A fine question.
I feel this quote
> “The app right now is really just the first building block in a much larger vision for how we want the social web to work,” Graber said.
Highlights a difference in ontological approach.
5,195 karma · joined July 4, 2013
I feel this quote
> “The app right now is really just the first building block in a much larger vision for how we want the social web to work,” Graber said.
Highlights a difference in ontological approach.
But.. we could reference "a rise in the general price level caused by an imbalance between the quantity of money and trade needs" [1] (Cleveland Fed; On the Origin and Evolution of the Word Inflation).
[1] https://www.clevelandfed.org/publications/economic-commentar...
On reverting to to 'old' meanings, Adam Smith's The real price of everything...is the toil and trouble of acquiring it isn't inconsistent with Marx as long as toil and trouble is, in the end, people. Or perhaps myths of old beliefs that there was no sectoral, geographical nor temporal stickyness to anything. It's as if there were no sudden and unexpected changes in prices during times of a roughly constant amount of specie backing 'prices' that make 10% look like a storm in a teacup, though was it ever 1:1 or was hope to have the means to provide backing more accurate; specie based currency has a long history of volatility over the world, from West African empires to Asia.
We could even go farther... to say that inflation, a change in prices, is caused by expectations of inflation; that the supply of money is driven by the demand for money... and that gets us to whether demand is liability or asset driven which may be full circle.
They continued chomping down celery tops and coriander.
One of them likes to watch planes. It sits on its hutch in the afternoon watching planes from a local airport fly away, more interested in them on days when the wind's blowing such that when nearby they're taking off rather than days when the wind means they're approaching. The other one doesn't care for planes, but stamps whenever a wasp's nearby. This second one also likes to observe, then crush with a front paw, any ants it comes across or that come across it.
Remarkably human behaviour, though I know not what they think. Is it curiosity. Is it fear? Is something in-built and there is no 'thinking'? And what of us? Do we really comprehend? An Area51 alien is to me as a flying celery-rabbit on a magical boat with radish tops for wings is perhaps to these rabbits, if they've ever thought to imagine. They do seem to dream. That is, it's completely within bounds of their known reality. As outlandish as the very real, lived, imaginations of a schizophrenic delusion may be, and my observing it based on my 'norms', it's still somewhat based on the individual's experience, or imagination, of their reality, their experiences.
Perhaps there are aliens. Perhaps they exist in differing dimensions. Perhaps they exist as stars blinking to one another, perhaps they exist in my underpants or in fact are my underpants, what do I know, we are all in our (bounded?, there is always a bound...) existence, as Spinoza pointed out, of "Substance, its attributes, and modes".
The nature of what's being learnt. Some things require a continuity - to understand B, prior A is needed (or helps, to understand faster).
The method of learning. Book/theory-based, or practical? For either, what's the nature of scaffolding (self, or via resources) to help leap the chasm? If testing one's self, what's the complexity and can that complexity be broken down into simpler (or more discrete) parts, (perhaps testing working better in smaller parts)? Perhaps A isn't fully (or at all) required to 'know' B, depending on how it's learnt. Which goes on to -
The nature of the learner (at that point for that task). Someone that's looking to solve a task, somewhat surface, or someone that's interested and will go deeper into edge cases or approach with greater curiosity?
[I'm skipping the nature of the learning/knowledge, since 'resolving DNS' is a pretty externally verifiable result. However it might be fruitful to consider the nature of the learning is not only 'resolving DNS', and even if 'resolving DNS' fails, learning always happens (intended/unintended, positive/negative, a can of worms there).]
You point out that 'easy' and 'hard' are motivators that might have unexpected, or the reverse, effects vs. intended, depending on the reader. When putting it into those 3 parts, perhaps this shows the usefulness of framing.
Walls represent, indeed are, non revenue generating assets with recurring operational costs. It makes sense to release tied-up capital by selling them off, then leasing back. The operators of the walls can reduce costs by operating walls at quantities that afford economies of scale, provide innovation as mentioned in the article through perhaps providing spaces to artists, or even radical wall transformation perhaps by installing and partially replacing with solar and battery packs, neighbourhood social facilities, and more.
The owner of the wall benefits from core property revenue stream plus innovative applications. The prior title owner benefits from lower cost compared to direct management, free capital not tied up in the wall, and from innovation provided by the wall operator. Win win.
When thinking at scale, it's incredible that walls are so late to financial innovation.
As a national of a developed country, I am entitled to make more greenhouse emissions than the poor.
As a national of a highly developed country, I refuse to, or otherwise fail to, make the changes to achieve 'different growth' that I demand of significantly poorer countries seeking to up their living standards, because these changes threaten my quality of life.
It is somewhat documented, well documented perhaps.
Correctly documented?
I never finished the recent popular book 'Salt'. After a few chapters it became tedious, repetitive, plus the book consistently omitted tying text to sources. A frustrating read.
As I didn't in fact tie Salt to Roman soldiers' salaries, that was your reading, simply salt -> salary, I'm curious what references you could provide for different etymology? I'm genuinely interested, I rarely reply to replies.
Which had me thinking of various pecuniary benefits armies pass and why. Salt -> salary is well documented, on the opposite side slightly less so but still somewhat known was for conquering armies to compensate farmers for essentially pillage as the monetary compensation can't buy much grain nor meat when the army's eaten the village's as well as that of surrounding villages. It also wasn't unusual for state coffers to run dry also, delaying soldiers' salaries, plus graft - several banks still around were founded on the basis of lending to a liquidity starved crown, a modern placation and guarantee of support in the classical baronesque sense perhaps.
And I became curious about all the other money-like tokens, like these beer rations, backed by the promise of a commodity, that floated around in those time, and in ours today. Meandering thoughts, the best kind.
Indeed, this submission was inspired by the Antarctic Panini Press.
Contrast, for example that either of these books' narration allows a reader to fill in a lot of the blanks with experience, both real and imagined, constructing it for themselves even down to the temperature of the air, shade of light at dusk, smell of the air, exact tone and pitch of voice of a speaker. Vs. a video where the experience is fully narrated and scenes presented in 4k. Is the video 'more digestible' because it's a different thing being digested?
Not that these tables can't and often aren't reversed. Some vloggers say little, sometimes 'scaffolding' only some understanding through a bit of backstory, or allow their audience to similarly construct experiences of the pieces of a journey. And some books are instruction manuals, or unintentionally read as so.
A tool, be that video, text, audio, game, is only that. It's just a medium, a method that's surface to the deeper world view of the 'maker'.
That 'problem' is caused by regulation, structural regulation, not day-to-day regulatory enforcement or change. So where does that risk 'go'? Where do you suggest? What can regulators do to un-risk the risk that's been un-risked/passed on from those that take out mortgages?
It takes less than a second on my 13 year old ThinkPad running Debian/Gnome3, but what's the difference half a second saved makes? And why even close it?
Focus on the greatness you're about to perform and thank the second for giving you that focus.
Google Wave chaos collaboration brilliance vs the conventional Google+ was killed prior to Google+.
Free GMail/limited apps for Domains. This was killed for new domains in 2012, and merging/destroying through failed merge via single sign on to YouTube/other services. Generic services weren't a good substitute for 'owning' a name via domain.
XMPP was killed by G+ Hangouts in 2013.
Reader, of course.
It seemed like G+ killed anything that it could, in any fractional way, be deemed a substitute for. The memory I have of these products were of functional things. The memory I have of G+ is a large whitespace screen with an avatar and exceptionally mediocre half solutions. G+ was not fun, it wasn't social, it wasn't even average.
Your comment also hints at the repostes by Engels (technological progress) or Ricardo (pricing out, or alternative).
To a united communist-capitalist solution! And a worthy path for OP.
Insepid, undemocratic, uninclusive. Deeply unsocial.
A few observations of hypothes.is include
* Despite it being around a while, not a lot of people seem to generally, outside of let's all comment on this article/set of articles, use it. Notably, some seminal papers of social annotation are uncommented, by anybody! I remember more people using ICQ's long forgotten chat with others also browsing this page feature despite that being synchronous vs asynchronous comments.
* It has a 'group' function. You can filter by a group you're in. This is useful given the social constructivism that comments can give - it's constructed by a group after all, and different groups may lead to different results.
Kinda leading on from that, assigning a point is simply a numerical indicator. What does it mean? Aside from different voting types (only up? up/down? % up? what about neutral/not voted vs views? etc.), a vote's kinda positivist. So.. a badge of trust? From whom and why (the qualitative aspect)? Do you want social groupings for votes? Are all votes equal? Why not measure backlinks, or citations and do you trust these?
That's all ignoring stuff like bots, gaming, and there possibly being agreement from the entire internet whether something's good.
I visit HN because I trust the filter that's the community, a social filter self selected by choosing to be part of the HN community. As well as the front page, I also often browse new where a headline may take my interest almost as much as the front page; new is, after all, already community filtered by people that care enough about a link to submit (minus the spam). I'd actually quite like a Slashdot 'friend'/'friend of friend' follow option here - do any of the HN apps that that?
1. Often. It's often from search results.
2. No, I probably wouldn't use such an extension.
3. Despite looking into them, I don't regularly use any such tools that already exist.
Edit: Something I feel may be important that I've not really looked into: Where's the agency of the author? People directly commenting, as it would appear to a viewer, on their work. Would some authors oppose that and argue it's a derivative work [in the case of annotation]?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36465243
[2] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bibitnow/
I'd blog this, but for now I don't blog, so a HN post it is.