2,260 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2020
    1. In Rust, we use the "No New Rationale" rule, which says that the decision to merge (or not merge) an RFC is based only on rationale that was presented and debated in public. This avoids accidents where the community feels blindsided by a decision.
    2. I'd like to go with an RFC-based governance model (similar to Rust, Ember or Swift) that looks something like this: new features go through a public RFC that describes the motivation for the change, a detailed implementation description, a description on how to document or teach the change (for kpm, that would roughly be focused around how it affected the usual workflows), any drawbacks or alternatives, and any open questions that should be addressed before merging. the change is discussed until all of the relevant arguments have been debated and the arguments are starting to become repetitive (they "reach a steady state") the RFC goes into "final comment period", allowing people who weren't paying close attention to every proposal to have a chance to weigh in with new arguments. assuming no new arguments are presented, the RFC is merged by consensus of the core team and the feature is implemented. All changes, regardless of their source, go through this process, giving active community members who aren't on the core team an opportunity to participate directly in the future direction of the project. (both because of proposals they submit and ones from the core team that they contribute to)
    3. So I propose having the repo in place, and using it for targeted proposals where we really want feedback from early users, and hold off formalising anything more until early next year, as you said.
    1. Express - 19 $ 🏃‍♀️ Skip the Review Queue 🕒 Published in 3 days 💌 Full Customer Support 💚 Support the team

      Wow, after seeing how this site works, I don't like much like it anymore.

      Esp. this below:

      Choose your preferred publish date - 9 $ Feature your project on top for 14 days and get an additional tweet - 19 $

      I hope there is/will be soon a more open/free alternative (like the "awesome" lists that use GitHub PRs instead of an opaque/proprietary submisison form).

    1. Tunnelgram is fully open source (server and client) and uses the Tunnelwire Encryption Scheme, so you can see all of the code it's built on.
  2. Oct 2020
    1. Fifth, and most challenging, we can work to reverse the divergence between the centre and the periphery. The previous four elements would help with this. But greater policy efforts are needed to give regions, where possible, a critical mass of knowledge jobs so they can connect with the leading economic activity in national centres.

      These are all downstream (redistributive) fiscal policies - nothing here on seriously addressing the main driver of inequality which is a "closed" information economy. Having identified the source at the start Sadhu is failing to think through the logic. (Or i suspect not seeing fully the source of the inequality related to automation and IT ie. costless copying plus monopoly rights).

    2. These changes are not, on the whole, the fault of globalisation, that scapegoat of the populist insurgency, but of technology-driven changes combined with policies that have reinforced the underlying forces of divergence.

      +1 this is precisely argument of open revolution.

    1. from tuka al-salani 60:48 and well actually it is a question but it's something that will probably 60:52 is out beyond our scope here but how would 60:56 social annotation be used as a research tool so not research into it but how 61:00 would we use it as a research tool

      Opening up social annotation and connecting it to a network of researchers' public-facing zettelkasten could create a sea-change of thought

      This is a broader concept I'm developing, but thought I'd bookmark this question here as an indicator that others are also interested in the question though they may not have a means of getting there (yet).

    1. However, a healthy news ecosystem doesn’t just require a thriving free press, it also needs a diversity of curators, newsletters and content discovery options that enable the weird and wonderful to surface. We want to use Nuzzel as a test kitchen to see what models works for curators as well as content creators. The simple goal is a sustainable open web where the goals of creators, curators and consumers are aligned around the best possible experience.

      This sounds exciting to me and could dovetail with efforts of many with respect to IndieWeb for Journalism.

    1. to what extent is there value in breaking down the wall between blogging and wiki, and to what extent are these two technologies best left to do what they do best?
    2. Should Wikity follow the wiki tradition of supplying editable source to collaborators? Or the web syndication model of supplying encoded content. (Here, actually, I come down rather firmly on the source side of the equation — encoded content is a model suited for readers, not co-authors).

      What does he mean by "encoded" content? and why is it a problem?

    1. being able to follow links to “follow a conversation” that is threaded on Twitter.

      This is one of my favorite parts about my website and others supporting Webmention: the conversation is aggregated onto or more closely adjacent to the source. This helps prevent context collapse.

      Has anyone made a browser tool for encouraging lateral reading? I'd love a bookmarklet that I could click to provide some highly relevant lateral reading resources for any particular page I'm on.

    1. The ideas here make me think that being able to publish on one's own site (and potentially syndicate) and send/receive webmentions may be a very useful tool within open science. We should move toward a model of academic samizdat where researchers can publish their own work for themselves and others. Doing this will give them the credit (and job prospects, etc.) while still allowing movement forward.

    1. High-level bodies such as the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the European Commission have called for science to become more open and endorsed a set of data-management standards known as the FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable) principles.
    1. The plan is to use the site to share surveys, interviews, and researcher notes.

      Note to self: I need to keep documenting examples of these open labs, open notebooks, etc. in the open science area.


      [also on boffosocko.com]

    2. academia is built on the premise (IMHO) of getting a good idea, parlaying that into a job and tenure, and waiting for death. I’ve had a lot of colleagues and acquaintances ask why I would bother blogging. Ask why I share all of this content online. Ask why I’m not afraid that someone is going to steal my ideas.

      Though all too true, this is just a painful statement for me. The entirety of our modern world is contingent upon the creation of ideas, their improvement and evolution, and their spreading. In an academic world where attribution of ideas is paramount, why wouldn't one publish quickly and immediately on one's own site (or anywhere else they might for that matter keeping in mind that it's almost trivially easy to self-publish it on one's own website nearly instantaneously)?

      Early areas of science were held back by the need to communicate by handwriting letters as the primary means of communication. Books eventually came, but the research involved and even the printing process could take decades. Now the primary means of science communication is via large (often corporate owned) journals, but even this process may take a year or more of research and then a year or more to publish and get the idea out. Why not write the ideas up and put them out on your own website and collect more immediate collaborators? Funding is already in such a sorry state that generally, even an idea alone, will not get the ball rolling.

      I'm reminded of the gospel song "This little light of mine" whose popular lyrics include: "Hide it under a bushel? No! / I'm gonna let it shine" and "Don't let Satan blow it out, / I'm gonna let it shine"

      I'm starting to worry that academia in conjunction with large corporate publishing interests are acting the role of Satan in the song which could easily be applied to ideas as well as to my little light.


      [also on boffosocko.com]

    1. working in public, and asking students to work in public, is fraught with dangers and challenges.
    2. If OER is free, what hidden costs exist in its production? Making these textbooks is taking me a chunk of time in the off-season.  Thanks to my salaried position, I feel ok about putting in the overtime, but it’s a privilege my colleagues who teach under year-to-year part-time non-contracts can’t afford. Who should be funding OER creation? Institutions? Students? For-profit start-ups? How will you invest time in this project without obscuring the true costs of academic labor? Right now, we pass the corruptly high cost of academic publishing onto the backs of academia’s most vulnerable members: students. But as OER gains steam, we need to come up with funding models that don’t land us back in the same quagmire of exploitation that we were trying to get out of.

      This is a nearly perfect question and something to watch in the coming years.

    3. Most of the actual texts in the Heath were public domain texts, freely available and not under any copyright restrictions.  As the Heath produced new editions (of literature from roughly 1400-1800!), forcing students to buy new textbooks or be irritatingly out of sync with page numbers, and as students turned to rental markets that necessitated them giving their books back at the end of the semester, I began to look in earnest for an alternative.

      Repackaging public domain texts and charging a steep markup too much above and beyond the cost of the paper is just highway robbery. Unless a publisher is adding some actual annotative or analytical value, they shouldn't be charging outrageous prices for textbooks of this nature.

    1. Paquette outlines 3 sets of foundational values of open pedagogy, namely:  autonomy and interdependence; freedom and responsibility; democracy and participation.
    2. open pedagogy is currently a sort of proxy for the use and creation of open educational resources as opposed to being tied to a broader pedagogical objective.
    3. And to Vivian Rolfe’s point made at OpenEd 16, are we are paying enough attention to voices of the past?

      And of course, there's the flip side of thinking about the voices of the future as well. Looking at the past is a nice exercise, but consider what those in the past would have potentially done differently if they could have seen the future? We should spend a moment or two of reflection on what the future potentially holds with the prior of where we are right now.

    4. us ed tech folks will recognize some of the themes – individualized learning, learner choice, self-direction, – to name a few.

      Aren't these all just Montessori principles under a different name?

    1. Because students know their work will be used both by their peers and potentially by future generations of students, they invest in this work at a different level.

      I'm wondering if Greg McVerry stated something along these lines at the beginning of EDU522? I suspected he's planning something along these lines, but I'm unsure if it was stated specifically. Students should also know about creative commons and be actively opting in to creating this content as open while they're doing it. They also shouldn't be forced into opening it up, or if they do, not necessarily taking credit for it if they choose not to.

    2. Free to accessFree to reuseFree to reviseFree to remixFree to redistributeThe question becomes, then, what is the relationship between these additional capabilities and what we know about effective teaching and learning? How can we extend, revise, and remix our pedagogy based on these additional capabilities?

      I look at this and think immediatly about the Git model of allowing people to not only fork and reuse/redistribute pieces, but what about the ability to do pull requests to take improvements and push them back up the the source so that everyone potentially benefits?

    1. They are allowed to operate independently and explore with personal freedom.

      There is still typically a "thing(s)" they need to learn, a goal they need to reach, or standards that are typically set, so the freedom only goes so far.

    1. The current buzz about open pedagogy got kick-started in David Wiley’s 2013 blog post. Wiley defined open pedagogy as any approach or technique that would not be possible without the “5Rs” (at the time listed as the “4Rs plus free to access”: free to access, free to reuse, free to revise, free to remix, free to redistribute – the right to retain came later…) of OER.
    1. Commonplace books, during the Renaissance, were used to enhance the memory. Yeo writes, This reflected the ancient Greek and Roman heritage. In his Topica, Aristotle formulated a doctrine of ‘places’ (topoi or loci) that incorporated his ten categories. A link was soon drawn between this doctrine of ‘places’ (which were, for Aristotle, ‘seats of arguments’, not quotations from authors) and the art of memory. Cicero built on this in De Oratore, explaining that ‘it is chiefly order that gives distinctness to memory’; and Quintilian’s Institutio Oratoria became an influential formulation. This stress on order and sequence was the crux of what came to be known as ‘topical memory’, cultivated by mnemonic techniques (‘memoria technica’) involving the association of ideas with visual images. These ideas, forms of argument, or literary tropes were ‘placed’ in the memory, conceived in spatial terms as a building, a beehive, or a set of pigeon holes. This imagined space was then searched for the images and ideas it contained…. In the ancient world, the practical application of this art was training in oratory; yet Cicero stressed that the good orator needed knowledge, not just rhetorical skill, so that memory had to be trained to store and retrieve illustrations and arguments of various kinds. Although Erasmus distrusted the mnemonic arts, like all the leading Renaissance humanists, he advocated the keeping of commonplace books as an aid to memory.

      I particularly love the way this highlights the phrase "'placed' in the memory" because the idea of loci as a place has been around so long that we tacitly use it as a verb so naturally in conjunction with memory!

      Note here how the author Richard Yeo manages not to use the phrase memory palace or method of loci.Was this on purpose?

    1. Ideas on how to analyze and predict network behavior have been informed by concepts arising from the computational and social sciences, which are themselves increasingly concerned with understanding networks. The interesting thing about these ideas is that they work at scales ranging from the molecular to the population level.

      scale free networks perhaps?

    1. Is it possible to avoid the public goods problem altogether?

      As Lynne Kelly indicates, knowledge is a broad public good, so it is kept by higher priests and only transferred in private ceremonies to the initiated in indigenous cultures. In many senses, we've brought the value of specific information down dramatically, but there's also so much of it now, even with writing and better dissemination, it's become more valuable again.

      I should revisit the economics of these ideas and create a model/graph of this idea over history with knowledge, value, and time on various axes.

    1. I’ve alluded to the deeply philosophical nature of this problem; in a sense, it’s politicized within the software communities. Some folks believe that platform developers should shoulder the costs of compatibility, and others believe that platform users (developers themselves) should bear the costs. It’s really that simple. And isn’t politics always about who has to shoulder costs for shared problems?So it’s political. And there will be angry responses to this rant.

      This idea/philosophy cuts across so many different disciplines. Is there a way to fix it? Mitigate it? An equation for maximizing it?

    1. By the time Protestantism came along, people had already internalized an individualist worldview. Henrich calls Protestantism “the WEIRDest religion,” and says it gave a “booster shot” to the process set in motion by the Catholic Church. Integral to the Reformation was the idea that faith entailed personal struggle rather than adherence to dogma. Vernacular translations of the Bible allowed people to interpret scripture more idiosyncratically. The mandate to read the Bible democratized literacy and education. After that came the inquiry into God-given natural (individual) rights and constitutional democracies. The effort to uncover the laws of political organization spurred interest in the laws of nature—in other words, science. The scientific method codified epistemic norms that broke the world down into categories and valorized abstract principles. All of these psychosocial changes fueled unprecedented innovation, the Industrial Revolution, and economic growth.

      Reading this makes me think about the political break in the United States along political and religious boundaries. Some of Trumps' core base practices a more personal religion and are generally in areas that don't display the level of individualism, but focus more on larger paternalistic families. This could be an interesting space for further exploration as it seems to be moving the "progress"(?) described by WEIRD countries backward.

    1. The Indian government is pushing a bold proposal that would make scholarly literature accessible for free to everyone in the country

      "... accessible for free ..."

      open access sampai hari ini memang hanya diartikan sebagai membuat artikel ilmiah dapat diunduh dengan membayar APC atau dikenal sebagai modus Gold OA.

      Artikel oleh Peter Suber ini menjelaskan bahwa OA tidak hanya bisa dilakukan melalui jurnal Gold OA.

  3. Sep 2020
    1. Although it’s difficult, changing our minds is not impossible.

      People need to have more of an open mind and be able to look at other peoples perspective.

    1. Many organizations assert copyright for any media which they touch, without any consideration of whether the media is eligible for copyright or whether they own the copyright.

      Shouldn't cases like these be taken to trial? Imagine someone forbidding access to a public square under allegation that it belongs to them. Afraid of being prosecuted, people start paying this person to enter the public square. One day someone decides to take the case to court. The court can't simply rule that the person can't continue asking for money to use the square. The person should be punished for having deterred people from freely using the square for so long.

    1. Hennessy, E. A., Acabchuk, R., Arnold, P. A., Dunn, A. G., Foo, Y. Z., Johnson, B. T., Geange, S. R., Haddaway, N. R., Nakagawa, S., Mapanga, W., Mengersen, K., Page, M. J., Sánchez-Tójar, A., Welch, V., & McGuinness, L. A. (2020). Ensuring Prevention Science Research is Synthesis-Ready for Immediate and Lasting Scientific Impact [Preprint]. MetaArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/ptg9j

    1. The initials fa in the class refer to Font Awesome, an open- source set of icons created by Dave Gandy,23 which further links this project to the open- source community and its ethos of collaboration. Font Awesome gives the community icons for making professional- grade web apps, rendering artifacts and objects legible in the contemporary web design ecology

      Font Awesome est une police d'écriture et un outil d'icônes qui se base sur CSS, LESS et SASS (Wikipédia, « Font Awesome », consulté le 22 septembre 2020).

    1. "das Netz", "die Digitalisierung" oder sogar "das Wissen"

      Ich zweifle daran, dass es das Netz, die Digitalisierung und das Wissen gibt. Ich glaube, dass es sich auch bei ihnen um lokale Phänomene handelt, die auch anders sein könnten, und hinter denen es keine übergreifende Notwendigkeit gibt. Das offene Netz wurde und wird von bestimmten Gruppen und in bestimmten Machtkonstellationen entwickelt, verteidigt und vorangetrieben. Die Digitalisierung hängt eng mit z.B. der kalifornischen counter culture aber auch z.B. der Miniaturisierung und der Firmenpolitik von Chipkonzernen, z.B. Intel zusammen. Sie sähe in einer anderen historischen Konstellation, wenn sie z.B. ihr erstes Zentrum in China oder auch in Europa gewesen wäre, ganz anders aus.

    1. Huang has his sights set firmly on Intel, but while Intel has leveraged its integration of design and manufacturing, Nvidia is going to leverage its integration of chip design and software.

      beyond CUDA mentioned throughout, it's also worth mentioning that Nvidia still lacks useful open source drivers on Linux, and does not provide technical info that commonly is available to document their systems, such that open source developers could build open source drivers

    1. If the Web is governed by a single corporation, it will start looking like that corporation’s vision of the Web, ultimately limiting its own potential. Trading short term gain on new shiny features for long term vision.

      Door het web open te houden is er op lange termijn meer mogelijk. De beperkende factor wordt anders de visie van de eigenaar en de korte termijn eisen van aandeelhouders en trendwatchers.

  4. Aug 2020
    1. Ray, E. L., Wattanachit, N., Niemi, J., Kanji, A. H., House, K., Cramer, E. Y., Bracher, J., Zheng, A., Yamana, T. K., Xiong, X., Woody, S., Wang, Y., Wang, L., Walraven, R. L., Tomar, V., Sherratt, K., Sheldon, D., Reiner, R. C., Prakash, B. A., … Consortium, C.-19 F. H. (2020). Ensemble Forecasts of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the U.S. MedRxiv, 2020.08.19.20177493. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.19.20177493

    1. Open Source flutter Apps permits you to make lovely native apps on iOS and Android from one codebase. The most goal of this repository is to seek out free open supply apps and begin contributive. Be at liberty to contribute to the list, any suggestions square measure welcome!
    1. Successful long-lived open systems owe their success to building decades-long micro-communities around extensions/plugins, also known as a marketplace.

      This could be said of most early web standards like HTML as well...

    1. Stallman has also stated that considering the practical advantages of free software is like considering the practical advantages of not being handcuffed, in that it is not necessary for an individual to consider practical reasons in order to realize that being handcuffed is undesirable in itself.
    1. GitLab is moving all development for both GitLab Community Edition and Enterprise Edition into a single codebase. The current gitlab-ce repository will become a read-only mirror, without any proprietary code. All development is moved to the current gitlab-ee repository, which we will rename to just gitlab in the coming weeks. As part of this migration, issues will be moved to the current gitlab-ee project.
    2. How does the licensing work in this new setup? Everything in the ee/ directory is proprietary. Everything else is free and open source software. If your merge request does not change anything in the ee/ directory, the process of contributing changes is the same as when using the gitlab-ce repository.
  5. Jul 2020
    1. "Other office suites are focusing on the 'power user' which is a valuable market, for sure, but the real power and range for an open-source office suite alternative is the vast majority which is the 'rest of us. Sometimes we all forget how empowering open source is to the entire world."
    1. This is very irresponsible of them, with respect to the number of downloads. They should finally realize this and just redirect people to LO. Continuing like this hurts the Apache Foundation credibility as well as the open source community as a whole.
    1. This isn’t an accident. OpenOffice’s sidebar code was copied and incorporated into LibreOffice. The Apache OpenOffice project uses the Apache License, while the LibreOffice uses a dual LGPLv3 / MPL license. The practical result is LibreOffice can take OpenOffice’s code and incorporate it into LibreOffice — the licenses are compatible. On the other hand, LibreOffice has some features — like font embedding — that don’t appear in OpenOffice. This is because the two different licenses only allow a one-way transfer of code. LibreOffice can incorporate OpenOffice’s code, but OpenOffice can’t incorporate LibreOffice’s code. This is the result of the different licenses the projects chose.

      What part of LGPLv3 / MPL prevents LibreOffice code from being incorporated back into OpenOffice's Apache Licensed code??

    1. A growing number of platforms, vendors, and partners support the AMP Project by providing custom components or offering integration with AMP pages within their platforms.

      I guess AMP is actually open-source software, but it still feels like it's something non-standard. I guess it's just an alternative open standard to the "main" web open standards.

    1. Syncthing uses an open and documented protocol, and likewise the security mechanisms in use are well defined and visible in the source code. Resilio Sync uses an undocumented, closed protocol with unknown security properties.
    1. It doesn't seem to conventional-minded people that they're conventional-minded. It just seems to them that they're right. Indeed, they tend to be particularly sure of it.

      Someone that doesn't view themselves as conventional-minded, views themselves as open-minded. And who doesn't like to view themselves as open-minded?

    1. This model is the most flexible and open-ended of the four; your goal as an instructor is not to design a full-fledged semester of material, activities, and assessments. Rather, your goal is to work with your class to design and become a learning community, working collaboratively and individually towards your determined learning goals. For this to work you should have: a set of possible/preferred learning objectives for your classa library of course materials, preferably with as much as possible in digital formata suggested list of digital tools and technologies that you’re comfortable from with a list of possible assignment/project/assessment ideas that are related to your learning objectivesa willingness to experiment and invite your students into the teaching & learning process. At the onset of class you will need to facilitate a conversation among you and your students about how the class will unfold. This can be done in small groups f2f, via an online communication tool, or in a hybrid mix of both. As a community you should plan on addressing the following: what are our objectives as a learning community? what kind of work could we engage in to meet these objectives? what physical/virtual spaces would we like to work in? how/when do we want to meet in these spaces?how do we want to measure (assess) if an objective has been met?what rules and policies should govern our work? how will we work virtually and respect everyone’s boundaries and personal situations? how will we work f2f and respect public health recommendations and personal situations? You will probably need to spend at least the first 1-2 weeks answering these questions together and then designing a plan for your course. Make sure you and your students talk through various complications: what if the university’s policies about meeting f2f change? what if classes are forced to move entirely virtual/remote? what someone (students or professor!) gets sick?

      This is the one for me!!!!

    2. c

      Apologies for highlighting whole swaths of paragraphs but it can't be helped sometimes lol.

    3. Finally, these are NOT meant to be comprehensive. Instead, imagine these models along a continuum of opportunity. Your challenge is to determine where your courses could fit between and among the proposals.  

      I'm wondering how much or how little faculty will need to change their curriculum/delivery depending on the various inevitable changes that we can't exactly predict will happen this school year. For those faculty member purposefully switching online, what changes have they made already, and what changes will become necessary in the near future?

  6. Jun 2020
    1. This integration of digital tools and automated technologies into building practices has become ever-more urgent in light of the agility that will be required to cope with the effects of climate change, including the increased mobility of people and reduction in material and human resources. Architecture that could accommodate more people in the event of mass migration, or construction practices that could efficiently utilise local resources instead of relying on global supply chains, are possible results of digitising the production of the built environment.

      As long as the tools are made freely available to the public, lest the control shift to those who own/control such tools (proprietary software in the hands of large digital coroporations).

    1. Clark, A., Jit, M., Warren-Gash, C., Guthrie, B., Wang, H. H. X., Mercer, S. W., Sanderson, C., McKee, M., Troeger, C., Ong, K. L., Checchi, F., Perel, P., Joseph, S., Gibbs, H. P., Banerjee, A., Eggo, R. M., Nightingale, E. S., O’Reilly, K., Jombart, T., … Jarvis, C. I. (2020). Global, regional, and national estimates of the population at increased risk of severe COVID-19 due to underlying health conditions in 2020: A modelling study. The Lancet Global Health, S2214109X20302643. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30264-3

    1. Syncthing uses an open and documented protocol, and likewise the security mechanisms in use are well defined and visible in the source code. Resilio Sync uses an undocumented, closed protocol with unknown security properties.
    1. This argument is reinforced by the fact that, at the individual level, we meet many brilliant people who are fascinated by (and often working on) tools for thought, but who nonetheless seem to be making slow progress.

      Ideas have sex: the trouble in a dramatically increasing landscape of information that we've experienced over the last century alone is that the combinatoric interactions of all the ideas is also much slower, so the progress on this front may seem to slow while the body of knowledge and interactions is continually growing. This might make for an interesting graph.

    1. "You wanted open source privacy-preserving Bluetooth contact tracing code? #DP3T software development kits/calibration apps for iOS and Android, and backend server, now on GitHub. iOS/Android apps with nice interface to follow." Michael Veale on Twitter (see context)

    1. Unlike Telegram, WhatsApp is not open source, so there’s no way for security researchers to easily check whether there are backdoors in its code. Not only does WhatsApp not publish its code, they do the exact opposite: WhatsApp deliberately obfuscates their apps’ binaries to make sure no one is able to study them thoroughly. 
  7. May 2020
    1. What I Think Should Be Done  For the previously explained reasons, I believe that capitalism is a fundamentally sound system that is now not working well for the majority of people, so it must be reformed to provide many more equal opportunities and to be more productive. To make the changes, I believe something like the following is needed.  Leadership from the top. I have a principle that you will not effect change unless you affect the people who have their hands on the levers of power so that they move them to change things the way you want them to change. So there need to be powerful forces from the top of the country that proclaim the income/wealth/opportunity gap to be a national emergency and take on the responsibility for reengineering the system so that it works better. Bipartisan and skilled shapers of policy working together to redesign the system so it works better. I believe that we will do this in a bipartisan and skilled way or we will hurt each other. So I believe the leadership should create a bipartisan commission to bring together skilled people from different communities to come up with a plan to reengineer the system to simultaneously divide and increase the economic pie better. That plan will show how to raise money and spend/invest it well to produce good double bottom line returns. Clear metrics that can be used to judge success and hold the people in charge accountable for achieving it. In running the things I run, I like to have clear metrics that show how those who are responsible for things are doing and have rewards and punishments that are based on how these metrics change. Having these would produce the accountability and feedback loop that are required to achieve success. To the extent possible, I’d bring that sort of accountability down to the individual level to encourage an accountability culture in which individuals are aware of whether they are net contributors or net detractors to the society, and the individuals and the society make attempts to make them net contributors.   Redistribution of resources that will improve both the well-beings and the productivities of the vast majority of people. As an economic engineer, naturally I think about how money might be obtained from taxes, borrowing, businesses, and philanthropy, and how it would flow to affect prices and economies. For example, I think about how a change in personal tax rates might occur and how changes in them relative to corporate tax rates would affect how money would flow, and how changes in tax rates in one location relative to another location would drive flows and outcomes in them. I also think a lot about how the money raised will be spent—e.g., how much will be spent on programs that will improve both social and economic outcomes, and how much will be redistributive. Such decisions would of course be up to the people on the bipartisan commission and the leadership to decide and are way too complicated an engineering exercise for me to opine on here. I can, however, give my big picture inclinations. Above all else, I’d want to achieve good double bottom line results. To do that I’d:

      Not one mention of systematic change about information policy - nothing like open revolution.

      Core is some redistribution. Nothing substantive about how the basic mechanisms will change.

    2. The pursuit of profit and greater efficiencies has led to the invention of new technologies that replace people, which has made companies run more efficiently, rewarded those who invented these technologies, and hurt those who were replaced by them. This force will accelerate over the next several years, and there is no plan to deal with it well.

      This is huge - this is the essence of open revolution. Though he phrases it as a choice. The choice is in the rules we create.