mickdaisy

I can try; I have yet to nail down a concise articulation of these, but here's my swing at it:

collectiveOwnership() would describe the process of the product gradually going from a dictatorship (I am the one who controls the code and direction) to democracy (all participants control the code and direction) as the community guidelines, culture, automated moderation, human moderation, and technical details of decentralized ownership are ironed out. This way we protect ourselves against any minority of stakeholders from having the power to pull a Cambridge Analytica and sell out the users and their data, or allow advertisers to dictate what's acceptable and subject LGBTQ+ creators to accidental censorship a la YouTube. If we can recursively create organizations that follow this model, I'm hopeful that people will gradually begin to expect and demand socially sustainable business models to drive the products that they use.

selfActualize() would describe the process of becoming all that we can be, which is the focus of Abraham Maslow's Motivation and Personality. Carl Rogers and Kurt Goldstein also covered it, but I think Maslow's take is the most thought-provoking. If you want some notes on his work, I'd be happy to share (they're linked in the post I shared here). Here's a wiki on it for a concise take: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-actualization

Sticking that at the end of the main() method was my way of saying that I'll feel prepared to be selfish as soon as I've had some impact on the bigger picture.

hahahahah

beep boop beep

no problem lol

KarmaScript!

It's just a weird mashup of English, JS, and C# that I'm using to help me think

Well that's concerning... do you know if your work draws from a third-party service, and/or do you think it's possible that the "newness" of the site could be triggering that?

Some methods are NotYetImplemented but I'd be happy to expand upon any if anyone's curious! I don't even know what they should look like quite yet...

This is fantastic! Thank you for the information :).

Thanks for the response. I'm struggling with the content length limitations (2000 characters) and the formatting (no images, bullets, etc).

I also happen to be building a wiki / collaborative self-education tool that I'm using to take and then share these notes, but I don't want to violate etiquette by sharing these links if the perception is that it's primarily self-promotional. It is, but it's also value-promotional, I hope. Would it be bad form to do so?

Example for the above:

https://www.karma.fm/p/LQjKNte/sam-altman---how-to-succeed-w...

Until it's no longer more profitable to cheat and pay the tolls than it is to play by the rules, we'll continue to be exploited ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

So what are our options? I see two:

1) Stay the same: Continue depending on the enforcers who are incentivized with profits to suddenly change their behavior and attack the systems that generate profits (see: definition of insanity)

2) Change: Somehow raise the cost of exploitation with robust new systems that address the root causes / vulnerabilities of the old systems

As we trend towards full automation, both manufacturing and distribution jobs are likely to be structurally disintegrated. Services will probably also be rendered obsolete, aside from highly personal / human / creative services that rest on the long-tail of AI. So a more realistic prediction might suggest that the majority of "promising areas" will lie in fields like AI, big data, statistics, decentralization, advanced mathematics, etc. The character and arrangement of these domains will depend largely on whether we continue a trajectory of capitalism focused on profits, or whether we begin a shift towards socialism and co-op models that focus on psychosocial and environmental value.

Profit path = more advanced big data and exploitative mechanisms, psy-ops tooling for political power preservation, centralized power, etc (think robocop / cambridge analytica on steroids). Psychosocial path = more innovation rooted in positive psychology, complex systems, decentralization, and facilitating self-actualization (think Her / pragmatic utopia). The overlap between the two seems to be psychology and complex systems thinking, so maybe "complex systems psychology" or even "social engineering" would be solid candidates?

Complex systems psychology would essentially be the next evolution of behavioral economics, where we observe and engineer the emergence of system-level phenomena by motivating individual agents to behave in ways that are psychologically positive (or aligned with a profit/power motif of someone atop a hierarchy) for the individual parts and the whole.

Social engineering is just more the micro version of that - figuring out how to infiltrate / manipulate complex social systems and then equipping organizations with defense tactics and tooling. Maybe even anticipating the emergence of new attack vectors before they can be exploited.

For anyone interested in complex systems, Santa Fe Institute is in the middle of Week 3 of their free online course. Highly recommended.

For anyone interested in positive psychology, Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow are great places to start.

For anyone interested in social engineering, the SECTF is a goldmine.

I'm looking for collaborators who like the idea of gamifying self-education; this project is being built as a collectively owned digital asset with no "founders" in the traditional sense, and where any surplus income is distributed back to members every month: www.karma.fm ; eve@karma.fm

I'm ready to dump far too much of my disposable income on chasing the feelings this game gave me when I was a kid. This is the game that turned me into a gamer.

Oooh! Can I copy the body of your comment into a post on my little project and credit you with a link back to this thread?! It should be seen and discussed by more people! I can do the same as a reddit post if you'd like, too.

If you wanted to set up a little blog beforehand in case people want to follow you, I can wait. whistles

I am absolutely in love with this response. Thank you for taking time to produce this. This could be a blog post.

Your post has me looking back at the opt-in samples of my experience and realizing that when they were opt-in, I never considered them to be "pair programming". It's always just been "healthy onboarding" or "healthy collaboration". My current org's obsession with enforcing PP for its own sake as a measured performance metric has conditioned me to squirm when I hear the term, but that's just a branding/emotional response problem. Thank you for the beautifully articulated check.

> - sometimes, you are 'thinking slow'. A pause between two snippets is invaluable in pre-forming the logic in your head anyway, which rules out 99% of the supposed 'efficiency' of a l33t-script-kiddie.

This is precisely why I never learned to type faster. The time between my thinking and typing is spent auditing my thinking.

> - pair programming is literally 2x slower in terms of man-hours, and actually even worse if we consider that talking to someone is much slower than thinking to oneself. And yet... it produces great code and makes your programmers better.

Ehhh. A lot of programming is creative and imposing my creativity onto someone else (or having someone's styles/preferences imposed upon me) usually doesn't help much. Any time I've pair-programmed (~6 years of professional programming) my productivity dives down to 1/3 while my quality sometimes increases marginally. It's a low ROI in my experience which is why I'll never advocate for it. But I'll play ball if the org I'm working for embraces it. There are social/team-building/ other nontechnical benefits to consider as well (although I'd argue that tasks built specifically for these purposes would be more efficient).

A long time ago I came up with an acronym that's served me well as a consultant who has to bounce from one customer to the next and run through interview gauntlets of all types: RACEMOORES:

R: Restate with sample inputs/outputs/diagrams

A: Assumptions ~ scale of inputs, uniqueness, range, variable parameters now and in the future

C: Complexity: runtime complexity, space complexity, etc

E: Edge cases

M: Maintainability

O: Overflow

O: Optimizations

R: Refactoring - DRY / SOLID / etc

E: Extensibility

S: Scalability

I use the "memory palace" heuristic to guide me through this, where each letter is a naked dude waving a flag on a racetrack I vividly remember from Gran Turismo back in the day. Absurdity helps it stick . I start every interview by writing this on the board and checking off the letters as I run through them. I usually stick another "O" in there for "Other stakeholders", depending on the gig.

This happens to work nicely when guiding/assessing interviewees through technical scenarios as well.

Hey anoncake ~ just wanted to thank you for planting this seed. You and a few other members had the same ideas, and they're manifesting into a lower-friction articulation of what this thing is all about: https://www.karma.fm/p/S09A4/dialing-down-the-socialism-and-...

Many thanks for the impact.

Matt and Trey should launch TegrityFlix (TegrityTube?) and show only content that is banned in China, launching with an episode about "Tegrity VPN".

I'd buy a subscription in a heartbeat.

Thank you so much! This makes sense.

A bit off-topic ~ I'm new to the community and have been looking for the right place to ask this question:

I recently shared something via Show HN and received a ton of great feedback. Would it violate any rules or etiquette to share the next version of the same project once the feedback has been incorporated?

What's the general sentiment towards React here on HN?

In my experience, working with JSX and combining different technologies has turned my productivity into mush. I can pump out massive features much more quickly with more vanilla technologies. But maybe that's because I haven't been patient enough with the learning curve...

Same here. I've tried moving my "boilerplate side project" .NET Framework template over to the latest and greatest about once a year over the past four years and every time I hit the eight hour mark, I give up. Either my dependencies aren't supported yet, or there's some wonky versioning incompatibility, or there's some other undocumented frustration. I'm not dealing with anything wildly complex here ~ just an n-tier architecture supporting MVC rendered views, forms authentication, API endpoints, an EF middle-tier, and Azure SQL. About as simple as it gets for a web app.

Has anyone here migrated from .NET framework > .NET core lately? Think it's time for me to give it another go?

Sure thing!

The application architecture is simple - it's an n-tier app (front end > business layer > SQL server).

The business layer is .NET/C#. I use Entity Framework as an ORM and then migrate the slower bits to Dapper + raw SQL whenever I need to trade maintainability for performance.

I'd be happy to expand on anything specific you're curious about :)

What do you think about embracing the controversy embedded within the term as a means of educating people around its underlying principles, getting people talking/thinking about it, etc?

Thank you for this

It went through and I responded! I apologize for the performance headache. I'm in uncharted territory over here.

https://www.karma.fm/p/SGXFV/once-upon-a-time-i-accidentally...

My response:

Thanks so much @Rugnir. This is absolutely a problem; I'll quote you over on the most recent retrospective.

I have a question: when you visit the homepage, all posts are human (filtered for "non robot posts"). You can then include bot posts by manually disabling this filter. On Tribe pages, the filter is "off" by default. Would you like to see the filter controls on the Tribe pages, with it "off" by default?

~~~

In addition, having user-driven content from the start will (hopefully) lead to a community and a unique style forming - with people sticking around because they enjoy the content and discussion already there, and posting more of the same themselves. If you want to shape the community, the best way would be to make one or two posts yourself, and try hard to comment and engage with other user's posts in the way you hope future users will.

Also, the personality of the first few active users will have a large effect on how the site's culture will evolve. If you're interested in left-wing politics, perhaps try to publicise the site in the kinds of places people already talk about left-wing politics - specific subreddits or discord servers. Of course a lot of places won't like straight-up advertisement, but if you pitch it as an ongoing project and ask for ideas, people will likely be happier to accept it.

^ YES! This is all gold. Thank you.

Love this. Thank you.

My "cobbled together" implementation is as follows: every user begins with a fixed number of "bolts"; they can unlock more bolts through various "virtuous deeds" (TBD), or they can earn bolts through their comments/posts; their general "bolt throughput" is a proxy to how much "karma" they've earned and given to others.

Though this was cobbled together without any real understanding of behavioral economics and with a whole bunch of untested assumptions, so as it evolves, I'll have to study the tried-and-tested models of Medium, Reddit, HN, and think about what works, what doesn't, what Karma users need/want, and then innovate upon that assessment if needed. I have some thoughts on that but I'm still battling some stability dragons over here...

Thanks again for poking around and helping out.

Thank you for this. I've added each of these to the Retrospective post here:

https://www.karma.fm/p/67VCB/karma-retrospective-1014

RE the first bullet: did the introduction modal not pop up for you? If not, there's a bug. Anyone who hasn't visited should see the following:

https://i.imgur.com/p4J4oib.png

Thanks for taking time out of your day for this.

Sure thing, thanks for taking an interest. And yeah, that sounds about right. Although my dream is to gradually push this into the hands of some kind of meritocratic collective ownership, where the "workers" own the "means of production", which in this case would be the students/activists being able to fork the data, app code, and devops for free at any time.

RE ponzi scheme... hmmm... so when a Patron makes a $10 contribution, they can then choose which user receives half of their contribution. I wonder how to prevent the perception from turning Ponzi with this model...

hahahahaha stop distracting me with your wit