openfuture

Some people are talking on matrix about how to fix it (i.e. how to go fully p2p)

Bureaucracy (which is when whatever is written trumps reality; so if it is a rule that it doesn't rain then the bureaucrat will stand in the rain, soaked to the bones, and deny its existence because the rules say it can't be there).

I'll give it a read. Central coordination is obviously the problem, it's a brittle monoculture in an everchanging reality. The sooner we wake up from this delusion, the better.

Yep. Also don't have a smartphone. Also experience coercion due to it.

Not me. I am building http://datalisp.is.

I am also a douglas adams fan but younger than you by more than a decade so I think we can trust this perception we share.

My objection to the current state of things is absolute. So I'm in the "die trying" phase of "changing the world" - it is going excellently - I don't have a single cent and cannot go to the doctor or control my diet.

The thing is, people don't do anything unless rewarded by the assessment system (at what age do kids start asking "if it will be on the exam" - because a few years later they're lost). If people assess the situation honestly then they see that the assessment system is lost in delusion but, in my experience, that makes people doubt their own assessments rather than the system.

It is one big tragedy of the commons w.r.t. bureaucracy.

The solution is to throw away all notions of safety, nothing can be a safe store of value, no one can have oversight over the bureaucracy... we'll just have probabilistic assessments of our worth w.r.t. various contexts and we'll be able to use this data to persuade others to do business with us (so they can increase the likelihood that they can persuade others in tgeir contexts).

This way we have a chance, with our current system it is trivial to prove that we don't (tragedy wrt bureaucracy).

Surprising how many people take the stance that they don't have to do anything.

It's not that I disagree or anything, it is totally irrefutable, but many people have a sense of responsibility nevertheless and they feel a lot better when they've managed to justify themselves somehow. For example I know many people who refuse to go as guests to others peoples homes without bringing a gift with them.

Some people feel entitled to their space due to some contribution they've made to the collective or just simply because of their beliefs being "correct" .. there's all sorts, however, I am not expecting people to have that much self-reflection.. still it surprises me that most of the people who thought to answer would be of the "I have no need to justify myself" persuasion. I wonder what the lurkers think..

In my opinion you are senior once it doesn't matter what language is used. Until then you need to learn paradigms that are unfamiliar to you so that everything becomes familiar and you feel comfortable working with anything.

Very good pointers, match my thinking on the topics I had considered.

One thing though is that I'm not a fan of uuids, I think content addressing is sufficient if you build everything around that. Actually I feel all IDs can be content address and type/name/context. Ofc I'm approaching this slightly differently, I don't care about web browsers but I care about p2p and replication..

I am basically in the "change or die trying" camp, I have become completely and absolutely incapabable of accepting a job creating problems for ordinary people.

Mostly it's because I have a pretty clear vision for what needs to happen but I'm stuck alone in a future that no one else seems to see and it is wearing me down tbh.

We can make things less painful by just doing the things that make sense for a little bit and then the whole house of cards will come tumbling down and work will be useful again... why no one else sees this idk but what is almost incredible is how incapable people are when it comes to trusting their own assessments rather than the ones made by economic/judicial/certification- systems, often they will acknowledge what I have to say but then are too comfortable to "rock the boat"

Hands to keyboard

For me this is just as ridiculous as everything else being discussed.. why can anyone ever find out about an arrest that leads nowhere? Why all this dancing around? Because not even the police databases are secure! No one has trustworthy computers or communication technology and it is causing waaay too much drama.

croatoan is the one I am using

The thing is; people can clearly see that the internet is going to be the foundation of our societal communication infrastructures (such as money, politics and other governance). Therefore technologies that enable that are somewhat inevitable... it's just all done in such bad faith that it leaves us reeling.

This thing you are talking about is called the oracle problem.

The solution to it is to move away from centrally coordinated definitions. This also means central currencies built on on a decentralized computation of some kind (i.e. blockchains).

You can see why that is not compatible with the narrative coming from the sky... there'd be no safe store of value.. how to become rich with no metric?

Question is (for me at least) who is going to be the first giant to betray the current economic system as the real world collapse becomes too obvious to ignore (hint: they'll probably be actually competent).

Lots of good points raised, necessary discussion.

My take is that we know a lot of this already but refuse to accept the solutions. The way to exchange data and the way to relate and query data is both known to a large extent; canonical S-expressions and datalog-ish expressivity. I just can't understand why no one thinks datalisp.is a persuasive foundation.

There's a nice TUI lib for cl that I am using for tala (my take on this "TUIs will eat the web" thing... datalisp.is).

Hey man, you are right, the legitimacy of many coordinators is at an all time low.

The simple way to move on is to just move on. Please help me: datalisp.is.

The assumptions I'm working from: https://sr.ht/~ilmu/tala.saman/

We need to find games that people will want to play.

Definitely true if the intentions of said diva are good. Although, if they weren't then they'd probably be classified as an asshole rather than diva.

Yea I'm also im the never again employed camp. Trying to build myself a sustainable solution to this problem of eating and sleeping though.

Learn how to program and head into theorem prover territory, the undergraduate math curriculum and beyond is being built in those tools so you can watch it unfold and learn it as the material progresses. You will understand it since it will be communicated in a language that you understand formally and it is literally the math that math students are learning.

I'd recommend agda as a place to start.

"stupidity" I'd rather think of this as "wasted potential" the reason you reach for this pejorative label is due to frustration.

A wise man once said that there is nothing more common than wasted potential, in that sense I agree with some of this article.

I believe that people should be a lot more trigger happy when it comes to writing stream of consciousness and sharing it.. but at the same time we should be structuring our communication tools around iterative refinement so that the reader can pick up the slack and make the adjustments they feel make sense and slowly the final version of the text emerges from this process.. Right now we do a lot of denial of service attacks on science because we've raised the bar to an anxiety inducing extent, I believe it is important to bring it back down again so that we can all be humans.

So you trust that a conspiracy is less likely than people just replicating and getting the same results (within tolerance).

If you are unsure you can convince yourself by replicating and then others can trust easier because you're probably not part of a conspiracy.

But it's all based on trust in the end. Again, no _one_ replicates everything.

Science is built on trust, no one reproduces every single finding and in the first place we measure the likelihood of some conclusion holding up in reality so we have probabilistic measures of trust in our conclusions, turns out that we can definitely build a society on this kind of trust. See my other responses to people responding to me (or datalisp.is which is a work in progress) to piece together what I am describing.

The chinese five element system is made from the generating and overcoming relations (pentagram, pentagon, resp.) if the labels you put on this structure don't produce a nice "story" when you traverse along either cycle (such as with the five fingers or whatever) then it doesn't fit very well now does it?

Your labels are similar to the ones Keith uses in Impro, they have been very insightful on my own journey so I think you've probably helped lots of people with your model, if this hint can help you improve your model then that would be a positive.

One cool five that I've found is the ancient egyptian model of eloquence, may want to look into that.

> If there's not an ironclad, undeniable path between the scientific method and optimal human values, then the only way to arrive at a culture where science is the shared value and ideology is coercion.

Let's leave the scientific method aside for now and focus on persuasive arguments as the way to change behavior (scientific method is persuasive but is not necessarily the only method to persuade someone ethically).

> I see no way to scientifically conclude almost anything about correct personal values.

Well the way I would attempt to persuade someone is by teaching them about the tragedy of the commons, i.e. when the security of the many is threatened by the incentives afforded to the individual, usually we call this pollution or corruption but I'll call it the tragedy of the commons.

Now, the persuasive argument would be that you would rather be persuaded than coerced (or that is my assumption here) but if you were to undermine the security of the whole to enrich yourself then it follows that if the whole is properly coordinated then they would balance out your gains by refusing to work with you, thereby eliminating the advantage you achieved with your actions and if you are made aware of this preemptively then your calculations change and you realize that the only way for you to gain an advantage is to contribute to the commons.

There are some assumptions in there and the argument is not completely persuasive as I delivered it here but I am trying to make a scientific experiment of sorts by building a system on these principles and seeing if the resulting economics can become more legitimate than the current system without being founded on coercion (i.e. whether people will willingly move to this new economic system because they perceive their interests better aligned with this method of assessment) ... you can check out datalisp.is, I was recently on the street and I am still flat broke (because I refuse to go against my morals - all part of the experiment ;) so this project has been crawling along, now my situation is on an upswing so I am hoping to make a lot of progress in the coming months.

So if you take the p2p model seriously (for example) then you have no way to force a peer to accept an update, there is no coercion when it comes to beliefs.

All I can do is be patient and wait for others to reach the same conclusions I have. Also if people are interested (like you are) I can attempt to communicate my beliefs but I have no right. The communication may backfire into me accepting different beliefs.

What I am saying with my original comment is just that I don't believe in coercion as a way to coordinate society. I believe people would rather be persuaded (i.e. presented with information in as coherent a way as we know how to and then given free choice w.r.t. their behaviour) than coerced (threatened with censorship), I do acknowledge that there is a fine line between the two and I am not always sure how to draw it.

Reality

Lol sounds like we are similar people. I also enjoyed reading your massive profile.

BTW w.r.t. the OODA-loop I suppose you've made the connection with the chinese five element system? This is a general theory of digestion fwict, for example yoga has five stages of breathing, impro (by keith johnstone) has five stages of overcoming shame (unlocking creativity) etc.

There is also the overcoming cycle though, it's not just the generating relations!