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With a withdrawn self, how can there be a personal failing?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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.