for - climate crisis - Medium article - climate communication - how climate change is framed to disempower you - Joe Brewer - 2024, Dec 4 - from - post - LinkedIn - climate crisis - climate communication - climate change discourse has been framed to disempower us - changing the story - so that grassroots, bottom-up initiatives can restore health to ecosystems - Joe Brewer, 2024, Dec 4 - from - Resilience article - A 'Transcender Manifesto" for a world beyond capitalism. A seed.

summary - A good article that offers an explanation of how language has potentially led the public to rely on top down actors to provide solutions to the climate crisis - Joe Brewer draws on his background as a frame analyst to analyse the role language and cognitive linguistics has played in framing the discourse on the climate crisis - He claims that this has led the public to look to elite top down actors to provide the solutions - This had led to a disempowerment of the public in actively participating in contributing too solutions - Indeed it could be why we have a sleeping giant - Reframing the story could have the opposite effect of inspiring people's to wake up and take action to regenerate nature within and surrounding the communities where people live.

from - post - LinkedIn - climate crisis - climate communication - climate change discourse has been framed to disempower us - changing the story - so that grassroots, bottom-up initiatives can restore health to ecosystems - Joe Brewer, 2024, Dec 4 - https://hyp.is/yvHstLfVEe-cyRN4sq09Ow/www.linkedin.com/posts/joe-brewer-4957925_earlier-this-week-i-lived-into-an-important-activity-7270035170328494080-E7Cq/ - from - Resilience article - A 'Transcender Manifesto" for a world beyond capitalism. A seed. - https://hyp.is/0NOdtLiREe--pwPfB1SmdA/www.resilience.org/stories/2024-04-18/a-transcender-manifesto-for-a-world-beyond-capitalism-a-seed/

for - adjacency / validation - for justifying Tipping Point Festival - TPF - bottom up, grassroots direct action Vs - top down, corporate, policy action - Joe Brewer - framing analysis - using cognitive linguistics

adjacency / validation - between - ustifying Tipping Point Festival - TPF - - bottom up, grassroots direct action<br /> - top down, corporate, policy action<br /> - Joe Brewer - framing analysis - cognitive linguistics - adjacency relationship - We need both bottom up and top down section, but Joe's framing analysis provides an explanation why there isn't more bottom up direct action - It requires a lot of skill to find the leverage points as well as the weakness of people power is lack of money - To awaken the sleeping giant off the commons is the purpose of the Typing Point Festival (TPF)

for - post - LinkedIn - climate crisis - climate communication - climate change discourse has been framed to disempower us - changing the story - so that grassroots, bottom-up initiatives can restore health to ecosystems - Joe Brewer, 2024, Dec 4 - to - Medium article - How Climate Change is framed to Disempower you - Joe Brewer - 2024, Dec 4

to - Medium article - How Climate Change is framed to Disempower you - Joe Brewer - 2024, Dec 4 - https://hyp.is/XoQoRLfVEe-ZMIMjZheLLA/medium.com/@joe_brewer/how-climate-change-is-framed-to-disempower-you-01d871413487

Citizen Data Generation.

This paper studies the strategies citizens (and intereseted institutional actors) have justified the role of lay people i producing data on environmental issues.

According to the paper the strategies have worked as the conclusions are that * taking citizen science serious is a governmental obligation This is achieved by showing the scientific strenght and thus 'contributory' potential for CGD.

I added quotes on contributory, because that is a conclusion that follows evidently from the scientific strenght. It would be interesting to see how much scientific data would hold up if it had to be shown scientific strength.

CGD : Citizen Generated Data.

Discussing the Japanese Citizen Science environmental data and citizen science practice that has parity for institutional science.

Better would be to include files as is. Use hash of it in an event. Download from whoever has it, the IPFS way. Only between friends

Weird. That means one user must start a topic. Whereas a topic like "Obama" could be started by multiple folks, not knowing about each other, later on discovering and interconnecting their reasoning, if they so wish.

That's a con. There's no need to sync globe-wide, creating a giant ledger. You have a set of peers that you want to share your stuff with (friends), leave it at that.

Additionally: community-based management, ban polls.

Alternative: per-user configuration of access. Let rooms be topics on which peers discuss. A friend can see what he's friends and foafs are saying.

Have locks on data is a nice idea.

But given we have dissemination/disclosure among friends only, do we need to encrypt the blocks? Given communication channels are encrypted.

Well, when sharing such a block off-group, you may skip transmitting its deps. In Social Networking that may be alright. And when off-group agent gets accepted to group, he's able to get the stuff below.

However, that does complicate piggybacking, as it'll be seen that the previously off-group agent has some block (but actually he doesn't have its deps).

Perhaps a sort of protobuf is better.

Goes against democratic principles.

A democratic way will be to raise a BAN poll.

I.e., an edge of a hypergraph is a set of vertices.

This is akin to a pub/sub topic.

Multiaddr could be used instead, to aid connectivity

Huh, such firewalls exist? I thought they can be hole-punched.

^

What stops a culprit to send off-group a message that is not his own? We can only achieve the "culprit detection" by addressing and signing every message we send to A. This is a lot of re-signing. And we won't have a convergent DAG.

Perhaps better to attach a new IP address to a message once it does change. What's the point in telling over-and-over the same IP?

^

More like an edge gives a communication path.

A->B (A follows B) - B can talk to A.

A<->B - B can talk to A, A can talk to B.

I.e., Equivocation exclusion is not required for social networking.

Strange that you need to have a friend-path in order to use r's coins. I'd expect r to accept&approve a message from me, given I hold his coin (which he can see from my message).

Why have signed coins?

Makes it possible to track which coins been equivocated.

But what's the use for it?

What's the difference between "you can't use these specific coins as they were equivocatedly used already" and "you can't use these opaque coins, as they are in equivocation"?

Later, at least, may succed given equivocation issuer have enough balance for both. Although then there's no point in creating equivocation in the first place. So nevermind, won't happen, except by silly equivocators.

Again, this can be derived out of DAG. Seems redundant.

It would somewhat spare computation, as one can check equivocation by following a pointer, but then he would need to ensure that both equivocated blocks are observed by a self-parent chain of the "DISAPPROVE" issuer.

Great, so r-balance of p is derived by the history of ops regarding r. So no need for p to calculate it and add to every op, would be redundant. Not sure the derivation is the proposed protocol though.

Would be nice to have finality optional. As to not incur round-trip to a possibly offline r. Double-spends will be detected and punished. Given the value of double-spend spend is less than a cost - no incentive to do so.

Why do coins need to be signed?

Why to capture 4? Ops like burn(10), mint(1) do the same, yet being more semantic, as they convey what happens, rather than the result.

E.g., when green has 3 green_coins, and we see send(1, green_coin, (to) black), send(3, green_coins, (to) green) did green just miscalculated his balance (should be 2), or did he sent and minted one at the same time?

That looks messy, accidentally so, it seems.

1. Green agent only needs to REDEEM(green_coin) op to convey what he wants.

2. Self-payments are redundant.

3. Links other than self-parent and other-parent(s) are redundant. You can derive anybody's balance out of their self-parent chain.

3.1 Other-parent_s_ make the order of received messages ambiguous.

1. REPAY is redundant. When REDEEM is received, and given one can indeed redeem (recepient has his coin at the moment of receival) - the REDEEM should be automatic. I.e., plainly observing that REDEEM been accepted by recepient is enough to derive out of it one of 1) it's a suffessfull redeem 2) it's a failed redeem.

Why does he need to explicitly accept? Can't it be done by default? Can he reject?

Why does he need to approve? It is a mean of equivocation detection. But it requires all coins going through its creator. Incurring latency and possible indefinete out-of-service as creator goes offline.

Why is it not optional? Like we can exchange coins with recepient directly, and he may come to redeem it later, if he wishes, detecting eqiuvocation at that point.

Some services, that offer say a cup of coffee, would be willing to take the risk of loosing $5 of value on to-be-detected equivocations. Since equivocators will be punished severily that does not worth 5$ of value. So they can be rest assured that nobody's gonna do that.

Now this example holds if coffee provider prices in currency other than its own, say bank's.

And banks are generally online. But still. Why force it? Let them do a round-trip to currency owner at their choice, a tradeoff that's up to them.

Why does red agent need to issue pay to itself?

What red agents holds after he transferred 1 black coin can be derived from history his ops.

We can't trust what he issues, he may issue to self 1000 black coins. So we'd need to go check history whether he computed it right.

But then again, if we need to do that, why issue an explicit payment to self?

The device of Alice may be offline, e.g., smartphone discharged. We can't assume constant connectivity.

Pricing in your own coins means personal coins may not match in value behind them. One may offer a cup of coffee for 1 coin, another for 5. Simply exchanging 100 coins with each other would mean one'll get 1/5 of value from this exchange. So 1:5 exchange would be needed. But how to know that in advance?

An agent may create as many agent's coins as he pleases.

for - de-silo - grassroots listening project

Open Science Grassroots Community Networks

[...] plantear la desjerarquización y deselitización del conocimiento, es decir, a la descolonización epistémica como elemento integral de estas visiones.

La hackatón en ese sentido tendría que diversificarse, para admitir más saberes. Aún nos falta, pero estamos abriéndonos a saberes bibliotecarios, editoriales y periodísticos, desde las prácticas y convocatorias que realiza el Data Week. Los diplomados podrían extender esto.

Esto se ha visto, específicamente, en el caso de Grafoscopio, el Data Week y HackBo y de nuevo habla del diálogo entre estructura y agencia.

Nótese que también se habla de espacios creativos y no sólo técnicos.

Interesante la idea de hacer sin propósito o necesidad. No sé hasta que punto sea compatible con la idea de artesanía, en la medida en que esta es en sí misma un propósito y una necesidad, pero puede tener que ver precisamente con el caracter expresivo de la creación y no con el económico del mismo.