hey James, so you were right that it doesn't (yet) do conflict-resolution out of the box. if you want you could check out the other comment with a detailed response from a Holo team member: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28700602
969 karma · joined January 26, 2021
-
Beckman is the last name one of my favorite authors: Dutch author Thea Beckman ('Kinderen van moeder aarde'/Thule trilogy, as well as 'Kruistocht in Spijkerbroek'/'Crusade in Jeans')
Really? That's what you get after reading this?
> "This kind of vertiginous horror in the face of a seemingly cruel and infinite supply chain is reflected on a larger and more academic scale in the recent rise of critical logistics and supply chain studies. “If the corporate goal is to build a supply chain so seamless that its existence barely registers with consumers, such researchers seek to turn this process inside out, exposing the human and environmental costs obscured by slick design and packaging,” writes Jackie Brown in her recent essay surveying the field of supply studies. From mapping projects that follow the chemical, digital, material and labor inputs used in an Amazon Echo device upstream to their points of origin to genealogies of logistics that trace out the links between globalized production to militarization and collective violence, these projects seek to chart out small parts of a system so complex and flexible that it’s impossible for any individual to grasp.
> [...] people are driven to distraction trying to reverse-engineer a system that is purposely obscured, piecing together clues to see who’s behind the curtain and how we’re being screwed. This mode of paranoid reading, the “highly compelling tracing-and-exposure project” as Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick describes in her famous essay, is a “position of terrible alertness,” of trying to uncover hidden connections and cruelty whose existence are assumed, if unseen. Emily Apter describes this paranoid orientation to logistics and globalization as “oneworldness,” referring to “a delirious aesthetics of systematicity; to the match between cognition and globalism that is held in place by the paranoid premise that ‘everything is connected.’”"
In summary: today's obscured global capitalist production system mangles many of the working class' minds and bodies (in the global south especially: hence the focus on supply chains, since they go on past the borders of our daily lives and the communities in which we live; into the horizon), creating an extremely uncomfortable, fear-inducing unavoidable sense of culpability (even though of course as working class people we're all stuck inside this capitalist hellhole) in the minds of global north knowledge workers.
I'm relieved to know that others share this feeling.
i think Pendergrast used the quote to highlight the capitalist dynamic that incentivizes the profit-seeking economy towards creating low-quality single-use industrially-produced products, due to the parasitic economic rents from intellectual property making proper products overly expensive. in other words: the propertied class makes the working class pay double/triple.
that and planned obsolescence.
that's what i read in this article.
from the article:
> “Every single thing you see is future trash,” says Robin Nagle
> “If the corporate goal is to build a supply chain so seamless that its existence barely registers with consumers, such researchers seek to turn this process inside out, exposing the human and environmental costs obscured by slick design and packaging,” writes Jackie Brown
> Hold them and hold onto them until they become sacred, accruing value through ritual and nostalgia and thought exercises that send me back in time and up the supply chain past supermarket cashiers and drill press operators and industrial designers and miners to the sedimentary layer on the ocean floor.
[1] yes, there are alternatives! http://valueflo.ws: "Purpose: to enable internetworking among many different software projects for resource planning and accounting within fractal networks of people and groups. The vocabulary will work for any kind of economic activity, but the focus is to facilitate groups experimenting with solidarity / cooperative / collaborative / small business ecosystem / commons based peer production / any transitional economies.
Or, with less buzzwords, "let's help a lot of alternative economic software projects that are solving different pieces of the same puzzle be able to work together"."
hmmm maybe because a monopolistic firm is repurposing the term 'power off'?
> By framing the debate about Sci-Hub as one concerning property rights, both advocates of Elbakyan’s site and its detractors fall afoul of what John Gall called the “operational fallacy.” In his book The Systems Bible, Gall defined the operational fallacy as a situation where “the system itself does not do what it says it is doing.” In other words, what a system calls itself is not always a reliable indicator of its true function. In this case, the name of the “academic publishing industry” implies that it is supposed to be involved in the dissemination of scholarship. But the effective function of the academic publishing industry as it actually exists is to prevent the dissemination of scholarly work.
The author mentions his disproval of Elbakyan and her friends focusing on property rights, yet doesn't actually make a logical or convincing argument against it. Fail.
The reason Elbakyan focuses on property rights is because intellectual property is the most harmful thing blocking science today.
Intellectual property literally commoditizes and monopolizes collective feedback loops/learnings, disinheriting the working class.
Yes, people will want conflict-resolution for contention on scarce resources, and it'd be lovely to have that baked into the system.
Two options (and yes, both still leave conflict resolution in the app dev's hands):
- Have the zome function resolve the conflict after it retrieves conflicting metadata from the DHT
- In the future we'll bake conflict resolution right into the network layer, so DHT authorities can resolve the conflict automatically using CRDTS or manually by pinging the nodes that published conflicting information so they can resolve it themselves.
It's also worth mentioning Syn, a library which uses operational transforms (a precursor to CRDTs) for conflict-free collaborative document editing. https://github.com/holochain/syn. I'm looking forward to seeing someone produce something similar, but with CRDTs.
so for all the people who might struggle with this (like my mom), but who still want to enjoy these new apps, Holo (again, stupid name, but this time it's the org who stewards the open source holochain library [1]) came up with a strategy that allows people to rent out some spare processing power on their computer/home-server, to host holochain applications for the above-mentioned people (so sort of like an Airbnb for AWS). they even ran a successful crowdfund that sold a million dollars worth of hardware for committed early adopters (plug-and-play home servers) [2].
so essentially the Holo hosting network is IPFS (and Holofuel is like Filecoin), but instead of hosting someone's files, you are running encrypted app code for them so that they can take part in the app/network, without having the required technical chops (the holofuel currency measures/represents processing power). the FAQ does a good job of explaining it a bit more: https://holo.host/faq/
i'm not super interested in the whole holo thing (they did a filecoin-type crowdfund to pre-sell hosting credits), yet i am glad they did it because it meant the team could ramp up development. they are already alpha-testing now.
about marx and engels. i am personally most excited about the potential for http://valueflo.ws on top of holochain (library called hREA) [3], because it will allow us to move away from today's Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software, into a new paradigm of Network Resource Planning (NRP) software. i hope it will have a big impact and enable the growth of the democratic and transparent supply chains of the next (socialist) economy.
> How does it relate or differentiate with the GNU/Net project? What naming schemes does Holochain support and could it theoretically interop with the GNU Name System? [0]
i'll take a look at it, i'm not too familiar with GNU/Net.
[1] https://github.com/holochain/holochain
[2] https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/holo-take-back-the-intern...
hmm no i think it does. the 'Resilience and availability' section is relevant for your question: https://developer.holochain.org/concepts/4_dht/
holochain is completely distributed, so there is no 'offline' and 'online' because there is no third party. it sounds weird writing that but i'm hoping it might challenge you to dig a bit deeper into the docs, because it's there. if not, please come back and let me know so i can pass on feedback about the docs that were unclear or unsatisfactory for you.
> does not solve conflict resolution
from the docs: "Holochain DNAs specify validation rules for every type of entry or link. This empowers agents to check the integrity of the data they see. When called upon to validate data, it allows them to identify corrupt peers and publish a warrant against them. [...] (the DNA is simply a collection of functions for creating, accessing, and validating data.)"
you might like the architecture of holo-chain (stupid name, imo), it's still mostly going under the radar (also because they chose to refactor their library from go to rust to improve security):
"Holochain combines ideas from BitTorrent and Git, along with cryptographic signatures, peer validation, and gossip. Holochain is an open source framework for building fully distributed, peer-to-peer applications. [It's] purpose is to enable humans to interact with each other by mutual-consent to a shared set of rules, without relying on any authority to dictate or unilaterally change those rules. Peer-to-peer interaction means you own and control your data, with no intermediary"
good dev intro: https://medium.com/holochain/holochain-reinventing-applicati...
"Holochain is [...] like a decentralized Ruby on Rails, a toolkit that produces stand-alone programs but for serverless high-profile applications."
This important work done by Bob Haugen and Lynn Foster (http://mikorizal.org) and collaborators, has been continued under various project names and partnerships. For example, together with Tiberius and co at Sensorica, they helped create the first value accounting software [1], which led to the coining of the term 'Network Resource Planning' software, which stands in contrast to today's siloed corporate Enterprise Resource Planning software (e.g. SAP).
Their latest iteration/group is known as http://valueflo.ws, and is a spec for 'a vocabulary for the distributed economic networks of the next economy'.
A great short intro to the world of distributed supply chains is this recent presentation by Lynn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vymAHXGSM14
yes. and it's even worse than many think. just look at the 'trade secret + patent' sandwich:
“Patents are typically viewed as a cornerstone of intellectual property licensing. The licensing landscape, however, has been changing. In recent years, trade secrets have become “the crown jewels of corporations” and “workhorse[s] of technology transfer.” Recent court decisions on trade secret misappropriation exhibit damage awards that are in the hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars, indicating how valuable trade secrets are to companies.
Trade secrets cover 90% of all new technology; “over 80% of all license and technology transfer agreements cover proprietary know-how (trade secrets) or are hybrid agreements covering both patents and trade secrets.” Therefore, it is virtually impossible to license a patent without also transferring applicable proprietary knowledge and information. As there is always more to every invention and certain information inevitably escapes a patent application, some commentators asserted that “a patent [is a] little more than an advertisement for the sale of accompanying know-how.””
[...]
"[An]other important caveat in understanding the true value of trade secrets is that even information about what not to do may be extremely important in gaining competitive advantage. For example, negative research and development results may not only increase the amount of available proprietary knowledge, but may also expedite commercialization by competitors if such information becomes known to competitors.“ [1]
In an article called Don’t Be Fooled by His Patent Purge: Elon Musk is Just Another Hypocritical Tech Billionaire, Paul Morinville writes:
“[W]hen an invention could be patented, keeping it as a trade secret denies the public knowledge of how the invention works, which in turn denies the public the ability to improve, combine, or invent around the invention.”
[...]
"It is exceedingly rare that an inventor comes up with something completely new. Virtually all inventions are the result of combining existing elements and adding something new."
[...]
"[Yet] trade secrets have become the preferred invention protection choice of many tech multinationals. Many of these companies have huge numbers of customers with thin products that run on or behind internet browsers. Most inventions in these fields can be hidden behind the browser, buried in the bowels of a datacenter, encrypted in code, or embedded in a chip and thus easily protected by trade secrets.
In emerging fields, technology advances at a lightning fast pace. Improvements invented by others could bring disastrous disruption to incumbents. In Tesla’s market for electric cars, dry electrode batteries may be that disruptive technology given the $218 million price tag Tesla paid to obtain the trade secrets.
The greatest threat to the very existence of these huge multinationals is creative destruction at the hands of someone who invents something that their customers want that they did not think of first.
As a result, none of these huge multinationals wants anyone else to learn how their inventions work because someone else could improve it, combine it, or invent around it, which could disrupt their business.
Hiding inventions as trade secrets acts to protect these huge multinational corporations against this threat of creative destruction. This is the reason that huge multinationals lobby so hard for strong trade secret laws and weak patent laws. This is clearly shown in Musk’s low valuation of his patents and high valuation of trade secrets.
Trade secret protection for inventions that could otherwise be patented is bad public policy because it stifles the progress of innovation and it consolidates money, markets and power into a few huge corporations that become immune to the threat of creative destruction."
[1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2334060
[2] https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2019/02/19/dont-fooled-patent-pur...
Oil companies like BP and Shell blocked the dissemination of vital scientific research on climate change. They also blocked the development of electric cars, or alternatives in general. [1] Executives in the car industry also hold back the development of high speed rail networks through lobbying.
> Westerners will do literally anything except make any changes to their behavior.
It's hard for the working class to see the full picture when we live in a proprietary, black box -world that only allows a small group of people to become science literate. A society where the propertied class undemocratically charts the direction for science through 'intellectual property' claims, which blocks scientific progress as it commoditizes and removes important feedback loops/learnings from the commons. [2]
I love that! I would have benefitted from that a lot in school.
> The need to vet some ideas, while learning the efficiency need to trust the output of reliable groups whose results have already been widely accepted.
Your project sounds great! I'm curious if you like Dr. Alex Freeman's approach to a new type of scientific publishing system, with her http://Science-Octopus.org (aims to make science more accountable and open access):
"Q: What problem are you aiming to tackle?
A: Fundamentally, I believe that the whole concept of the scientific paper drives people to tell stories rather than worry about the quality of the actual research. It's true that during the scientific process, you usually start with a problem and you finish with a real-world use of your solutions. But the whole chain, from one end to the other, takes a whole range of different skills and different people and different amounts of time. Forcing researchers to guard their work and get to the end of the chain before they can publish anything makes people work in silos, when we'd all be much better off if everybody shared their work as they went along and everybody collaborated to get to the end of the process.
There is a real problem in science—with widespread questionable research practices, lack of replication, publication bias, inequalities in access, slow progress, and wasted resources. And I think that the root of it all is the publication system, and the pressure to publish as the only way that scientists are being judged. The new publishing platform I envisage would stop forcing researchers to try to tell a story, allowing them to concentrate on doing their work to the best of their ability and on constructively collaborating.
Q: How would this new publication system work?
A: The overall idea behind the new platform, which I called Octopus, is to break the standard unit of publication up into eight smaller stages or pieces. These include formulated scientific problems, hypotheses, methods and protocols, data, analysis, interpretation, and real-world applications. The eighth piece is reviews where people share their comments about the other stages, but it's also treated as a publication itself because it is a constructive piece of collaboration. Researchers will be able to revisit their publications to acknowledge others' comments or suggestions and even include some of the useful reviewers as authors, with the old version remaining available so that readers can track the evolution of ideas.
The formulated scientific problem automatically becomes the beginning of a chain, and all the other pieces are vertically linked upward. If you have a great hypothesis, you can publish that and link it straight up to the problem that it is trying to address. And if you've collected some small amount of data, you can publish that, linking it directly up to the protocol that you followed. It will also be possible to create horizontal links between publications; maybe somebody has come up with an amazing algorithm whilst studying starling flocking behavior and somebody else working on oil pipelines has decided to use it.
Octopus will thus allow researchers to publish in much smaller author groups, and that can make the system much more accountable and meritocratic. If, say, you're an applied statistician, at the moment you're very rarely a first author on anything. But with Octopus, statisticians can do analyses of anybody else's data and get credit for it as the author of that publication. Octopus will also be made language-agnostic through automatic translation to lower language barriers and broaden access.
Another way to make sure that we are judging people on the actual quality of their work and not on the stories is through rating. Anybody who's logged in to the system will be able to rate entries as soon as they are published based on pre-set criteria reflecting what we as a scientific community value at each stage of the scientific process. So, for instance, there might be a rating for the size of the dataset, and another rating for how well it is annotated and how usable it is. Just like on eBay or Amazon, the most highly rated pieces of work will automatically become more easily visible.
Octopus will also allow the evaluation of individual authors through a professional page that shows their affiliations, their conflicts of interest, and all their publications and their ratings. Seeing these metrics, you will be able to get a feel for what type of researcher this is. Are they publishing lots of well-rated hypotheses? That's an idea-generating person. Are they writing a lot of constructive reviews? That's a very collaborative person."
Source: Meet Octopus, a new vision for scientific publishing: https://www.science.org/careers/2018/11/meet-octopus-new-vis...
Talk: Dr. Alexandra Freeman | Octopus - a radical new approach to scientific publishing | 29 October 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af6aITLEoD8
Or have I misunderstood your aims/interests and you are not interested in open access?
The problem is how a profit-seeking knowledge-enclosing/commoditizing capitalist economy and education system allows the propertied class to control the supply of technical labor.
The problem is that many in the working class don't have a methodological literacy.
"The researchers note that it’s tough for lay audiences to fully understand complex topics [...] They suggest a more sustainable solution for curbing misinformation is helping the public develop a type of scientific literacy known as methodological literacy. People who understand scientific methods and research designs can better evaluate claims about science and research, they explain."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28658946
imo we won't see many positive changes until we abolish silicon valley and the western-led intellectual property regime. liberate science and technology from capitalism.
maybe because for the working class the classroom is seen as one of the last places where working class children can receive a tiny bit of the patience and encouragement that is needed to help develop a child's own learning process. i am talking about 'holding hands during the first attempt' encouragement. encouragement together with a viable learning path/trajectory that is focused on creating resilient learners.
the parents say that they don't believe in 'distance learning', not school it's entirety. it's disingenuous for you to insinuate that the two are the same. they're not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcX2O47NZuc
I take issue with everything you've written. You somehow still believe the words you use are themselves evidence (and it's obvious they originate from western media firms who manufacture consent - it impacts you (unconsciously) even if you consider yourself very progressive/leftist).
Who controls the world through financial imperialism? It isn't China.
Seriously, please consider a few of these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2khAmMTAjI
Please stop with the Sinophobia already
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2020/9/11/sinophobia-the-...
Hopefully things like Alex Freeman’s http://science-octopus.org (or something like it) will take off very soon, which addresses this well (and will make science more accountable).
Meet Octopus, a new vision for scientific publishing: https://www.science.org/careers/2018/11/meet-octopus-new-vis...
Dr. Alexandra Freeman | Octopus: a radical new approach to scientific publishing - 29 October 2018: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af6aITLEoD8
or doesn't have* a learning framework
"quiet is a luxury good" + "seriously, poverty is so loud"
Having said that, I do agree with your point about the need for quiet spaces.
Yep, those are the same qualities of Sudbury Valley schools!
https://www.reimaginedonline.org/2013/06/why-i-started-my-ow...
As in, peer learning? It's the schooling systems job to accommodate and support, not kids?
Are you campaigning for self-directed learning like in the Sudbury Valley model?
this is one of the most compassionate things i've read today. thank you
how can people learn if large parts of humanity's scientific and technological feedback/learning loops are commoditized and made artificially scarce by our economic system? especially now that we have digital technology available that could make the storing and transmitting of informational artifacts super cheap.
so i think neither of the two reasons you stated, but because we are living in a black box society. we are being forcefully disinherited by the propertied class.
knowledge laborers who get 2x median income have just been less victim to capitalist gatekeeping, since a few are needed to generate more intellectual property for the propertied class. [2]
[1] Aaron Swartz, Guerilla Open Access Manifesto: https://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamj...
[2] Wendy Liu, Gatekeeping in the tech industry: https://dellsystem.me/posts/fragments-50
Wow that sounds a lot like the global system we have today. Especially when you look at the unequal ecological 'exchange' (read: plunder) going on between the global north and the global south:
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unequal_exchange
Dead Donkeys Fear No Hyenas is fantastic documentary on this issue, it beautifully lays out the struggles of the Ethiopian working class who are trying to hold onto their land which is increasingly being (literally) given away to global north capitalists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isiYYVmvn2U