When you delegate an issue to an agent in Linear, the delegation is visible. There's a person who set the agent loose within that system, and that person is accountable for the outcome. You design the environment well, you let the agent run, and you own what it produces.
大多数人认为AI代理的行为应由代理本身或实时监控系统负责，但作者提出责任在于最初设置代理的人。这一观点将问责制从实时交互转向了初始授权，挑战了AI责任归属的主流认知。
The needs of children, when it comes to digital designs, vary from those of adults. However, several UX principles, design patterns, and preferences hold for kids and adults. The overarching goal of any design, i.e., to create valuable and usable solutions for a user, stays the same for all audiences.
the tragedy of the commons is a multiplayer prisoner's dilemma. And she said that people are only prisoners if they consider themselves to be. They escape by creating institutions for collective action. And she discovered, I think most interestingly, that among those institutions that worked, there were a number of common design 00:12:04 principles, and those principles seem to be missing from those institutions that don't work.
collaborative institutions relying on common design principles are seen helping to avoid the tragedy of commons
never care and try to understand design standards
Material cannot occupy the same plane. But material can be stacked.
For my point of view, and I've been annoyingly consistent in this for as long as people have been asking for this feature or something like it, style encapsulation is one of the core principles of Svelte's component model and this feature fundamentally breaks that. It would be too easy for people to use this feature and it would definitely get abused removing the style safety that Svelte previously provided.
Suppose someone with a lot of clout in your organisation makes a decision, but that decision conflicts with your organisations’s design principles. Instead of having an opinion-based argument about who’s right or wrong, the previously agreed-upon design principles allow you to take ego out of the equation.
A Vision for Scholarly Communication Currently, there is a strong push to address the apparent deficits of the scholarly communication system. Open Science has the potential to change the production and dissemination of scholarly knowledge for the better, but there is no commonly shared vision that describes the system that we want to create.
A Vision for Scholarly Communication
If we can’t make it safer then we can acknowledge the remaining risks and educate users about them.
Non-technology folks can contribute to building consentful tech by:• Holding the platforms we use accountable to how they use our data• Advocating for consent-focused policy and legislation • Intervening in development processes through community organizing (petitions, demonstrations, etc.)• Signing on to platforms that are consentful • Learning more about code, policies, and legislationTech folks can contribute to building consentful tech by:• Advocating for diverse teams• Opening up design & development processes to people who those who are vulnerable to harm• Working towards a culture of consent in our companies and organizations• Mentoring newcomers, particularly those who are often excluded or marginalized from mainstream tech communities• Growing our knowledge on concepts like collaborative design processes and intersectionality • Consistently reviewing our development processes
Can people consent to Specific things in this system and not others? Can people select which aspects of their digital bodies they want to have exposed and have stored?
Are people Freely giving us their consent to access and store parts of their digital bodies? Can potentially harmful personal information about a person be displayed or stored without their consent? Does our system allow for Reversible consent? How easy is it for people to withdraw both their consent and their data?How are we fully and clearly Informing people about what they’re consenting to? Is important information about the risks a user might be exposed to buried in the fine print of the terms & conditions?How are we making sure that the consent is Enthusiastic? Is there an option not to use this technology, which means that people use it because they prefer to use it?
your future success depends on developing a new kind of expertise: the ability to leverage your proprietary knowledge strategically and to make useful connections between seemingly unrelated knowledge assets or tap fallow, undeveloped knowledge.
Your competitors will have access to the same kinds of data and general industry knowledge that you do.
It’s a vote of confidence in the company’s capacity to protect enough tacit knowledge to stay ahead of the competition.
will make more money if more people build on the platform he has provided
The ease of knowledge sharing is directly proportional to the degree of knowledge codification
speeding up codification will increase the value of knowledge
Companies that figure out how to manage this complexity will enjoy a powerful competitive advantage in finding and selecting innovations.
The Building Blocks of Visual Design