HappyFunTime

gamification tactics for useful behaviors. Some good tactics should be found out of the cancerous casual gaming wallet emptying strategies. Maybe time gating can get people to write books, that's what the pomodoro method is right? What other tactics could work? Jingling sounds in the "casino acoustics" genre? They've found a way to addict humans to useless behaviors, lets find ways to addict humans to useful ones!

STEAL IDEAS FROM OTHER LIFEFORMS BEFORE THEY DIE OFF Which organisms are we most likely to benefit from stealing ideas from? Can we prevent them from going extinct before we get to learn those ideas? Is there a way to capture the ideas pre-extinction? Even the tools that we now have to change the blueprints of life, we stole from life. Bateria and Viruses are the source of our most powerful DNA editing tools currently. We are meat. Animals are meat. The animals have all kinds of amazing tricks and tools their meat has developed. We could use some of their tools. If they become extinct, we can't learn well from them any longer. If you want to take advantage of the millions of years of building with the best tools we're aware of, real evolution over long time periods, and you don't want to wait for a couple million or hundred million years for the next go round of that thing maybe evolving again, then you should try to prevent extinction of the organisms most useful to learn from for our own benefit.

MINIMUM VIABLE EDUCATION What is the minimum effective dose of teachable knowledge/skill. Input, process, output. ala grammar, logic, rhetoric, trivium fame.

Success leaves clues. The most effective often have little mental tricks they apply when thinking, some are mnemonic, some are turning ideas into locations, some are pretending new ideas are just like old ideas, and applying the old learnings, etc. Find those powerful commonalities.

Stop making kids bad versions of google. We don't need more bad data storage in human minds, we need more of what the machines can't do yet, creativity, love.

If you must make kids bad versions of google and shove facts into them for lossy storage, then at least teach them mnemonic technique and logic first, google-fu, so as to amplify all their future efforts. Do not teach the amplifiers last, let them pay dividends over time. I was lucky enough to have logic tought to me first before any other maths at grade 6, because of an experimental advanced education system. After logic we learned scheme programming. I think those frameworks greatly helped me in this life, as nesting of ideas and good data processing is super powerful in all areas of life.

Better and worse exist, find better, choose better. Do not be a coward and pretend that worse doesn't exist.

summary: teach amplifiers first. Then teach minimum effective commonly useful data processing, then specialize and become great.

Specialization is why we have genders. Dimorphism lets us not over-allocate excellence in a single place at the cost of another place. Great things come from specialists. If the value of skill is in opposite proportion to supply of that skill, then everyone learning the same things, by definition means no one will pay for that skill or knowledge. There's some exclusions to that idea, such as language itself, however the theme of slapping knowledge/skill on a supply/demand curve is a good one. Much of this idea is hammer in Peter Thiels 0-1. less 1 to 1 horizontal iteration and more 0 to 1, no one else is working on this thing kind greatness.

What is minimum effective curriculum before specializing? What is the minimum viable education? What is the correct execution order of those skills?

For instance, how important is it to teach kids to write essays, when they actually don't have much useful to say? Maybe you should work on having useful things to say much harder before you learn how to beautifully say them. Imagine that you did the opposite, imagine that you taught effective rhetoric before logic, and now you've got better salesmen of bad ideas. That's worse, not better. Think of the places in the world where women aren't allowed to drive cars. How did that terrible situation arise? Great marketing of terrible ideas.

If you understand evolution, then you know it requires variance and combination. If you standardize education, therefore reducing variance, regardless of your selection strategy, your pool of excellence to choose from is reduced. Therefore standardized education diminishes variance and therefore amplifiable excellence.

We need less jacks of all trades and more specialization. You must choose on their behalf, or give them the choice to choose what to not be good at. When is the last time you actually used historic precedent for a decision? How deep is your actual knowledge of history? And could not being excellent in knowledge and action towards today's problems be superior to overlearning about problems already solved?

No matter what suggestion is made in regards to optimizing the education "system" you will find the naysayers that are emotionally invested in learning "all the things" so i mentioned history and astronomy, i could have closed my eyes, pointed at a syllabus, been as likely to find at random yet another suboptimal topic, and i would have in the end only substituted your pro history comments, for pro whatever else comments.

Better and worse exist. Wasting time exists. If you measure what the average or median or whatever measurement you care to use human, and see what they have used and will use of what they've learned, you will find that what you're being forceably literally by law required to be taught isn't what you need to make a living, or be a good person, or have greatness in your life. Its often babysitting hidden under the guise of progress. How can one support a static educational structure in a progressing and more rapidly progressing real world?

Also, you didn't really think I meant to delete history? I hope. That would be the opposite of education would it not? So as to avoid confusion, lets ammend it to "replace rarely used trivial knowledge for commonly useful fits lots of places knowledge, and specialization." When have you last needed to make a left turn at mars and missed your turn? Perhaps you don't need to know the order of the planets from the sun after all?

Resources allocated to interplanetary redundancy enhance the survival of the people "over there" at the cost of you being more likely to die "here." I prefer to amplify the chance I and my loved ones survive, instead of splitting 4's at the blackjack table. Also, you shouldn't be sitting at the blackjack table.

Education. Delete non useful (history, astronomy) Insert useful (logic, ethics, mnemonics(not great but better than history)) If the world has changed over 100 years, but the learning about it hasn't, you're doing it wrong.

Congressional Secret Ballot. Perverse incentives. Congress used to be able to vote privately, now when a corporation buys your vote as a congressmen, they can verify you deliver what they paid for. "Cardboard box reform"

Better candidate pool Geniuses don't go into politics, the pay sucks and you can't get much done. We can at least fix the pay. If bad voting, but good candidate pool then still win. If great voting but bad pool, only lose. What use is voting when you have choice of puppet A or puppet B both presented by the same megacorps?

Better voting by better voters. Voting licenses. If you are stupid enough that I don't want you editing the settings of my OS on my computer, why would I want you editing my democracy? Is not governance advanced enough and complicated enough to require a license to effect changes through voting, just as cutting hair is licensed? Yes, its dangerous, yes if the tests suck you get unfair amplified power to the test makers. However, if you want greatness, you must select for it. You will never having voting excellence if you don't try.

Better voting by better intel gathering. Why capture a single data point of "who do you want to win?" Choose instead "put these people in order you'd take them." Now you've captured 8x the data from the voter? Now you can combined the ordered lists to get an electorate that everyone kind of likes and few people hate, as opposed to the 51 percent voting to gouge out the eyes of the 49 for idle pleasure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method

Isolate government from currency. Peer to peer value transfer. A proper BTC/zerocoin might work here. Artificially low interest rates amply mis and mal-investment causing boom and bust cycles that harm the human psycological ratcheting effect. We prefer slow and always better to fast up and fast down pain.

Cooperation. More perverse incentives. Why must we all keep our greatest ideas secret, so that no one else runs with and executes to our detriment? If you could make a lower barrier to entry profitable collaboration, or set a standard by which idea givers were commonly rewarded, people may be less secretive. This isn't just a corporate problem, this is a science problem as well. Publish or perish? Well better keep those good research ideas to yourself. How many websites have you been on that desperately needed improvement, yet you kept your ideas a secret?

Science is broken If half the papers published produce results that can't be replicated, then lots of scientists are fucking up. At least remove the "HARKing" Hypothesizing after the results are known. Publish more of what hasn't worked and isn't interesting to save others from unknowingly going down the same dead ends. Sadly, if the science is so bad as to be unreplicable, then who cares if you publish or not as you were 50/50 wrong anyway… The math could be better, however the idea stands that bad science can and is being done to the detriment of the world. Thinking you know a thing and being wrong about it, is worse than thinking you do not know a thing and being accurate in your estimation.

Undercrowding Progress comes from humans. Through enough shit at the wall, more of it sticks. We need more humans, preferably the useful kind.

Spreading great ideas The mormans got a bible in every hotel room, what better book could be equally funded and distributed?

Luckily this can be quite a long list as the world is ripe for improvement.

Life is quality x quantity. Quality is far into diminishing returns. Quantity can be 10x'd. The best in their fields die, right when they're most useful. What would Edison, Tesla, Franklin, Bell, Feynman, etc be producing currently if still alive?

Since quantity is literally the hardest problem we are aware of, how shall it be attacked? By charity? Let's be serious, look around yourself right now, point to the things charity created. Now cease the futile exercise.

Solution: 1. Marketing as gates does, however all lives are not worth the same, you, your kin, your friends, they are worth more. Fund the research that saves them, do not dream the silly dream that all lives are worth the same.

2. Profit not charity, i.e. take a look at osfund.co (human longevity, inc) sustain and grow, not charity and run out of runway.

3. LONGEVITY FUND. or "save your assssssssets fund" You can buy the S&P500 why not the biotech index minus the companies solving problems you won't have. Reduced malaria drug allocation, increased cancer and heart disease. Guess what. If you survive malaria, you are still going to die of cancer and heart disease, so lets work on those 40 and 40 percent killers.

I've got 220k words on paper. 1. 1st book, personal excellence, things you can do to Scivive. Get rich, be loved, live forever… *if selling ideas is good enough for Bill Gates, e.g. Gatesnotes.com, givingpledge.org, its good enough for me, and you. Spread the word. This genre seems easier to understand.

2nd book, things that are important, however are rarely actionable in your personal sphere of influence (politics, currency, voting, economics, geopolitics, environment, interesting yet un-actionable for the common man things.

3. Longevity fund. biotech index minus things unlikely to be useful in saving you and your loved ones lives.

4. Companies not a subset of Nasdaq biotech index, too small, or in a different jurisdiction.

5. Biotech/synbio startups.

6. Popularity improvement ala "The Martian" whereby science and tech becomes heroic as kicking aliens in the face has been historically. The world need not hero worship the leather ball throwing and kicking, steel lifting and lowering, non scaling great strategies of 2,000 years ago. Let's make heroic the things that actual work these days. How many humans can you heal? Can you save thyself and thy family?

If anyone wants to help edit these 200k+ words I have on the page regarding life and winning at it, hit me at Scivive on gmx.com

P.S. Spread great actionable ideas (sell SP500 buy biotech index.), fund excellence, build excellence, fund riskier excellence in that order.

Is the startup experienced hire more flexible? Yes, its funny, with a bitcoin business, I'd imagine there is no business that gets port scanned more often. Everyone's probably looking for a hotwallet. I think I can mitigate that with deterministic wallets and or pre computed pools of watch only addresses. Both of these solutions would result in private keys never seeing a network.

So for hiring devs in the philippines, it seems that there's no hits for the word bitcoin in the searchable job resumes. Any tips on what other keywords I might be using? Node.js and javascript if we use any of the bitcore.io stuff? A database guy, a full stack guy? I think 3 guys can get the job done in a reasonable time frame. Chain.com could likely take much of the load off the backend dev.

At a loss as to how to choose 3 programmers from a sea of programmers with job applications ready for hire.