we want the objection you would raise in a meeting rather than the one you would leave in a comment
we want the objection you would raise in the meeting, not the one you would leave in a comment.
79 Matching Annotations
- Last 7 days
-
uncaging-robots.com uncaging-robots.com
-
-
It needs the safety engineer’s rigor about what a requirement actually means, the actuary’s care about how much weight a number can carry, and the operator’s pragmatism about what a working floor will really keep.
It needs the safety engineer’s rigor about what a requirement actually means, the actuary’s care about how much weight a number can carry, and the operator’s pragmatism about what a working floor will actually maintain.
-
The application-side work item is the gap, and a national member body is who can open it.
The application-side work item is the gap, and a national member body can open it.
-
Surplus lines is the door this class can come in through, and the standard market is where the record eventually carries it.[46] Whether it lands as endorsements on the lines that already run, or a product of its own, is the record’s call, not ours.
Surplus lines is the door this class can come in through, and the standard market is where it can eventually graduate. [46] Whether that happens through endorsements on existing lines or a product of its own is for the market to decide, not us.
-
A blanket AI exclusion is one of two available answers.
A blanket AI exclusion is one of two available answers to this risk.
-
Ops already needs the telemetry; kept to the requirements, it is the book the production deployment arrives with.
Ops already needs the telemetry; turned into a record that meets these requirements, it becomes the book the production deployment arrives with.
-
Stamp every hour of the record with who was in control: autonomous, supervised, teleoperated, or in handover.
Stamp every hour of the record with the operating mode: autonomous, supervised, teleoperated, or in handover.
-
The record is the only one of those you control.
The record is the one part you control.
-
The three after them are requests.
The three sections after them are requests.
-
If pilots convert to production at scale through 2028 while the evidence stays ad hoc and the exclusions stay in place, then legible risk was never the bottleneck, and we overstated the asymmetry this document rests on. If carriers respond to the record by widening the exclusions rather than pricing on it, and no dedicated product outlives the current specialty programs, then insurance will not play its position in the loop. The record would still exist, but only where a law demands it. That is China’s answer, not a market’s. If claims frequency per robot-hour stays flat as uncaged deployments scale, then robot risk was more legible than we claimed, and the cage-era actuarial tables would have carried it. One caution on the test. Raw incident counts misfire at base rates this small, and the workplace injury rates on the books describe the programmed robot in its cage, not this class. Each test above is stated per robot-hour. Someone has to be keeping the hours.
If pilots convert to production at scale through 2028 while the evidence stays ad hoc and the exclusions stay in place, then legible risk was never the bottleneck. We overstated the asymmetry this document rests on.
If carriers respond to the record by widening exclusions rather than pricing from it, and no dedicated product outlives the current specialty programs, then insurance will not play its role in the loop. The record would still exist, but only where a law demands it. That is China’s answer, not a market’s.
If claims frequency per robot-hour stays flat as uncaged deployments scale, then robot risk was more legible than we claimed, and the cage-era actuarial tables were already good enough to price it.
One caution on the test: raw incident counts misfire when the base rate is this small, and the workplace injury rates on the books describe the programmed robot in its cage, not this class. Each test above is stated per robot-hour. Someone has to be keeping the hours.
-
Today that evidence is generated ad hoc and thrown away. Evidence from the pilot starts the Evidence Loop.
Today, much of that evidence is generated ad hoc and thrown away.
Evidence from the pilot starts the Evidence Loop.
-
That is the number the three renewals already run can read: the site’s workers’ comp, the site’s liability cover, and the maker’s product line.
That is the number the three renewals already run can read: the site’s workers’ comp, the site’s liability cover, and the maker’s product line.[49]
-
The mode split is only the first cut; the hour will divide again — task, payload, how close the people are — the way rating factors divided the mile.
The mode split is only the first cut. Robot-hours will eventually need to be broken down by task, payload, proximity to people, and other factors, just as auto risk eventually broke the mile into rating factors.
-
The robot that decides has none.
The robot that decides has no equivalent denominator yet.
-
Teleoperation is still essential to how these robots run, and will be for a long time. The ops record has to say who was in control: autonomous | supervised | teleoperated | handover-transition. The handover is the sharpest: who held authority, what triggered the transfer, how long to acknowledge. Today, which policy responds has to be fought over claim by claim, and everyone pays for the uncertainty. That field protects the operator, the deployer, and the maker from each other.
Teleoperation is still essential to how these robots run, and will be for a long time. A robot may be autonomous one minute and under human control the next. The ops record needs to capture the operating mode at every point: autonomous, supervised, teleoperated, or transitioning between them.
The most important moment is the handover. The record should show who had control, why the transfer happened, and how long it took.
Today, when something goes wrong, determining which policy responds can become a claim-by-claim dispute, and everyone pays for the uncertainty. A clear record of control makes responsibility easier to establish for the operator, the deployer, and the maker.
-
The telemetry is not new work. The ops team reads it every day: uptime, interventions, what an update broke. Keeping it to those requirements is new work, and the deployer pays for it. That is the cost of turning telemetry into evidence. The deployer also owns what it pays for: this is the one record the site can take to its own renewal.
The telemetry is not new work. The ops team reads it every day: uptime, interventions, what an update broke. The new work is turning that telemetry into a record that meets those requirements, and the deployer also owns what it pays for. This is the one record the site can take to its own renewal. There is already a familiar model for this: the flight recorder.
-
A robot works among badge readers, patient areas and product designs, and what the record leaves out is named up front rather than dropped later
A robot works among badge readers, patient areas and product designs. What the record leaves out should be named up front, not discovered later.
-
Complete is scoped, not total.
“Complete” is scoped, not total.
-
A model’s flaw ships to every unit at once, and neither side can assemble the other’s view alone
A model’s flaw can reach every unit at once, while the maker and deployer each see only part of the picture
-
It adds up two ways: one deployment, for that site’s insurance, and one model version across every site it runs on, for the maker’s.
It adds value in two ways: it gives the site a history for its insurance, and it gives the maker a history of each model version across every site where it runs.
-
It is rechecked when the model updates, or when the site’s operation does.
It is rechecked when the model updates, or when the site’s operation changes.
-
Existing standards roll into it, the battery’s cert and the site’s OSHA rules, what already makes the parts and the workplace safe.
Existing standards roll into it: the battery’s cert, the site’s OSHA rules, and whatever already makes the parts and workplace safe.
-
Only the deployer can sign for the deployment as it runs.[26] One record format covers every form factor because risk is realized at the deployment. The safety case stays specific to the application.
The deployer is the one who can account for what happens on the floor.[26] One record format can cover different robot form factors because risk is realized at the deployment. The safety case stays specific to the application.
-
The instrument attaches to the deployment, not the robot.
The record has to follow the deployment, not just the machine.
-
The pieces exist. Nothing binds them as a system.
The pieces are already here. What is missing is the system that connects them.
-
The record is the one object all of them can read, each for a different decision.
The record is the one thing all of them can use, each to make a different decision.
-
None of this waits on new authority.
None of this requires waiting for a new authority.
-
On the maker side, NVIDIA’s accredited lab is preparing integrations for certification by TÜV, UL and exida, and FORT is working on shipping the same layer into fleets.[31] But these certifications cover the design. They say nothing about what the machine did last quarter.
On the maker side, NVIDIA’s accredited lab is preparing integrations for certification by TÜV, UL and exida, and FORT is working on shipping the same layer into fleets.[31] But these certifications cover the design. They say nothing about what the machine did last quarter.
-
Robot cover is at the start of that path: exclusions have landed, and a dedicated product is starting to be written. Relm wraps existing cover; brokers place programs the ordinary market will not take.
Robotics is beginning to follow the same path.
Exclusions have landed, and a dedicated product is starting to be written. Relm wraps existing cover; brokers place programs the ordinary market will not take.
-
Cyber already ran the Evidence Loop. SOC 2 Type 1 is a snapshot of the controls; Type 2 is whether they held for a period. Security teams made the report a condition of the deal. Cyber insurers closed the circle with instrumentation: they priced the risk, and fed what they saw back so the next attack did not land.[28] AI agents are running the same loop now.[38] The same loop is already running for people at work: priced from the camera footage, and the record prevents the next injury.[39]
The Evidence Loop is not just a theory. Parts of it are already working in other industries, and some are beginning to appear in robotics.
Cybersecurity already runs a version of the Evidence Loop.
SOC 2 Type 1 is a snapshot of the controls; Type 2 is whether they held for a period. Security teams made the report a condition of the deal. Cyber insurers closed the circle with instrumentation: they priced the risk, and fed what they saw back so the next attack did not land.[28] AI agents are running the same loop now.[38]
The lesson is simple: evidence becomes useful when it can change the next decision.
-
The loop is already turning for cars that decide. Waymo and Swiss Re stated the risk as claims per million miles, against two hundred billion miles of human driving: eighty-eight percent fewer property claims, ninety-two percent fewer injury claims.[25] At twenty-five million miles, it had two injury claims. That operator was priced because ordinary cars already ran this loop, and those human miles were already on the books. The robot that decides has no such book. It has not started.
Cars that decide are already showing what this can look like. Waymo and Swiss Re stated the risk as claims per million miles, against two hundred billion miles of human driving: eighty-eight percent fewer property claims, ninety-two percent fewer injury claims.[25]
At twenty-five million miles, it had two injury claims. The important part is that the risk had a denominator: miles driven. That history gives an insurer something it can compare and price.
The robot that decides has no equivalent book of history yet. It needs its own exposure measure and its own operational record. That is what has to start now.
-
ASME is that stamp.[7] IIHS is the crash-test rating in the car ad.[27] In both cases the party that paid when the machine failed built the evidence: Hartford’s inspectors, the crash tests insurers still fund. The ops record has to work the same way: an auditable record, not a log the maker wrote.
ASME is that stamp.[7] IIHS is the crash-test rating in the car ad.[27]
In both cases, the people carrying the financial risk had a reason to build the evidence. Hartford's inspectors gathered it for boilers. Insurers still fund crash testing for cars. The ops record has to work the same way: an auditable record, not a log the maker wrote.
-
Steam ran the Evidence Loop. Cars run it. The names change. The three rails do not.
Steam boilers showed that evidence could make a dangerous machine insurable and scalable. Cars showed that the same system could evolve as the technology changed.
The mechanism is the same: evidence, insurance, standards.
-
Safeguarding still stops the machine. A protective stop that fires in a tenth of a second is what keeps the person alive, and no record substitutes for it. What the Evidence Loop replaces is the cage’s other job: being the safety case, the standard, and the policy in one, for a robot that decides. The standard can start thin and thicken as the loop turns. The pieces have run for steam, for cars, for flight. They do not yet run for a robot among people
The loop helps manage risk over time. It does not replace the systems that prevent an accident in the first place.
A protective stop that fires in a tenth of a second is what keeps the person alive, and no record substitutes for it. What the Evidence Loop replaces is the cage’s other job: being the safety case, the standard, and the policy in one, for a robot that decides.
The standard can start with what we can measure and become more precise as deployments generate better evidence.
The pieces have run for steam, for cars, for flight. They do not yet run together for a robot among people.
-
The boiler inspectors ran it. They did not stamp the machine once. The policy put the inspector on the floor. Inspection was the evidence. The evidence priced the policy. What the inspectors learned became the bar, and more boilers went in. Steam scaled because the Evidence Loop kept turning.
The Evidence Loop isn't a new idea.
The boiler industry was already running it more than a century ago. Inspectors collected evidence from machines in service. Insurers used that evidence to price policies. What inspectors learned helped shape the rules, and better rules made it possible to put more boilers to work.
Steam scaled because the Evidence Loop kept turning.
-
Evidence separates an observed risk from an assumed one, and that separation is what insurance prices. Insurance feeds the next standard. The standard improves compliance and insurability, and creates more deployments. More deployments write more evidence. That is the Evidence Loop in full.
Evidence turns a risk from something we assume into something we can measure. That gives insurers something to price.
Insurance creates an incentive to collect better evidence, and that evidence can improve the standards used to assess the next deployment.
Better standards make robots easier to comply with, insure, and deploy. More deployments create more evidence.
That is the Evidence Loop.
-
The stamp and the record, kept together, are evidence. Evidence is what the gates need, and what scales deployments.
The stamp and the record, kept together, are evidence. The stamp shows what was approved. The record shows what happened after deployment. Together, they give the market something it can measure, compare, and eventually price.
-
The first task is safety clear enough to stamp, and a risk clear enough to insure. Until then, the law still asks, insurers exclude what they cannot bound, and makers retain what the market will not take. The stamp gets the machine onto the floor. It cannot follow a machine that decides. An AI-driven machine adds behavior that design analysis alone cannot settle. Its safety case is statistical, and a statistical case is not finished until it has been measured in service: exposure and outcomes. That is why the case needs a record.
Getting a robot onto the floor therefore requires two things: a safety case clear enough to approve and a risk clear enough to insure. Until then, the law still asks for safety, insurers exclude what they cannot price, and makers retain what the market will not take.
But approval has a limit. A stamp tells you what was true on day one. It cannot tell you what happened after the robot went to work.
An AI-driven machine can behave differently across tasks, environments, and software versions. Design analysis can assess what the machine was built to do; only a record can show what it actually did in service.
That is why the case needs a record.
-
Getting it insured is the other gate. The buyer asks for a certificate of insurance. Insurers are writing AI damage out of general liability. Four thousand of those exclusions were filed in the year to July 2026, and regulators turned down fewer than one in a hundred.[13] One model flaw reaches every machine running it, so a single defect can touch every policy at once. Robotics founders say they “simply cannot get insured.”[14]
Compliance gets the robot onto the floor. Insurance is the other gate.
The buyer asks for a certificate of insurance. Insurers are writing AI damage out of general liability. Four thousand of those exclusions were filed in the year to July 2026, and regulators turned down fewer than one in a hundred. [13]
One model flaw reaches every machine running it, so a single defect can touch every policy at once. Robotics founders say they “simply cannot get insured.”[14]
-
Thanks to modern factory and labor safety law, a robot working among people has to be compliant from day one. The first gate for that is a checklist or a case someone will sign: safety assurance clear enough to allow the machine onto that floor. The 2025 revision of the rules for industrial robots reaches the robot, the cell, and now the people who run it.[26] For an AI-driven machine the call is slower and harder, because what it does not reach is the decisions inside the machine.
A robot working around people has to be compliant from day one. The first gate is a safety case clear enough to approve the machine for that floor.
The 2025 revision of the rules for industrial robots reaches the robot, the cell, and now the people who run it. [26]
But for an AI-driven machine, design-time assessment cannot fully account for how the machine will make decisions once it is in use.
-
The same pattern has emerged many times: for electricity, the elevator, the car, the airplane. The question is what it looks like for a robot.
This pattern has worked before, for electricity, elevators, cars, and airplanes. Each time, measurement turned an uncertain risk into something engineers, regulators, and insurers could act on.
The question now is what that system looks like for a robot that can decide.
-
The company is still there, operating inside one of the world's largest reinsurers.[8] Six hundred inspectors and engineers still carry commissions from the code bodies, and the boiler inspector of 1867 now ships sensors into its own policies.
The system didn't disappear. The company that began with those early boiler inspections still operates today, now using sensors alongside its inspectors. [8]
What made the system work was not the inspection alone. It was what the measurement made possible. One boiler could be inspected. Many boilers could be compared. And once the risks could be placed on the same scale, insurers could price them
-
The fix came from engineers and an insurance man, wielding a financial instrument with teeth. In Hartford, Connecticut, a small club of them had spent years studying why boilers burst. In 1867 they brought to American industry a product Britain had proved a decade earlier: an insurance policy you could only buy by letting their engineers inspect your boiler, regularly. The inspection was the product, and the policy was priced on its report.[6]
The problem was not just that boilers were dangerous. It was that nobody had a reliable way to measure that danger.
The fix came from engineers and an insurance man, wielding a financial instrument with teeth.
In Hartford, Connecticut, a small group had spent years studying why boilers burst.
In 1867, they introduced an insurance policy that came with a condition: their engineers had to inspect the boiler regularly. The inspection was the basis for the policy, and the policy was priced using what the inspection found.[6]
-
Steam boilers were the physical AI of the nineteenth century: machines of enormous economic power that nobody could see inside. They drove factories, riverboats, and locomotives. And they exploded.
Steam boilers were among the most powerful machines of the nineteenth century and among the most dangerous.
They powered factories, riverboats, and locomotives, but nobody could see inside them. And they exploded.
-
Design-time methods exist, but nothing measures what the machine actually did once it is in service. So, what replaces the cage? The answer begins with a boiler.
Design specifications can tell us what a machine was built to do. They cannot tell us how it behaved once it was in service. That is the gap we need to close. And the answer begins with a boiler.
-
The cage did three jobs at once. It was the safety case, the standard, and the insurance policy. Nobody had to measure how the robot would decide, because it never decided anything. For a robot that decides constantly, its behavior itself must now be measured.
The cage made safety easier to prove.
The robot had a defined set of movements, a defined space, and a clear boundary between the machine and the people around it. That made its safety something you could test before it went to work.
But a robot that can change how it behaves from one situation to the next needs something more: a way to measure what it actually does in the real world.
-
They will be every shape, wherever people work, side by side with us, for decades.
They will take many forms and work wherever people work, side by side with us, for decades.
-
For sixty years, someone programmed every move, and the robot repeated it: walk near and it slows, open the gate and it stops, the same response every time. Safety was a mechanism you could test. That was the programmed robot.
For sixty years, robots worked within a set of rules we could predict. Walk near one and it slows. Open the gate and it stops. Give it a task and it repeats it the same way every time. Safety was a mechanism you could test. That was the programmed robot.
-
- Jul 2025
-
www.bsigroup.com www.bsigroup.com
-
www.bsigroup.com www.bsigroup.com
-
i
oraz
-
Zbuduj wiarygodność rynkową i zapewnij klientów i partnerów o jakości i bezpieczeństwie swojej marki dzięki certyfikacji Benchmark.
Zbuduj wiarygodność rynkową i zapewnij klientów oraz partnerów o jakości i bezpieczeństwie swojej marki dzięki certyfikacji Benchmark.
-
-
www.bsigroup.com www.bsigroup.com
-
www.bsigroup.com www.bsigroup.com
-
Dowożeniu
Osiąganiu
-
- Jan 2025
-
-
A shared car association, every shared car replaces 9 to 13 private cars for the same amount of travel freedom, point to point. You don't lose any freedom like you would in public transport. It's just like a neighborhood shares a dozen cars. 95% of the cars are in the garage at any time.
for - example - efficacy of mutualisation - transportation - cars - SOURCE - Youtube Ma Earth channel interview - Devcon 2024 - Cosmo Local Commoning with Web 3 - Michel Bauwens - 2025, Jan 2 - stats - mutualisation - transportation - cars - 1 car can replace 13 - car is parked most of the time - 10% of existing cars doubles our requirement - SOURCE - Youtube Ma Earth channel interview - Devcon 2024 - Cosmo Local Commoning with Web 3 - Michel Bauwens - 2025, Jan 2
Tags
- example - efficacy of mutualisation - transportation - cars - SOURCE - Youtube Ma Earth channel interview - Devcon 2024 - Cosmo Local Commoning with Web 3 - Michel Bauwens - 2025, Jan 2
- stats - mutualisation - transportation - cars - 1 car can replace 13 - car is parked most of the time - 10% of existing cars doubles our requirement - SOURCE - Youtube Ma Earth channel interview - Devcon 2024 - Cosmo Local Commoning with Web 3 - Michel Bauwens - 2025, Jan 2
Annotators
URL
-
- Dec 2024
-
4thgenerationcivilization.substack.com 4thgenerationcivilization.substack.com
-
mutualizing forms of governance and ownership, can also have extraordinary effects on the amount of needed energy and materials. For example, in the context of shared transport, one shared car can replace 9 to 13 private cars, without any loss of mobility.
for - stats - climate crisis - example - positive impacts of mutualisation / sharing - car sharing - 1 Shared car can replace 9 to 13 cars without loss of mobility - from Substack article - The Cosmo-Local Plan for our Next Civilization - Michel Bauwens - 2024, Dec 20
Tags
Annotators
URL
-
-
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
-
the onus is for many of us in the occidental mind and the Western tradition to find what it is to excavate what it is about capitalism that lives in our very minds and our bodies and our our ways of working. And to find another way that is possible.
for - key points - excavate and replace engrained capitalist worldviews and behaviors and replace with healthier alternatives - Post Capitalist Philanthropy Webinar 1 - Alnoor Ladha - Lynn Murphy - 2023
key points - excavate and replace engrained capitalist worldviews and behaviors and replace with healthier alternatives - Post Capitalist Philanthropy Webinar 1 - Alnoor Ladha - Lynn Murphy - 2023 - For those of western tradition, - find out what deeply engrained capitalist habits must we excavate in our - minds, - bodies, - worldviews, - behaviors, - hearts (feelings) and - ways of being - and replace them with healthier alternatives
-
- Nov 2024
-
illuminem.com illuminem.com
-
To effectively combat the roots of fascism, it is crucial to integrate both horizontal and vertical decentralized decision-making structures.
for - commons - new definition - pathological conservatism - new definition - benign conservatism - new definition - beneficial conservatism - adjacency - citizen assemblies - cosmolocal - community organization - horizontal and vertical decision-making as cosmolocal - Fair Share Commons - FSC - pathological conservatism - hypocrisy of modern conservatism that cannot acknowledge first nations - TPF as a vehicle for citizen assembly in each ward and district of a city - to - Youtube - Trump won, now what? - Roger Hallam - to - Substack article - - A global history of societal regulation - metacrisis, polycrisis - role of the commons and cosmolocal coordination - Michel Bauwens
adjacency - between - citizen assemblies - cosmolocal - community organization - citizen assemblies - horizontal and vertical - Fair Share Commons - FSC - town anywhere - TPF - one per city ward or district - progress traps - wicked problem - pathological conservatism - deep conservatism - ECOnomy is a subset of ECOlogy - Modernity has many forms of shallow, pathological conservatism - Indigenous and first nations peoples practice deep, beneficial conservatism - adjacency relationship - One of the biggest progress traps is pathological conservatism when - a technology has become popular and ubiquitous but an unintended consequence becomes exposed - In that case, incumbents who profit from the established supply chain will defend it at great cost, even if the harm it causes becomes increasingly obvious. - They will do this until it reaches a point that the harm is so great that it can no longer be defended. - Often, great harm is done before that point is reached, if it is reached. - Misinformation, gaslighting and fascism can emerge as a form of pathological conservatism in an attempt to preserve the harmful aspect of the status quo. - Fossil fuels, internal combustion engines and the climate change they cause are an example of this, creating a wicked problem in which those trying to solve the problem are also contributing to it - Citizen assemblies are a bottom up response and counterweight to centralized power that is driving pathological conservatism - In contrast to the pathological conservatism, environmental awareness is a practice of benign and beneficial conservatism - the conservation of our natural environment - In fact, many who call themselves conservatives and nationalists are hypocritical because - if they went further in their conservativism logic, they would have to acknowledge the first nations people who came before them - The natural resources that were part of indigenous peoples lives for millenia that colonialists have built their entire fortune on represents even greater degree of conservatism, yet the hypocrisy is that - modern conservatives often cannot acknowledge this reality of a deeper form of conservatism as it threatens their false entitlement - This brings into question their claim of practicing conservatism - pathological conservatives act as if the ECOlogy is subordinate to the ECOnomy when in fact, the ECOnomy cannot exist without a functioning ECOlogy - citizen assemblies can be implemented in each ward and district of a large city - On top of these, Fair Share Commons and community cooperatives can be built as formal structures to drive specific projects - In order for participatory democracy to work effectively requires education on Deep Humanity and conflict resolution, otherwise risks low resiliency due to internal conflicts and derailment of vision - In order to scale, it requires both horizontal and vertical components or organization. This implies a cosmolocal strategy: - horizontal decision-making with local group is local, whilst - vertical decision-making with non-local groups based on broader issues is cosmo - A global Tipping Point Festival that employs social tipping point theory to emerge a global network of citizen assemblies / commons assemblies / people's assemblies in each ward and district of a city to relocate healthy power back to the people
to - Youtube - Trump won, now what? - a love-based approach to replace power-based approach for dealing with fascism and polarization - Roger Hallam - https://hyp.is/wUDpaKsAEe-DM9fteMUtzw/www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiKWCHAcS7E - Substack article - A global history of societal regulation - metacrisis, polycrisis - role of the commons and cosmolocal coordination - Michel Bauwens - https://hyp.is/wlywbqkTEe-ROXfhSmA3bA/4thgenerationcivilization.substack.com/p/a-global-history-of-societal-regulation
Tags
- to - Youtube - Trump won, now what? - a love-based approach to replace power-based approach for dealing with fascism and polarization - Roger Hallam
- adjacency - citizen assemblies - cosmolocal - community organization - horizontal and vertical decision-making as cosmolocal - Fair Share Commons - FSC - pathological conservatism - hypocrisy of modern conservatism that cannot acknowledge first nations - TPF as a vehicle for citizen assembly in each ward and district of a city
- to - Substack article - A global history of societal regulation - metacrisis, polycrisis - role of the commons and cosmolocal coordination - Michel Bauwens
Annotators
URL
-
- Jul 2024
-
www.caspa.ai www.caspa.ai
Tags
Annotators
URL
-
- Jun 2024
-
-
by 2027 rather than a chatbot you're going to have something that looks more like an agent and more like a coworker
for - AI evolution - prediction - 2027 - AI agent will replace AI chatbot
-
- May 2024
-
www.thelancet.com www.thelancet.com
-
Degrowth Declaration
for - critique - Degrowth - suggestion - replace degrowth with - rebalance critique - Degrowth Declaration - There has been a number of critiques of the terminology of "degrowth" as the prefix "de" is associated with "taking away". - The words "grow" and its derivatives such as "growing", "growth" all usually have good connotations such as "growing up", "growing children", "growing food", "growing knowledge"
suggestion - replace degrowth with rebalance - Perhaps a better word to use to describe the transition we must undertake is "rebalance". - This word suggests that our world is out-of-balance with too much excess in some araea and too much defficiency in others
-
- Dec 2023
-
sonec.org sonec.org
-
SDGs
-
for: recommendation - replace SDG with downscaled earth system boundaries / doughnut economics
-
recommendation
- recommend syncing local actions to global impacts via downscaled earth system boundaries instead of just SDGs due to the urgent nature of the climate crisis
-
-
- Sep 2022
-
mirrors.edge.kernel.org mirrors.edge.kernel.org
-
If you want to replace many blobs, trees or commits that are part of a string of commits, you may just want to create a replacement string of commits and then only replace the commit at the tip of the target string of commits with the commit at the tip of the replacement string of commits.
-
-
-
git.wiki.kernel.org git.wiki.kernel.org
-
As of Git 1.6.5, the more flexible git replace has been added, which allows you to replace any object with any other object, and tracks the associations via refs which can be pushed and pulled between repos.
Tags
Annotators
URL
-
- Jul 2022
-
appops.org appops.orgAppOps4
-
Features
Pros
-
Easy to build microServices that perform.
-
Reduced dev and maintenance time
-
Better code / product ownership through small and nimble teams that own your services and apps
-
reduced code size
-
Easy and type safe configurations
-
-
How to use ? - replace with How to's ?
-
Eclipse
Eclipse or any other Java / maven IDE
-
What is AppOps ?
About AppOps
-
- Apr 2022
-
-
Yeshiva teaching in the modern period famously relied on memorization of the most important texts, but a few medieval Hebrew manu-scripts from the twelfth or thirteenth centuries include examples of alphabetical lists of words with the biblical phrases in which they occurred, but without pre-cise locations in the Bible—presumably because the learned would know them.
Prior to concordances of the Christian Bible there are examples of Hebrew manuscripts in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries that have lists of words and sentences or phrases in which they occurred. They didn't include exact locations with the presumption being that most scholars would know the texts well enough to quickly find them based on the phrases used.
Early concordances were later made unnecessary as tools as digital search could dramatically decrease the load. However these tools might miss the value found in the serendipity of searching through broad word lists.
Has anyone made a concordance search and display tool to automatically generate concordances of any particular texts? Do professional indexers use these? What might be the implications of overlapping concordances of seminal texts within the corpus linguistics space?
Fun tools like the Bible Munger now exist to play around with find and replace functionality. https://biblemunger.micahrl.com/munge
Online tools also have multi-translation versions that will show translational differences between the seemingly ever-growing number of English translations of the Bible.
-
- Aug 2021
-
jacobfilipp.com jacobfilipp.com
-
or email me at “j@thisdomain”
-
- Jul 2021
-
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com
-
Ebooks don’t have those limitations, both because of how readily new editions can be created and how simple it is to push “updates” to existing editions after the fact. Consider the experience of Philip Howard, who sat down to read a printed edition of War and Peace in 2010. Halfway through reading the brick-size tome, he purchased a 99-cent electronic edition for his Nook e-reader:As I was reading, I came across this sentence: “It was as if a light had been Nookd in a carved and painted lantern …” Thinking this was simply a glitch in the software, I ignored the intrusive word and continued reading. Some pages later I encountered the rogue word again. With my third encounter I decided to retrieve my hard cover book and find the original (well, the translated) text. For the sentence above I discovered this genuine translation: “It was as if a light had been kindled in a carved and painted lantern …”A search of this Nook version of the book confirmed it: Every instance of the word kindle had been replaced by nook, in perhaps an attempt to alter a previously made Kindle version of the book for Nook use. Here are some screenshots I took at the time:It is only a matter of time before the retroactive malleability of these forms of publishing becomes a new area of pressure and regulation for content censorship. If a book contains a passage that someone believes to be defamatory, the aggrieved person can sue over it—and receive monetary damages if they’re right. Rarely is the book’s existence itself called into question, if only because of the difficulty of putting the cat back into the bag after publishing.
This story of find and replace has chilling future potential. What if a dictatorial government doesn't like your content. It can be all to easy to remove the digital versions and replace them whole hog for "approved" ones.
Where does democracy live in such a world? Consider similar instances when the Trump administration forced the disappearance of government websites and data.
-
- May 2021
-
github.com github.com
-
[Old commit references] Provide a way for users to use old commit IDs with the new repository (in particular via mapping from old to new hashes with refs/replace/ references).
Tags
Annotators
URL
-
- Jan 2021
-
stackoverflow.com stackoverflow.com
-
After command, then we need to first reset the command withAfter= and then add our commands.
-
- Dec 2020
- Oct 2020
-
tidyr.tidyverse.org tidyr.tidyverse.org
-
dplyr::coalesce() to replaces NAs with values from other vectors.
Tags
Annotators
URL
-
- Sep 2020
-
tao.lifeitself.us tao.lifeitself.us
-
at least once a month prior to or just after a communal meal (the first communal meal of the month).
REPLACE WITH: on a regular basis (once a month/bi-monthly), or when the situation necessitates it.
-
We have a cleaning rota, and
REPLACE WITH: The hubresidents agree on a suitable cleaning rota, apply it, and improve it if it doesn't work well. An example could be that
Tags
Annotators
URL
-