Our species faces two great tasks in the next few centuries. Our first task is to make human brotherhood effective and permanent. Our second task is to preserve and enhance the rich diversity of Nature in the world around us. Our new understanding of biological and cultural evolution may help us to see more clearly what we have to do.

Wells saw that we happen to live soon after a massive shift in the history of the planet, caused by the emergence of our own species. The shift was completed about ten thousand years ago, when we invented agriculture and started to domesticate animals. Before the shift, evolution was mostly biological. After the shift, evolution was mostly cultural. Biological evolution is usually slow, when big populations endure for thousands or millions of generations before changes become noticeable. Cultural evolution can be a thousand times faster, with major changes occurring in two or three generations. It has taken about two hundred thousand years for our species to evolve biologically from its or

social, political and institutional mechanisms.

eading evolutionary theorist David Sloan Wilson and influential economist Dennis Snower have long advocated for an improved understanding of economics as a complex system. Across a recent series of major articles, they argue for a paradigm shift away from the orthodox, neoclassical model of economics, which focuses on individual challenges to be tackled through decisions by individual decision-makers and views ‘externalities’ as a phenomenon to be ‘corrected’ through government intervention, in favour of a new multilevel paradigm, based on insights from evolutionary science.

Entangling Humanism By Bruce Jennings

Do yourself and your peers a favor, write code with them in mind.

Writing Code for Humans — A Language-Agnostic Guide…because code which people can’t read and understand is easy to break and hard to maintain.

Write code for human, not for God

Any fool can write code that a computer can understand. Good programmers write code that humans can understand.

To see if you are writing good code, you can question yourself. how long it will take to fully transfer this project to another person? If the answer is uff, I don’t know… a few months… your code is like a magic scroll. most people can run it, but no body understand how it works. Strangely, I’ve seen several places where the IT department consist in dark wizards that craft scrolls to magically do things. The less people that understand your scroll, the more powerfully it is. Just like if life were a video game.

This is so clear that you don’t even need comments to explain it.

Another type of comments are the ones trying to explain a spell.

The rule of thumbs is, never use code that you do not understand.

You can use Danger to codify your team's norms, leaving humans to think about harder problems.

I recall being told by a distinguishedanthropological linguist, in 1953, that he had no intention of working througha vast collection of materials that he had assembled because within a few yearsit would surely be possible to program a computer to construct a grammar froma large corpus of data by the use of techniques that were already fairly wellformalized.

Before 2009, Facebook had given users a simple timeline––a never-ending stream of content generated by their friends and connections, with the newest posts at the top and the oldest ones at the bottom. This was often overwhelming in its volume, but it was an accurate reflection of what others were posting. That began to change in 2009, when Facebook offered users a way to publicly “like” posts with the click of a button. That same year, Twitter introduced something even more powerful: the “Retweet” button, which allowed users to publicly endorse a post while also sharing it with all of their followers. Facebook soon copied that innovation with its own “Share” button, which became available to smartphone users in 2012. “Like” and “Share” buttons quickly became standard features of most other platforms.Shortly after its “Like” button began to produce data about what best “engaged” its users, Facebook developed algorithms to bring each user the content most likely to generate a “like” or some other interaction, eventually including the “share” as well. Later research showed that posts that trigger emotions––especially anger at out-groups––are the most likely to be shared.

Babel is a metaphor for what some forms of social media have done to nearly all of the groups and institutions most important to the country’s future—and to us as a people.

Algospeak refers to code words or turns of phrase users have adopted in an effort to create a brand-safe lexicon that will avoid getting their posts removed or down-ranked by content moderation systems. For instance, in many online videos, it’s common to say “unalive” rather than “dead,” “SA” instead of “sexual assault,” or “spicy eggplant” instead of “vibrator.”

At the back of Dr Duncan's book on the topic, Index, A History Of The, he includes not one but two indexes, in order to make a point.

or email me at “j@thisdomain”

Read the code! No, really. I wrote this code to be read.

Some pesky non-human users (namely computers) have taken to “hotlinking” assets via the raw view feature — using the raw URL as the src for a <script> or <img> tag.

The key point is that this is a feature to improve the experience of our human users.

Just as we've become super-human thanks to telephones, calendars and socks, we can continue our evolution into cyborgs in a concrete jungle with socially curated bars and mathematically incorruptible governance.

we should eagerly anticipate granting ourselves the extra abilities afforded to us by Turing machines

Stop thinking of the ideal user as some sort of honorable, frontier pilgrim; a first-class citizen who carries precedence over the lowly bot. Bots need to be granted the same permission as human users and it’s counter-productive to even think of them as separate users. Your blind human users with screen-readers need to behave as “robots” sometimes and your robots sending you English status alerts need to behave as humans sometimes.

It turns out that, given a set of constraints defining a particular problem, deriving an efficient algorithm to solve it is a very difficult problem in itself. This crucial step cannot yet be automated and still requires the insight of a human programmer.

‘Programs are meant to be read by humans and only incidentally for computers to execute.’

Background

Imagine an associate with a photographic memory and excellent pattern recognition who digested and analyzed millions of cases. Would you want that associate working for you for less than the price of one typical billable hour every month?

we have anxious salarymen asking about the theft of their jobs, in the same way that’s apparently done by immigrants

We long ago admitted that we’re poor at scheduling, so we have roosters; sundials; calendars; clocks; sand timers; and those restaurant staff who question my integrity, interrupting me with a phone call under the premise of “confirming” that I’ll stick to my word regarding my reservation.

A closely-related failing to scheduling is our failure to remember, so humans are very willing to save information on their computers for later.

Robots are currently suffering extreme discrimination due to a few false assumptions, mainly that they’re distinctly separate actors from humans. My point of view is that robots and humans often need to behave in the same way, so it’s a fruitless and pointless endeavour to try distinguishing them.

As technology improves, humans keep integrating these extra abilities into our cyborg selves

The appearance of the cyborg has engendered a newwaveof fear and trepidation towards the invasion of the body by strange technologiesthat threaten to eliminate or overwhelm the human subject