clcaev

Elinor Ostrom's Governing the Commons

Ostrom summarizes her empirical investigations of common pool resources (fisheries, forests, ground water, etc.) and how stakeholders can collectively govern them, a polycentric approach that is neither governmental nor proprietary. She abstracts 8 principles of governance, elements of successful community based resource governance.

Alvin Roth's Who Gets What — and Why: Matchmaking, Mismatch, and Market Design

Roth discusses market failures and how one builds market coordination organizations to perform matchmaking. He focuses on non-monetary markets such as paired kidney exchange, which he pioneered. Another example is medical residency matching.

Unfortunately, objective... independently verifiable information is not something we could confidently say is standard practice in China.

What are the free software alternative phones/tablets and how do we concentrate our support so at least one of them is successful?

What is the core value proposition of twitter? It seems simple, short form informations delivery (eg “follow me on twitter”) is central. The “likes”, retweets, and follower counts are secondary but perhaps important metrics that drive engagement. A simple link plus QR for paper is needed. Moderation seems a challenge. Are there simpler alternatives to mastodon? is federation possible? Why is RSS not used for this?

Clearly they approve or they'd at least stop advertising their twitter handles on their websites and handouts. Most brands cannot ignore such a vast network effects and have made the decision to continue despite the changes.

How is product liability relevant here? If an AI company makes a model available, someone uses it, and it does something bad, who is at fault? The user, the data center, or the one who made the model?

If we want open weight models with a warranty disclaimer, then the user would be held liable. If we want to hold AI companies at least partially liable, that seems a different, centralized model.

The 1:2 match scheme is helpful for a foundation to (a) accept large gift and (b) meet 501c3 1/3rd "public support" requirements.

To keep favorable charity taxation status, a large donation can only be accepted if there are sufficient small donors who also contribute. It's complex and indirect, but the matching is quite real as a $100 contribution from a small donor enables the charity to accept a corresponding amount from large donor pledges.

TIPS is moving from login.gov to id.me -- a private company being the identity authority for government services.

Some may express societal challenges in ways that inappropriately and wrongly infer intentionality. We can acknowledge their point while strongly disagreeing with their characterization.

There are significant societal impacts of this AI buildout. Some are concerned externalities weigh more heavily on the poor and marginalized. I think state wide data center holds are part of this civil discourse.

I'd prefer we have more conservative pollution standards along with a reasonable tax on AI use that helps mitigate externalities. That's hard. Reasonable people can have fierce disagreements on what market interventions are indicated, and how extensive they should be.

> Should this part of society be top-down planned or should it be market organized?

To have a market, some organization needs to administer it. PJM operates transmission and facilitates a regional wholesale electric market.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PJM_Interconnection

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_transmission_organiza...

> 'Help me but don't patronize' is a tall order without some real linguistic gymnastics.

Not at all. Just don't start by guessing what a disabled person's concerns are, or presume that an unsolicited suggestion is helpful. A respectful start is letting them know you will be responsive and let them lead the conversation.

Of the 3 proposals, the 2nd/B seems to be more of an “informed consent” model while the other two are seeking a comprehensive exclusion. I hope earnest dialogue and driving to a broad consensus among significant contributors is forthcoming.

Notable are the endorsements, which are balanced over all three options, perhaps indicating only 1/3 are supportive of a more permissive position. If this represents core contributors, this could be worrisome: a clear majority favoring a exclusion, but yet a sizable portion of contributors who don’t want a ban. Losing 1/3 of core contributors would be a significant loss to the project.

LLM or not, I absolutely hate the "not X but Y" writing pattern

PhD programs are generally not funded with loans. Professional schools are.

I would rather we align incentives of universities and make them a co-signer on the loan.

The recent policy is also reinstating loan limits for graduate studies that were dropped in the 80s: https://www.npr.org/2026/07/01/nx-s1-5876467/student-loans-d...

It's a great demonstration of how public health communication fails: the most important part is at the tail of the article, below two advertisements, and it's about as obscure as one could write it:

Any direct human contact with a bat is an indication for rabies postexposure prophylaxi - medical treatment given immediately after potential exposure to a rabid animal.

The article should have also recommended they safely isolate the animal to have it tested for rabies.

> In all these operations, anonymity is what drives it.

The most egregious, prolific lies out there have been fully attributed; and perhaps especially because of attribution, people vehemently disagree on which are the lies.

Those who wield outsized power experience attribution of speech asymmetrically. Filtering societal communication supports the concentration of power.

As a stylistic comment, on HN I am seeing more and more of "As I have always said..." or similar opening constructs. Concisely documenting a phenomena or affecting change requires detailed, sustained effort. Merely observing a pattern isn't sufficient to be notable.

A succinct point, ideally noting counter arguments, is most welcome. Further, if there is substantial prior discussion or relevant literature, a link is productive.

This is interesting — it put immigration limits directly up for a popular vote.

For those voting to strictly limit citizenship, I wonder if they are supporting: a permanent underclass without full rights? or that basic needs to be more expensive? or that widespread automation will soon meet basic labor needs?

addendum: thank you kgwgk

By failing to provide adequate treatment early in a disease course, further exacerbations and comorbidities can appear, and these can become their own chronic conditions requiring further ongoing treatment.

Perhaps more people are using AI as part of an editorial process that is largely driven by what they wish to convey but where they have stopped fighting the AI on its preferred style. It’s supremely annoying when AI updates your prose with its own formulation despite plenty of instructions otherwise. Too often AIs mangle meaning which can be especially worrisome as it’s not easy to catch subtle word/grammar changes that dramatically shift meaning. Overall though, defects aside, for me, and only very recently, it’s been more helpful than not. I think AIs will continue to improve in this regard and be better editorial partners. For competent writings, it won’t replace human authorship or expert review.

Specifically, I’ve recently used ChatGPT for legal/administrative writing where the AI seems to be trained on a large corpus and seems to know the conventions and vocabulary well; a lawyer who reviewed the work had important corrections. Before AI, I would have sought model filings and have had less success at emulating the genre. So it’s lowered time/cost somewhat but it takes lots of diligence. By default, current AI outputs seems intelligible but are still really far off the mark. I’ve found a structured interview is a good way to start rather than jumping into draft generation.

Attribution requirements in a free software setting should be viewed as a symmetric property: however you treat incorporated contributions should be a guide (upper bound) for how your own attribution is handled. Symmetry among contributors is a founding principle of Debian licensing requirements, and with respect to legal notices, also seen in the Apache 2.0 (via NOTICE clause) license.

The Free Software Foundation sometimes went further than the Apache Foundation with their About dialog or textual notices for end users, so they would learn about their affirmative rights. The purpose of this "prominent but reasonable" preservation requirement is to retain this end user advocacy. Specifically, the GPL copyright contains a prologue which the FSF wished to broadly distribute. This badgeware stuff is a decade old abuse of this end user advocacy strategy.

An otherwise permissive license with a prominent but symmetric end user notification might be a helpful addition to OSI license options, but care is needed so it is compatible with GPLv3, reasonable to textual or embedded environments, and precludes stupid badgeware nonsense. Standard approaches and bill of materials could improve the state of the art.

How does this compare to fossil (https://www.fossil-scm.org/)? Integrated tickets and forum seems important.

This factoring of a market to enable competition by centralizing minimal infrastructure seems the bedrock of best governmental practice. Are there other examples to lean on? How do we turn this into common knowledge?

Why do these open source foundations (like Mozilla) have direct products anyway? Why not a certification? Who should the users be and why? Who are the collaborators and competitors? These are hard questions.

At least with free software licenses we can separate the copyrights from the trademarks, and exercise the right to fork if a trademark owner is captured and misbehaves.

For IL residents the policy requires collection and retention of your biomarkers. Presumably there is a law enforcement exclusion implicitly or explicitly, eg search via administrative warrant.

There is still much to be worked out, but some smart people are working on it. See also https://e2c.how/

I liked that you picked a service that has a relatively low barrier to entry. The real asset are local operators and referrals. Making them more efficient without being controlled by a big company would be a boon for everyone involved.

Consider being a platform coop with regional operators as members. See https://platform.coop/

The software for businesses like this is tightly intertwined with operations. Hence, it's less of a SaaS and could be more like a franchise model.

It'd be great if open firmware could be commercially viable. Finding a business model is hard.

The OpenWRT One [1] sponsored by the Software Conservancy [2] and manufactured by Banana Pi [3] works lovely.

[1] https://openwrt.org/toh/openwrt/one

[2] https://sfconservancy.org/activities/openwrt-one.html

[3] https://docs.banana-pi.org/en/OpenWRT-One/BananaPi_OpenWRT-O...