkedEntity Id starts with the prefix of your custom object record (I pasted the 3 character prefix into a constant and referenced it). Here is the formula I used:
LEFT({!currentItem_Filter_Staging.LinkedEntityId},3)= {!ObjectPrefixConstant} - Loop through the filtered records. There should be only one max. You have to loop, because the collection filter element creates a collection as an output even for one record.
- Inside the loop, get the staging record. I know, it is a get inside the loop, but this will execute once. You can add a counter and a decision to execute it only in the first iteration if you want.
- Build two ContentDocumentLink records using an assignment. One between the ContentDocument and the Contact on the staging record, the other one between the ContentDocument and the Account. You could add additional records here for sharing.
- Add your ContentDocumentLink records to a collection.
- Exit the loop and create the ContentDocumentLink records using the collection you built in one shot.
Here is a screenshot of the resulting flow.
Here is what happens when you create a staging record and upload a file to Salesforce using the related list under this record.
Here is the resulting view on the Contact and Account records.
Why is the Scheduled Path or Async Path Necessary?
When a file is uploaded, a ContentDocument record and a ContenDocumentVersion record are created. The junction object for the ContentDocumentLink record will need to be created after these records are created, because the relationship is established by populating these Ids on this record. When you build the automation on the immediate path, your get will not find the ContentDocumentLink record. To ensure Salesforce flow can find the record, use either async path or scheduled path.
When you build the automation on the immediate path, the ContentDocumentLink records are not created. You don’t receive a fault email, either, although the automation runs well in debug mode. I wanted to observe this behavior in detail, and therefore I set up a user trace to log the steps involved. This is the message I have found that is stopping the flow from executing:
(248995872)|FLOW_BULK_ELEMENT_NOT_SUPPORTED|FlowRecordLookup|Get_Contact_Document_Links|ContentDocumentLink
According to this the get step for ContentDocumentLink records cannot be bulkified, and therefore the flow cannot execute. Flow engine attempts to always bulkify gets. There is nothing fancy about the get criteria here. What must give us trouble is the unique nature of the ContentDocumentLink object.The async path seems to bypass this issue. However, if you want to ensure this element is never executed in bulk, the better approach is to use a scheduled path with zero delay and set the batch size to one record in advanced settings. I have communicated this message to the product team.
Please note that the scheduled path takes a minute to execute in my preview org. Be patient and check back if you don’t initially see the new ContentDocumentLink records.
Conclusion
In the past, handling file uploads gave flow builders a lot of trouble, because the related objects did not support flow triggers.
Now that we have this functionality rolling out in the latest release, the opportunities are pretty much limitless. The functionality still has its quirks as you can see above.
I would recommend that you set up a custom metadata kill switch for this automation so that it can easily be turned off for bulk upload scenarios.
Watch the video on our YouTube channel.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl0XCtMAhmc?feature=oembed&w=800&h=450]
Explore related content:
Top Spring 26 Salesforce Flow Features
Should You Use Fault Paths in Salesforce Flows?
How to Use Custom Metadata Types in Flow
See the Spring 26 Release Notes HERE.
#Automation #Salesforce #SalesforceAdmins #SalesforceDevelopers #SalesforceTutorials #Spring26 #UseCases -
Add Salesforce Files and Attachments to Multiple Related Lists On Content Document Trigger
Flow builders, rejoice! Now with the Spring 26 Release you can trigger your flow automations on ContentDocument and ContentVersion Flow objects for Files and Attachments. Salesforce had delivered a new event type in the previous release that supported flow triggers for standard object files and attachments. The functionality was limited. In this release, Salesforce gave us the ability to trigger on all new files/attachments and their updates for all objects.
Use case: When a document is uploaded to a custom object with lookups to other objects like contact and account, add links to these objects, so that the same file is visible and listed under the related lists.You could easily expand this use case to add additional sharing to the uploaded file, which is also a common pain point in many organizations. I will leave out this use case for now which you can easily explore by expanding the functionality of this flow.
Objects that are involved when you upload a file
In Salesforce, three objects work together to manage files: ContentDocument, ContentVersion and ContentDocumentLink.
Think of them as a hierarchy that separates the file record, the actual data, and the location where it is shared. The definition for these three core objects are:
ContentDocument: Represents the “shell” or the permanent ID of a file. It doesn’t store the data itself but acts as a parent container that remains constant even if you upload new versions.
ContentVersion: This is where the actual file data (the “meat”) lives. Every time you upload a new version of a file, a new ContentVersion record is created. It tracks the size, extension, and the binary data.
lass=”yoast-text-mark” />>ContentDocumentLink: This is a junction object that links a file to other records (like an Account, Opportunity, or Case) or users. It defines who can see the file and what their permissions are.Object Relationships:
The relationship is structured to allow for version control and many-to-many sharing:
ContentDocument > ContentVersion: One-to-Many. One document can have many versions, but only one is the “Latest Published Version.
ContentDocument > ContentDocumentLink: One-to-Many. One document can be linked to many different records or users simultaneously.ContentDocumentLink is a junction object that does not allow duplicates. If you attempt to create the relationship between a linked entity and the content document when it already exists, your attempt will fail.
What happens when a file is uploaded to the files related list under an object?
Salesforce creates the ContentDocument and ContentVersion records. Salesforce will also create the necessary ContentDocumentLink records; often one for the object record relationship, one for the user who uploaded the file.
For each new file (not a new version of the same file) a new ContentDocument record will be created. You can trigger your automation based on this record being created, and then create additional ContentDocumentLink records to expand relationships and sharing.
Building Blocks of the Content Document Triggered Automation
For this use case I used a custom object named Staging Record which has dedicated fields for Contact and Account (both lookups). This method of uploading new documents and updating new field values to a custom record is often used when dealing with integrations and digital experience users. You can easily build a similar automation if a ContentDocumentLink for the Account needs to be created when the file is uploaded to a standard object like Contact.
Follow these steps to build your flow:
- Trigger your record-triggered flow when a ContentDocument record is created (no criteria)
- Add a scheduled path to your flow and set it up to execute with 0 min delay. Under advanced settings, set up the batch size as 1. Async seems to work, as well. I will explain the reason for this at the end of the post.
- Get all ContentDocumentLink records for the ContentDocument
- Check null for the get in the previous step (may not be necessary, but for good measure)
- <span style=”font-weight: 400;”>If not null, use a collection filter to filter for all records where the LinkedEntity Id starts with the prefix of your custom object record (I pasted the 3 character prefix into a constant and referenced it). Here is the formula I used:
LEFT({!currentItem_Filter_Staging.LinkedEntityId},3)= {!ObjectPrefixConstant} - Loop through the filtered records. There should be only one max. You have to loop, because the collection filter element creates a collection as an output even for one record.
- Inside the loop, get the staging record. I know, it is a get inside the loop, but this will execute once. You can add a counter and a decision to execute it only in the first iteration if you want.
- Build two ContentDocumentLink records using an assignment. One between the ContentDocument and the Contact on the staging record, the other one between the ContentDocument and the Account. You could add additional records here for sharing.
- Add your ContentDocumentLink records to a collection.
- Exit the loop and create the ContentDocumentLink records using the collection you built in one shot.
Here is a screenshot of the resulting flow.
Here is what happens when you create a staging record and upload a file to Salesforce using the related list under this record.
Here is the resulting view on the Contact and Account records.
Why is the Scheduled Path or Async Path Necessary?
When you build the automation on the immediate path, the ContentDocumentLink records are not created. You don’t receive a fault email, either, although the automation runs well in debug mode. I wondered about why that is and set up a user trace to see what is happening. This is the message I have found that is stopping the flow from executing:
(248995872)|FLOW_BULK_ELEMENT_NOT_SUPPORTED|FlowRecordLookup|Get_Contact_Document_Links|ContentDocumentLink
According to this the get step for ContentDocumentLink records cannot be bulkified, and therefore the flow cannot execute. Flow engine attempts to always bulkify gets. There is nothing fancy about the get criteria here. What must give us trouble is the unique nature of the ContentDocumentLink object.The async path seems to bypass this issue. However, if you want to ensure this element is never executed in bulk, the better approach is to use a scheduled path with zero delay and set the batch size to one record in advanced settings.
Please note that the scheduled path takes a minute to execute in my preview org. Be patient and check back if you don’t initially see the new ContentDocumentLink records.
Conclusion
In the past, handling file uploads gave flow builders a lot of trouble, because the related objects did not support flow triggers.
Now that we have this functionality rolling out in the latest release, the opportunities are pretty much limitless. The functionality still has its quirks as you can see above.
I would recommend that you set up a custom metadata kill switch for this automation so that it can easily be turned off for bulk upload scenarios.
Explore related content:
Top Spring 26 Salesforce Flow Features
Should You Use Fault Paths in Salesforce Flows?
How to Use Custom Metadata Types in Flow
See the Spring 26 Release Notes HERE.
#Automation #Salesforce #SalesforceAdmins #SalesforceDevelopers #SalesforceTutorials #Spring26 #UseCases -
Add Salesforce Files and Attachments to Multiple Related Lists On Content Document Trigger
Flow builders, rejoice! Now with the Spring 26 Release you can trigger your flow automations on ContentDocument and ContentVersion Flow objects for Files and Attachments. Salesforce had delivered a new event type in the previous release that supported flow triggers for standard object files and attachments. The functionality was limited. In this release, Salesforce gave us the ability to trigger on all new files/attachments and their updates for all objects.
Use case: When a document is uploaded to a custom object with lookups to other objects like contact and account, add links to these objects, so that the same file is visible and listed under the related lists.You could easily expand this use case to add additional sharing to the uploaded file, which is also a common pain point in many organizations. I will leave out this use case for now which you can easily explore by expanding the functionality of this flow.
Objects that are involved when you upload a file
In Salesforce, three objects work together to manage files: ContentDocument, ContentVersion and ContentDocumentLink.
Think of them as a hierarchy that separates the file record, the actual data, and the location where it is shared. The definition for these three core objects are:
ContentDocument: Represents the “shell” or the permanent ID of a file. It doesn’t store the data itself but acts as a parent container that remains constant even if you upload new versions.
ContentVersion: This is where the actual file data (the “meat”) lives. Every time you upload a new version of a file, a new ContentVersion record is created. It tracks the size, extension, and the binary data.
lass=”yoast-text-mark” />>ContentDocumentLink: This is a junction object that links a file to other records (like an Account, Opportunity, or Case) or users. It defines who can see the file and what their permissions are.Object Relationships:
The relationship is structured to allow for version control and many-to-many sharing:
ContentDocument > ContentVersion: One-to-Many. One document can have many versions, but only one is the “Latest Published Version.
ContentDocument > ContentDocumentLink: One-to-Many. One document can be linked to many different records or users simultaneously.ContentDocumentLink is a junction object that does not allow duplicates. If you attempt to create the relationship between a linked entity and the content document when it already exists, your attempt will fail.
What happens when a file is uploaded to the files related list under an object?
Salesforce creates the ContentDocument and ContentVersion records. Salesforce will also create the necessary ContentDocumentLink records; often one for the object record relationship, one for the user who uploaded the file.
For each new file (not a new version of the same file) a new ContentDocument record will be created. You can trigger your automation based on this record being created, and then create additional ContentDocumentLink records to expand relationships and sharing.
Building Blocks of the Content Document Triggered Automation
For this use case I used a custom object named Staging Record which has dedicated fields for Contact and Account (both lookups). This method of uploading new documents and updating new field values to a custom record is often used when dealing with integrations and digital experience users. You can easily build a similar automation if a ContentDocumentLink for the Account needs to be created when the file is uploaded to a standard object like Contact.
Follow these steps to build your flow:
- Trigger your record-triggered flow when a ContentDocument record is created (no criteria)
- Add a scheduled path to your flow and set it up to execute with 0 min delay. Under advanced settings, set up the batch size as 1. Async seems to work, as well. I will explain the reason for this at the end of the post.
- Get all ContentDocumentLink records for the ContentDocument
- Check null for the get in the previous step (may not be necessary, but for good measure)
- <span style=”font-weight: 400;”>If not null, use a collection filter to filter for all records where the LinkedEntity Id starts with the prefix of your custom object record (I pasted the 3 character prefix into a constant and referenced it). Here is the formula I used:
LEFT({!currentItem_Filter_Staging.LinkedEntityId},3)= {!ObjectPrefixConstant} - Loop through the filtered records. There should be only one max. You have to loop, because the collection filter element creates a collection as an output even for one record.
- Inside the loop, get the staging record. I know, it is a get inside the loop, but this will execute once. You can add a counter and a decision to execute it only in the first iteration if you want.
- Build two ContentDocumentLink records using an assignment. One between the ContentDocument and the Contact on the staging record, the other one between the ContentDocument and the Account. You could add additional records here for sharing.
- Add your ContentDocumentLink records to a collection.
- Exit the loop and create the ContentDocumentLink records using the collection you built in one shot.
Here is a screenshot of the resulting flow.
Here is what happens when you create a staging record and upload a file to Salesforce using the related list under this record.
Here is the resulting view on the Contact and Account records.
Why is the Scheduled Path or Async Path Necessary?
When you build the automation on the immediate path, the ContentDocumentLink records are not created. You don’t receive a fault email, either, although the automation runs well in debug mode. I wondered about why that is and set up a user trace to see what is happening. This is the message I have found that is stopping the flow from executing:
(248995872)|FLOW_BULK_ELEMENT_NOT_SUPPORTED|FlowRecordLookup|Get_Contact_Document_Links|ContentDocumentLink
According to this the get step for ContentDocumentLink records cannot be bulkified, and therefore the flow cannot execute. Flow engine attempts to always bulkify gets. There is nothing fancy about the get criteria here. What must give us trouble is the unique nature of the ContentDocumentLink object.The async path seems to bypass this issue. However, if you want to ensure this element is never executed in bulk, the better approach is to use a scheduled path with zero delay and set the batch size to one record in advanced settings.
Please note that the scheduled path takes a minute to execute in my preview org. Be patient and check back if you don’t initially see the new ContentDocumentLink records.
Conclusion
In the past, handling file uploads gave flow builders a lot of trouble, because the related objects did not support flow triggers.
Now that we have this functionality rolling out in the latest release, the opportunities are pretty much limitless. The functionality still has its quirks as you can see above.
I would recommend that you set up a custom metadata kill switch for this automation so that it can easily be turned off for bulk upload scenarios.
Explore related content:
Top Spring 26 Salesforce Flow Features
Should You Use Fault Paths in Salesforce Flows?
How to Use Custom Metadata Types in Flow
See the Spring 26 Release Notes HERE.
#Automation #Salesforce #SalesforceAdmins #SalesforceDevelopers #SalesforceTutorials #Spring26 #UseCases -
What's on my mind?
Disappointment and Disillusionment!
- Invested 7 yrs in #GoPiGo3 #robot
- Created #ROS2 nodes for #proprioception, #odometry, #LIDAR, #docking, #tts #mapping, #navigation, #simulation, #ObjectRecognition, and #LifeLogging
- My robot cannot safely and reliably navigate in my complex home environment.
- No slower turns, no inflation value can fixI'm done, destroyed, no strength left for "one more try". GoPi5Go-Dave is on the shelf with other "reached its limit" robots.
-
Voxel51 raises $2 million for its video-native identification of people, cars and more - Many companies and municipalities are saddled with hundreds or thousands of hours of video and limit... more: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/1GT7QeNHZig/ #artificialintelligence #objectrecognition #computervision #recentfunding #startups #funding #tc