closedloop129

I think this is only a way to avoid creating things because we don't focus on collaborative note taking systems. Once people start sharing notes, they will start making friends by discovering the people who care about the same topics and create things together. Tweets and blogging are a bit like that but they are curated for a public image.

Add some diffusion models that take over the creative part, and knowledge management systems become a tool to act. Of course, the risk of getting lost in knowledge not only remains but increases.

How is this not the kill-switch for bitcoin? Every bitcoin comes with the risk of having been in a wallet of a criminal. Since all transactions are kept forever, shouldn't every bitcoin be at risk of being seized?

And so, for the record, if I may, disrespectfully, unkindly, repeat myself once more: fuck this con, fuck this exploitation and lazy hustle, and fuck this enormous Jenga of grifts.

Does this aggressive mindset help when the hustling targets the very core of human nature? Instead of bringing back the old, why not start looking for something new that thrives in that environment?

If everything is wholesome, it's meaningless. All that hustling gives value to 'the other' internet. Now, people who participate have chosen to do so.

That doesn't explain why the community didn't step up much much more and brought the development to new heights.

What is holding back Java developers from using their Java language to adapt the IDE written in Java that they daily use? If their boss told them to implement a feature, they would do that. But they don't implement the feature when they need it.

Would it be an option to embrace that development? Instead of assimilating everybody the Borg way, it would also be possible to tag snarky people and allow each user to choose if their comments should be included.

The front page could be an example of good behavior, but people don't have to adapt instantly. They can be snarky, are flagged, and get the signal that the expectations are higher. With some resources for personal development, depending on the flagged transgressions, there could be a form of assimilation that scales.

I still don't understand why Eclipse as an open source project couldn't adapt. Unlike emacs, which is written in elisp, Eclipse is written in Java, the language in which its users are fluent. Why do developers move instead of adapting their IDE?

With a withdrawn self, how can there be a personal failing? My point is that people don't attack her specifically, it's just the way society is. Criticism works for society because people with a self choose which criticism they accept and which they ignore.

People cannot imagine her withdrawn self and thus cannot adjust their criticism and she cannot imagine a self or bring back her self for now and thus doesn't understand most people.

which is: they cannot hear me, and i cannot hear them. and funnily enough i’m trying to hear them and i’m trying to listen but no one’s trying to listen to me, so why should i keep trying?

Question remains: How can a withdrawn self be brought back?

what is creating this boundary? is it merely the withdrawing of the self

My armchair answer is that this is creating the boundary. There is no 'merely'. People want to interact with a self.

within your sense of self, as it’s building, you are being told to take apart, to dismantle, as it is being inappropriately build to their standards.

That's how society works. People have adjusted their self to fit in, they expect the same from everybody else.

By that logic we also don't use an alphabet because we have started using symbols like the smiley. Which non-phonemic symbol have they used that couldn't be replaced by a phonemically created word?

In which way are Egyptian hieroglyphs and their hieratic form [1] not an alphabet? There is a huge number of ligatures and some determinatives, but that's an ad-on. You can use the single characters like any other alphabet.

E.g. hn: 𓉔 𓈖.

[1] https://www.omniglot.com/writing/egyptian_hieratic.htm

The world could also improve if the readers of fiction would increase their engagement in research, business and knowledge.

Why do publishers not offer end-users the right to transfer games from one service to another? That would allow new platforms to compete.

I can understand that established services like Steam oppose the transfer of licenses. But why don't the less established services remove the fear of losing access by making the licenses transferable among themselves? This must be prevented by the publishers. What's their benefit?

The infrastructure problem is funny because this wouldn't be a problem if Google would use GCP by themselves. They should also be smart enough to create an export function for google3.

Some standard about unified chargers.

The social web is no problem. We can choose what we visit like the author's father chose to buy those books.

What is missing is a beacon of light in the desert of choice. There is no lack of knowledge anymore but a lack of orientation. The author's father knew that he could buy knowledge in a bookstore. Where do we go to find orientation on the web?

People don't know. That's why they are stuck in the social net with its memes.

The users punish.

You need a trustworthy core by which you can judge the vote of new users. You can incorporate them until somebody complains about a result that is out of place.

This doesn't have to fully scale. There are many pages without monetary value that won't be manipulated. The tags are an additional signal that can be used where they work. If they don't work, they can be ignored.

But it will scale because there are far more consumers than producers.

Wasn't China's unified standard from about 2007 much more influential?

You simply can't trust sites, who have a strong incentive to get to the top of SEO rankings

Why is it not enough to punish sites that abuse the keywords?

Because Google would then become a business with virtually no revenue - and no chance of producing revenue.

kagi.com bets on becoming a business with revenue. In the same way, Google could start asking money for searches without ads.

In the long run, Google should make more money because a society that runs on the best available information will be more valuable. The information market will be bigger and thus Google's income should be bigger.

The problem is that it's too easy to pitch advertisers against each other and force them to pay a huge fraction of their profits. On the other hand, profit margins in a transparent market are small.

Google could become something like Bloomberg and sell their good information to companies for high margins.

If the network is that important, isn't there a startup looming that provides such a network to the many people who are not in one?

I tend to think that networks are not excluding on principle. If somebody can demonstrate value, people will be eager to include that person into the network. On the other hand, Quibi shows that networks alone cannot rescue startups.

The interesting group are all the average people who could create something successful (of the Figma type) together. As a group, they have access to all resources, but they don't coordinate them. $20B means that 20.000 people could come together and make $1M each. Maybe they need a tool (of the Figma type) to coordinate themselves and that's another startup opportunity.

This is fun.

A minor issue: It would be nice if nodes could be skipped.

E.g. initially, the dog is on the tree and can move to the carrot in two steps. It is required to make both steps and drop the dog on the well. I would prefer if I could put the dog directly on the carrot, or if I could put the dog on the carrot after hovering the dog over the well.

Is there a limit to the usability of that accuracy or will there be a huge increase in the demand for electricity soon that is only limited by the ability of NVIDIA and AMD to produce GPUs?

[extrovert] children who grow up in more prosperous homes are less likely to face the kind of stressful events that undermine self-confidence.

Is extrovert synonymous with confident or that strongly correlated? Why should an introvert not be confident in themselves and their abilities?

Extraversion [...] is the state of primarily obtaining gratification from outside oneself.

Introversion is the state of being predominantly interested in one's own mental self

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

That's something I have also read about Donald Knuth. In his first years, he spent additional time on solving all available mathematically problems for a class until he became much more proficient in it than his peers.

Have you considered adding ActivityPub comments?

I would love to see every social bookmarking service and RSS reader to have an interoperate-able comment section. Why should I manage my bookmarks outside of the browser if not for the benefit of receiving additional information about the articles?

Can something be done that changes the dynamics in the job market? The underlying problem is that companies don't trust the existing available information.

E.g. if individuals cannot be judged, could it be easier to hire entire teams? This would reduce the control that a company has over their software because the knowledge is gone if the team abandons the contract. So, could software be structured and documented to the extend that leaving teams are not a problem? And if so, would it be feasible to create enough software teams and software managed by teams that there is a working market?

'You' was meant in a general way. Somebody sells a house, the money exchanges hands several times, and then somebody else can build a new house - unless the money ends up in Maranello.

The desirable locations are a renewable resource. Portugal could build new desirable areas. They could even turn this into a recurring business and sell them to international investors, too. Instead of building suburban sprawl they can build more urban clusters.

That's the wrong question. If you sell housing to non-resident people, you receive money to build more housing. The question should be:

Why does anybody limit supply of housing to the point that prices rise?

The French did a bad job at building satellite cities, but done right, you could connect new housing to the city center like the original Los Angeles street cars.

If jobs don't pay much then you also don't pay much to the builders of new houses which makes them affordable.

If it were that terrifying, someone would build a second channel or other infrastructure to move containers between both seas.

Thank you.

I am not prepared to continue this outside of hn. How could I reach you later?

Regarding the deception: We also decept ourselves. So even if you go silicon, how do you know that that silicon is without flaws?