dispo001

What a dumb uninformed thing to say. Fresco described communism as people unwilling to put further thoughts in "their" idea.

Reminds you of someone you know?

Also long long ago... I was watching a video of a guy channeling aliens. Someone in the audience asked what would be the next big thing for humanity. I immediately typed the query into Google. It showed the page head.... 20-30 seconds later it came up with a single published paper about "nuclear magnetic resonance identification"

Today it resolves instantly and finds at least 10 publications from before 2000.

The idea of an 8 hour work day is that there is no idea, we just do this without any sensible excuse for it.

What is referred to here as a side project is actually the persons real life. The job is the side project.

Its a fascinating misconception that we would live to work rather than work to live.

You should make a deal with the engineer that he will do overtime if there is a lot of work to do and he will spend unpaid hours in office if things are slow.

Then you pretend to be interested in his side project.

In science pop culture [joke mine] there is "the layman test". It involves the scientist explaining his work to a layman. Failure to do so means the scientist doesn't understand what he is doing. It is usually used to cut though a forest of terminology.

(One could [say] argue that Object Oriented Programming has property foo. The layman test would have you explain what this OOP actually is. Then, foo is assumed not to be a property of OOP if you fail to explain OOP.)

Nothing is a dead-end topic. If the explanation is successful the layman can learn some more details. Eventually the layman becomes the professor.

Not everyone is good at explaining their work. One professor (his name escapes me) once argued that we assume professionals to be good at education while they never had any such training: Academia works under the assumption their field doesn't exist. Libraries full of books about teaching and learning, some dating back thousands of years. All irrelevant?

What fascinated me was the idea that we deploy amateur explanations from mega overqualified professionals onto the first year students. The ratio is all wrong.

If the people who need information cant get access to it it doesn't matter if the information exists.

The solution to collective decision making is to set up a system for information distribution. Ideally it would be a fully distributed system but since we cant have that we will have to start with a properly designed server then work towards a decentralized formula.

The people who have monopolized information distribution will fight you all the way on this. They will rally their zombie legion of Jackass, Eastenders, Neighbours, Friends, dancing with the stars and football supporters and teach you a lesson.

Imagine this was ever on TV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1-5_34QgGI

In stead you got Johnny Knoxville is what you got in stead.

To add a fun story:

If you look at the RSS spec you find a rating element. If you chase that rabbit down the rabbit hole you end up reading about a mythological creature called the PICS rating system[1]. It is like the ancient Greeks of internet design forged a most poetic system for content rating. Wondering why such a beautiful thing never took off you end up reading authoritative-sounding attention-monopolists ranting and raving about the mere smell of scrutiny. Eventually they successfully denounce the concept as CENSORSHIP and proceed to brand it a porn filter. Today that is the only remaining implementation.

[1] - https://www.w3.org/PICS/

I came up with this one all by myself (which is probably known by some elegant name and has some sophisticated documentation that I'm not aware of) I think it shows representation cant actually work because you cant have boolean logic if multiple "yes" each have to compete with a single "no". Ill keep it simple but the effect gets more dramatical if there are more candidates.

Say, there are 3 candidates and only 1 agenda point: 1 supports the idea and 2 are against it. The later 2 get 33% of the votes each and the first gets 34%. The unpopular idea wins while 66% was against it.

It sure seems like one can get a high degree of control over the results by simply adding candidates until the unpopular idea is sufficiently under represented.

It's like, if you have 100 Bernie Sanders sharing the votes you may never get socialism.

The technology question should probably be:

Would it work with people?

While it is useful and necessary to have a spec the audience is the author who doesn't need to know or understand all the bracket and curly business. All she needs is a list of benefits and a text editor claimed to produce OpenPub format. Even the upload mechanism can be omitted.

The fake news narrative is kind of reactionary. The flaws in journalism are much more basic. As investigations cost money the level of investigation needs to be documented along with the publication. If I was to coin something like this I would make mandatory fields for Human Sources, Institutions and publications. That way the reader has at least some context.

I would also hammer out an ongoing review system that takes us beyond "author" and "publisher" with the ability to dynamically correct it self if new facts require it.

That making enough oxygen for one person, using electrolysis, requires 2000 kwh per day.

That earth's forest area decreases by 13 000 000 hectares per year.

And that we add about 75 000 000 people every year.

In China, when [say] 100 people are about to get fired government will negotiate a deal. That might be to have them hire 300 more for at least 2 years, get 25% of the salary in advance and have them provide training for 200.

I don't remember the exact numbers but it was some kind of custom combination like that designed specifically for the type of business.

Everyone has to start some place.