openfuture

Please join us on matrix! Starting from datalisp.is.

I am trying to make it easier for us to work together with datalisp.is

Bah come solve it then, datalisp.is.

I think that allow unfree in nix is practically the same as adding nonguix repo to your channels. Both are essentially one line of config in some file.

(I am former nixos user but now on guix)

What has starvation got to do with it? You can't eat money.

If you want to persuade someone to give you food for some kind of token then that token has to be meaningful enough that the person with the food can use it to get something else for it... social construct.

I am just saying that governance is inefficient due to poor incentives and that we are free to do whatever we want in cyberspace, including experiments on how we can align incentives better in the real world. If those experiments prove successful then the tokens will prove persuasive.

Or they pick the view that benefits everybody but nobody wants that because they are busy exploiting something that gives them relative advantage and don't see how they would be better off if they would have less relative advantage but better commons. Smart people have historically often been left destitute for their convictions.

My hot take is that people who believe in IQ have low IQ.

The Dialogical Roots of Deduction[0] is an excellent book that I was recommended by my math professor after making a comment about how mathematics are a form of persuasion, not a religious truth. It was refreshing to read something I could agree with so easily. That being said, I think a lot of philosophy of mathematics is not as insightful unless you also study mathematics. It is easy to misunderstand or try to apply theorems incorrectly.

0: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/dialogical-roots-of-ded...

Consider matrix bridge for those of us who will never use discord?

Lisp is called the dyck language or the catalan numbers depending on what kind of mathematician you are talking to.

Yeah exact. Proof of trust, web of trust,... datalisp.is

Not everything is about secret weapons... it is just simple and clear to use S-expressions, people like simple and clear.

If money is persuasion (i.e. I can pay you money to change your behaviour) then that explains perfectly why money is both energy and information....

Energy changes behaviour (that is literally how we reason about behaviour; in terms of energy).

Let me try to justify "energy = persuasion" (which a very hippie way of seeing energy)we factor persuasion into the information that was presented and then the trust you place in that information. The more you trust the information the more it affects your behaviour. Clearly this is contextual! Depending on how you choose to interpret information you may have different assessments of trust.

Energy is a more materialistic concept, the information would be the matter I suppose while the trust (which is contextual by above) has to be an assessment of the relation this information has to other information (matter in this case), i.e. you can easily obtain some kind of newtonian physics (drawing in the forces acting on an object as a way to assess how to trust this information in the context of material world).

I think that we will soon be mature enough to accept that this is the case and we will be willing to read https://datalisp.is (so I don't have to write this over and over again).

Legitimacy essentially has a similar role to gravity. It is a force acting on the trustworthiness of information; thereby affecting its' persuasiveness.

Money is a social construct. Public goods are traditionally funded by taxes. Dual to taxing someone would be to print new money for everyone except that person. We need to pay ourselves and take ourselves seriously.

Okay so preaching to the choir about how things are bad while almost everyone in said choir will be working full time on making things worse. Honestly it is perplexing. We have a massive incentive problem and the cheapest place to look for a solution is in cyberspace, I don't want to write this essay several times; http://datalisp.is.

No. Not yet. First we must(!) address the incentive problem in free software (and society) then things like minetest will outcompete things like minecraft naturally. The only reason it doesn't already is because developers can only get paid working on less valuable (read: closed) software. See: https://datalisp.is.

+1 for #clschool, it's a really great place to learn lisp.

Alright so you can go check out datalisp.is and tala saman then.. it's my attempt

In order to start doing this we need a standard to build on. The simplest thing should be the easiest thing to agree on and that has been the case so far in how math has moved forward (afaict) but sometimes local optimas get in the way of progress.

Well zig could be a no tradeoff improvement over C while rust definitely has tradeoffs. So I think "all good" is a plausible assessment.

Pay me for what I am doing: datalisp.is.

There's a way to reverse the trend and start moving in a better direction but we've got to work together to do it and right now I just don't see it, people are too blinded by short term gain.

This article couldn't be further from the truth! All you need to read is this comment.

Economists don't think, they feast. Mostly on the blood of the innocents but sometimes also on the bounties of nature or, rarely, on the delusions of idealists. Therefore what you must do is to learn how to feast, this is easier said than done since you cannot feast alone (unless you are the blessed one).

Nonsense such as "the economist" must be guarded against with thick sarcasm, maybe even borderline surrealism, this way you can shock your sense of discrimination into the configuration required to believe in the local tax authority. Which is a requirement for attending their feasts and learning the basics of economics.

The supply chain is a chain because it is like a relay race, information passes from person/organization/custodian and then to another. Unless they all cooperate in keeping the bureaucracy correct then there is no security, it can also be undermined while the information is in the of custody the traitor.

While you can benefit from being a traitor then there is no way to secure any supply chain.

We need a new economics if we want to solve the tragedy of the commons (in this case w.r.t. bureaucracy).

Don't you get it.. the dangerous political group is just normal people..

Haven't you been to an airport? or survived this covid period? The fear is proportional to the advantage.

If there's a 1000$ behind a door that costs 500$ to open then you open it no? Then the people who own everything must raise the price of opening the door or they'll have mutiny on their hands. We've seen the price steadily go up and it's not a coincidence.

I love how you brought up this meme (which used to be a consensus opinion fwict ~2009) and it immediately got discredit with multiple examples! Clearly this is not a way forward ("waiting for others to be outraged" - guess what? They already are!! You are all just too coward to change your behaviour) we /must/ move to FOSS and p2p, all energy should go towards solving the tragedy of the commons in cyberspace and then the resulting communication structures will help us solve our issues in meatspace. Anything else is just wishful thinking or waiting for the tools to be available from the programmer class.

I think the modern view of Georgism is based on there being no taxes but rather we move in the direction of stock markets; i.e. we tax people by diluting the stock (printing more) or giving worse exchange rates. One form of tax is decided internally while the other one is enforced externally. Now rather than all value deriving from land (as is the Georgist view) we would say that all value derives from bureaucracy (as is the Artificial Intelligence view), since we believe that with better data we can make better decisions. Therefore we need to assess which data is a worthwhile contribution to our model (i.e. we need to solve tragedy of the commons w.r.t. bureaucracy) but who can be trusted to assess such a thing?

The answer is no one, everyone, trust yourself and all of the above. I am almost certain that no algorithms are needed to do "proof of _" (just look at free software) emergent human behaviour can be codified gradually. Currently I think this is basically a UX problem - we need a way to pay the people who maintain the digital commons.

The game of printing more currency can be decided by a balance of the internal and external factors w.r.t. version control (where you are trying to decide relative value of contributions). You negotiate the best situation for yourself, the problem is symmetric and disputes cost too much attention so people lose interest and this thread of the project goes off-track so the exchange rates get worse or the supply of money dries up with no new versions... Basically, truthful stuff will probably win if we are careful about how we organize information since most people are quite pragmatic about stuff they aren't that interested in and money as a social construct only has meaning if we can reach approximate consensus on its distribution. This external pressure is what gets gradually explored and codified into (semi-)automated strategies for what is essentially investing.

The key idea though is that in a p2p system no one has oversight so everyone is in a situation of not knowing what to trust, my argument is that these social constructs are emergent because humans use them to communicate (to exchange assessments and make decisions on how to behave in the "real world"). Things that are taken seriously are considered legitimate and therefore the currency associated with producing that thing should be worth something but exactly how much is only decided when you find someone to trade with. One motivation for trade is if you depend on something, then you can buy insurance by lending legitimacy to the version you depend on (investing in that stock in some sense), that increases the legitimacy of the space of versions which means there is more to gain from making legitimate improvements to it - since there is someone who values them. Finding a bug in the most legitimate version means that you can print money at a very good exchange rate.

Such a system can be terribly inconsistent and still work good enough to be worth more than cryptocurrencies "secured" with various consensus mechanisms. Consistency is actually not incredibly important in the economic system I think. The more important thing is to avoid people prioritizing the measurement game over the reality and if the rules of the measurement game are too well defined then that is hard to avoid. Of course there is some balance here, I guess I am playing devils advocate by leaning a bit hard into the inconsistent economics. Probably some people would choose to maintain absolute consistency in order to obtain legitimacy.

This is becoming a ramble but was ment to be a compact braindump of what I am working towards with http://datalisp.is.

Oh we definitely still have Ted Nelsons, what we don't have is a way to find them. Right now people are lost deep in some social media private groups and the surface level information is all war, disease and drugs.

Obligatory "elixir+phoenix is supposed to inherit ruby on rails" remark

Unique identifiers are the antithesis of content addressing since they garble the advantage (digital commons or "torrents").

If you want a graph then you can just encode it in the data by having `n` content addresses and ca. `n^2` bits for the adjacency matrix.

The DAG of content addressess is only in the abstract when you have "unflattened" data and all you can do is chase the references to earlier content addresses. If you have some semantics for relating content addresses then you can flatten stuff into graph structures (or whatever you desire) by providing the relevant metadata (that relates the data in question).

Now you have more canonical data that can be content addressed.. This is the essence of what I am doing with datalisp.