40 Matching Annotations
  1. Jul 2020
  2. May 2020
    1. This is it. I'm done with Page Translator, but you don't have to be. Fork the repo. Distribute the code yourself. This is now a cat-and-mouse game with Mozilla. Users will have to jump from one extension to another until language translation is a standard feature or the extension policy changes.
    2. I will need to find a workaround for one of my private extensions that controls devices in my home network, and its source code cannot be uploaded to Mozilla because of my and my family's privacy.
    3. The other pressing issue is that users have lost the right to run private extensions in the release version of Firefox, without needing to hand over their source code to Mozilla.
    1. Add-ons that are intended for internal or private use, are only accessible to a closed user group, or for distribution testing may not be listed on AMO. Such add-ons may be uploaded for self-distribution instead.
  3. Apr 2020
    1. students responded to messages more actively and engaged in more in-depth discussions when discussions were moderated by a peer.

      This could be a good argument to push Hypothes.is to introduce some sort of moderation, in combination with the finding that annotation threads would be rare, and not very deep (Wolfe & Neuwirth, 2001)

  4. Dec 2019
    1. This led to the motivation of learning distributed representations of words existing in low-dimensional space (Bengio et al., 2003).

      Sobre maldição da dimensionalidade. Agora, o que seria representações distribuídas das palavras em espaços de menor dimensão? Isso me lembra de PCA e afins.

  5. Sep 2019
    1. One way to guarantee write consistency is by utilizing the event store’s optimistic concurrency control. A proper event store provides a way for the user to say “save this event only if the version of the entity is still x”.
    2. One alternative would be to have one topic per entity

      Other alternative: have a consumer group write a read model to a database, indexed by entity id.

  6. Jun 2019
    1. EthereumEthereum is a distributed computer; each node in the network executes some bytecode (hint: Smart Contracts), and then stores the resulting state in a blockchain. Due to the properties of the blockchain representing application state, this results in “applications that run exactly as programmed without any possibility of downtime, censorship, fraud or third party interference”.

      This is a decent little explanation for how smart contracts execute on blockchains. Author missed in "Due to the properties of the blockchain" to say that all nodes must also come to consensus about how the code was executed and therefore "applications that run exactly...". We will later discuss deterministic code execution in relation to this

  7. May 2019
    1. Distributed content is any content that a publisher creates to live “natively” on an outside platform without directing any traffic back to your domain. This could mean allowing Facebook or Google to host your articles through Facebook Instant Articles or Google AMP. But it more generally means content you create specifically to live off-site on certain platforms.

      This definition of distributed content seems tragically flawed to me. If it doesn't live natively on a publisher's platform, then how is it exactly "distributed"? This definition is really more like silo-specific native content.

      It also seems predicate on publications entirely giving up all the agency and ownership of their own content. If they're creating content completely for silos, where's the value for them other than the diminishing returns of their brand recognition?

      Concepts like POSSE or PESOS are much better and more valuable in my mind by comparison.

      While the marketing idea of creating content that seems native to the platform on which it appears is valuable, publications still need to get eyeballs back to either their own platform or to places where their advertising, subscription, or other financial enterprise centers can directly benefit. Simply giving away the candy store without direct benefit to the publisher are only going to hasten their demise.

  8. Apr 2019
  9. Jan 2019
    1. osthumanism as an attempt to engage humans asdistributed processes rather than as discrete entities. In

      just like a distributed computer system uses more than one computer to run an application, this is the notion that the idea of "human" is social/communal, and does not exist on the individual level.

    1. 计算机领域在分布式处理过程中追求高效、一致。对错误数据记录的修复和更正,通常会另行设计一套机制来保证。相对传统数据库,区块链由于需要保证事后数据的不可篡改,引入了共识机制,为错误的出现和修复提供更多的容忍度。这一重要思想通常被许多区块链设计者所忽略,众多项目纷纷追求提高短交易及确认速度,这会导致弱化甚至牺牲其他节点对数据的验证过程。同时,更早更快的确认也会带来问题。参与生成数据的节点需要满足生成数据不能出错等更严苛要求,导致现在很多区块链项目的在落地过程中出现困难。因为系统使用方会背上了数据必须一次性正确输入的包袱,需要非常保守和谨慎地选择上链数据。最终,区块链落地应用范围的狭窄,许多存在出错可能性的数据难以结合区块链的优点参与业务升级改造。

      <big>评:</big><br/><br/> 传统数据库与区块链式处理,哪个才是更佳的业务模式?这个问题的回答早已在我们的日常工作中得以体现,但却迫于某种难以逾越的权力边界而成了难言之隐。「事中容错,事后一致」是一种颇为崇高的境界,甚至可以从中一窥理想社会的光耀图景,但人们目前尚未能大规模应用这套 workflow,究其原因,并非目标遥远,而是由于决策权被少部分人掌控着,和数据打交道的主体只是把数据当作本职工作,并未主动贡献、积极参与。系统使用方背上的不是「数据必须一次性正确输入」的包袱,他们直面的,是将权利拱手让人后的自责,是与民主开放的理想世界背道而驰的困惑。

    1. priori. Such is the situation with disaster.We easily dismisshow uncertainsituations of disaster areor can become, and how a goalin safety-critical work is to avert situations beforethey become problems. Much of the work in safety-and time-critical matters in CSCW appreciates the implications of this goalon vigilance, mutual awareness, and, of course, error, especially propagated error. It is all too easy to blame “pilot error” when a sequence of preceding systemic conditions took place to set a pilot up for perceiving the problem as he or she did [34,48], including one that warns of hazard. Indeed, disaster can magnifyproblems, not necessarily out of proportion, though that can happen, but rather too so that wefocusonspecific detailswhen many things are happening.

      Evokes distributed cognition (Hutchins) as well as the uncertain nature of safety- and time-critical work and how to classify risk/need.

    2. Mendonça, et al.[26] and Kendra and Wachtendorf [20] have characterized this as improvisation, whichhas strong parallels to the conversations in CSCW about the nature of situated cognition or situated work [14,44], as well as the relationship between informal as well as formal aspects of work [30,44]

      Evokes situated action (Suchman) and distributed cognition (Hutchins)

    3. Threaded throughout thesearguments is the idea of distributed cognition particularly as it materializes in the on-the-ground work, but also through prior online preparation.Through this lens, we see how ideation ofsolutions sprung from uncertainexpressions ofproblem statementswhich were quickly forwardedto the local (or local enough) domain experts—horsepeople in Colora

      Evokes distributed cognition

    1. n particular, we note how recent extensions to Activity Theory have addressed theoretical shortcomings similar to our five challenges and suggest directions for bridging the gap between everyday practice and systems support

      theoretical base for the case study.

      Tie this back to HCC readings/critiques by Halverson and Hutchins on distributed cognition.

    2. These extensions increase the complexity of the Activity Theory model but also help to explain tensions present in real-world systems such as when one agent plays different roles in two systems that have divergent goals. Furthermore, this approach provides Activity Theory with a similar degree of agility in representing complex, distributed cognition as competing theoretical approaches, such as Distributed Cognition (Hutchins, 1995).

      flexibility of Activity Theory over DCog

    1. If the decision making process (1) involves a large and indefinite number of peo-ple, (2) requires the integration of a number of different perspectives or domains,and (3) continues for a protracted period of time or even indefinitely, the interpreta-tion of the objects in a common database and hence the construction of a commoninformation space is hampered by the fact that the other originators and recipientsare not co-present.

      Ways to better integrate people engaged in distributed work are needed.

      Is this still true some 27 years later?

      Three particular information quality problems are raised by Schmidt and Bannon:

      1) provenance (originator) of the information and his/her/its reliability

      2) context of the information

      3) politics of the information

  10. Dec 2018
    1. Visibility of communication exchanges and of information enableslearning and greater efficiencies

      Evokes the distributed cognition literature as well peer production, crowdsourcing, and collective intelligence practices.

  11. Jul 2018
    1. Drawing on the theory of distributed cognition [5], we utilizerepresentational physical artifacts to provide a tangible interface for task planning, aural cues for time passage, and an ambient, glanceable display to convey status

      Is there a way to integrate dCog and a more sociotemporal theory, like Zimbardo & Boyd's Time Perspective Theory or some of Adam's work on timescapes?

  12. Apr 2018
  13. Nov 2017
  14. Oct 2017
    1. What is this again? What Google Drive should be. What Dropbox should be. What file systems can be. The way we unify our data access across companies, services, programs, and people. The way I want to live and work.

      I think that this is interesting, but idealistic. The code repo on GitHub is quite active, but how does a technology like this gain traction?

  15. Jul 2017
    1. In distributed mode, you start many worker processes using the same group.id and they automatically coordinate to schedule execution of connectors and tasks across all available workers. I

      Distributed workers.

      group.id = "SHOUDL BE THE SAME FOR ALL WORKERS"

  16. Jan 2017
    1. Thisistheideathateachinputtoasystemshouldberepresentedbymanyfeatures,andeachfeatureshouldbeinvolvedintherepresentationofmanypossibleinputs.

      Sounds confusing, but think about the previous example of the picture with the woman and the different layers.

      Think of the input as the picture, and it being represented by may features, like edges, shades, shape, etc.

      Then those generalized concepts or features, being reused across different aspects of the photo, say for different parts where edges exist, or shapes. A very loose comparison is a reusable class that occurs throughout the program .

  17. Sep 2015
    1. It is a matter of how personsand their social and cultural worlds are inseparable, thoroughly

      Continued on next page. This is the definition of distributed cognition. "their thinking is irreducible to individual properties, intelligence, or traits."

    2. The classroom is physically organized to facilitate the distributionof activities and the use of multiple resources, especially books, aspart of the activities

      There is a materialism to distributed cognition. The artifacts matter, as a part of the fabric of the socially shared learning/thinking process.

    3. thinking as distributed dynamically in inter-personal relationships among people, their artifacts, and their envi-ronments

      Thinking as distributed. When I think about what that means for a classroom I immediately go to the understanding that learning happens through dialogue and interaction (between people, artifacts and the environment). This means a focus on those interactions is necessary to see/develop classroom thinking. How does that fit into a theory of communities of practice and LPP?

  18. Oct 2014
    1. This in turn means that Redis Cluster does not have to take meta data in the data structures in order to attempt a value merge, and that the fancy commands and data structures supported by Redis are also supported by Redis Cluster. So no additional memory overhead, no API limits, no limits in the amount of elements a value can contain, but less safety during partitions.

      A solid trade-off, I think, and says a lot about the intended use cases.