26 Matching Annotations
  1. Jun 2021
    1. New Trusted Third Parties Can Be Tempting Many are the reasons why organizations may come to favor costly TTP based security over more efficient and effective security that minimizes the use of TTPs: Limitations of imagination, effort, knowledge, or time amongst protocol designers – it is far easier to design security protocols that rely on TTPs than those that do not (i.e. to fob off the problem rather than solve it). Naturally design costs are an important factor limiting progress towards minimizing TTPs in security protocols. A bigger factor is lack of awareness of the importance of the problem among many security architects, especially the corporate architects who draft Internet and wireless security standards. The temptation to claim the "high ground" as a TTP of choice are great. The ambition to become the next Visa or Verisign is a power trip that's hard to refuse. The barriers to actually building a successful TTP business are, however, often severe – the startup costs are substantial, ongoing costs remain high, liability risks are great, and unless there is a substantial "first mover" advantage barriers to entry for competitors are few. Still, if nobody solves the TTP problems in the protocol this can be a lucrative business, and it's easy to envy big winners like Verisign rather than remembering all the now obscure companies that tried but lost. It's also easy to imagine oneself as the successful TTP, and come to advocate the security protocol that requires the TTP, rather than trying harder to actually solve the security problem. Entrenched interests. Large numbers of articulate professionals make their living using the skills necessary in TTP organizations. For example, the legions of auditors and lawyers who create and operate traditional control structures and legal protections. They naturally favor security models that assume they must step in and implement the real security. In new areas like e-commerce they favor new business models based on TTPs (e.g. Application Service Providers) rather than taking the time to learn new practices that may threaten their old skills. Mental transaction costs. Trust, like taste, is a subjective judgment. Making such judgement requires mental effort. A third party with a good reputation, and that is actually trustworthy, can save its customers from having to do so much research or bear other costs associated with making these judgments. However, entities that claim to be trusted but end up not being trustworthy impose costs not only of a direct nature, when they breach the trust, but increase the general cost of trying to choose between trustworthy and treacherous trusted third parties.

      There are strong incentives to stick with trusted third parties

      1. It's more difficult to design protocols that work without a TTP
      2. It's tempting to imagine oneself as a successful TTP
      3. Entrenched interests — many professions depend on the TTP status quo (e.g. lawyers, auditors)
      4. Mental transaction costs — It can be mentally easier to trust a third party, rather than figuring out who to trust.
  2. Mar 2021
    1. In other words, they are driven by economic and epistemic forces that emanate from the capitalism of today, and that will shape the capitalism of tomorrow – whatever that might look like.
    2. Unlike the latter, however, the neurosciences are extremely well funded by the state and even more so by private investment from the pharmaceutical industry.

      More reasons to be wary. The incentive structure for the research is mostly about control. It's a little sinister. It's not about helping people on their own terms. It's mostly about helping people become "good" citizens and participants of the state apparatus.

  3. Feb 2021
  4. Jan 2021
  5. Sep 2020
    1. However, I quickly realized the problem.  Kotter’s approach puts the senior executive at the center of the story and the leader’s task is to force a change on a resistant organization.  To him, the business leader “defines what the future should look like, aligns people with that vision, and inspires them to make it happen despite the obstacles” Chaos theory, in contrast, removes the senior executive from the center of the story and puts the system at the center.  That is exciting for people who enjoy thinking about complex systems, but isn’t likely to be profitable to a consulting firm which sells projects to senior executives.

      Looking at a organization through a chaos lens would be more accurate and fruitful, but because it removes the CEO from the center (and replaces it with the system), it's not something a management consultancy would pitch (as they pitch to CEOs).

      This reminds me of pharmaceutical companies not having an incentive to research a drug they cannot patent and thus cannot make a profit on.

  6. Aug 2020
    1. Burn bosses in California can more easily be held liable than their peers in some other states if the wind comes up and their burn goes awry. At the same time, California burn bosses typically suffer no consequences for deciding not to light.
  7. Jun 2020
    1. Media is supported by ads, ads want clicks, clicks come from outrage, so therefore – the media’s goal has shifted to create as much outrage as possible

      our social and media infrastructure are outrage machines, icentivised

    1. I kind of wish there was an HN like job site that was widely used in corporate America but didn’t have all the ‘content’. Just an online resume

      wondering what's the original purpose of adding the news feed to LI, the product decision.

      lack of understanding I think. to drive "engagements" and keep eyeballs? what's the incentives and how do they relate to LI's biz model?

  8. Apr 2019
  9. Dec 2018
  10. Oct 2017
    1. Targeted calls and prizes could provide further motivation36,37, but supporters of research may need to earmark a percentage of all funding for capacity building if they wish to redress structural imbalances in biomedical knowledge generation and use.
    2. the true potential of data sharing. If that potential is to be achieved, the publication of papers in peer reviewed journals must lose their pre-eminence as a measure of scientific productivity in academia. We believe that depositing data in well-curated, quality-assured databases should be rewarded professionally just as publication of papers in high impact journals now is. The use of data in a pooled analysis that demonstrably changes policy should be rewarded at least as well as a citation in a journal.
    3. By adopting the study group model, which appealed to data contributors, WWARN was able simultaneously to build up the database and to begin to conduct important pooled analyses that have contributed directly to improvements in global policy.
    4. People who collect data must be incentivised to share it
  11. Apr 2017
    1.  The actual reward is easy, particularly if you consider it obtusely (and you should): developers are rewarded when actual requirements are satisfied on time in spite of not matching the original requirements.
  12. Oct 2016
    1. In general, humanities scholars have neglected editorial work because the reward structures in the academy have not favored editing but instead literary and cultural theory. Many academics fail to recognize the theoretical sophistication, historical knowledge, and analytical strengths necessary to produce a sound text or texts and the appropriate scholarly apparatus for a first-rate edition.

      Reasons why scholarly editions aren't valued in the academy (c 2008)

  13. Mar 2016
    1. Osuna, C., Crux-Castro, L., & Sanz-Menedez, L. (2011). Overturning some assumptions about the effects ofevaluation systems on publication performance.Scientometrics, 86, 575–592

      evaluation systems and publication performance

    1. The winner-take-all aspect of the priority rule has its drawbacks, however. It can encourage secrecy, sloppy practices, dishonesty and an excessive emphasis on surrogate measures of scientific quality, such as publication in high-impact journals. The editors of the journal Nature have recently exhorted scientists to take greater care in their work, citing poor reproducibility of published findings, errors in figures, improper controls, incomplete descriptions of methods and unsuitable statistical analyses as evidence of increasing sloppiness. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.)As competition over reduced funding has increased markedly, these disadvantages of the priority rule may have begun to outweigh its benefits. Success rates for scientists applying for National Institutes of Health funding have recently reached an all-time low. As a result, we have seen a steep rise in unhealthy competition among scientists, accompanied by a dramatic proliferation in the number of scientific publications retracted because of fraud or error. Recent scandals in science are reminiscent of the doping problems in sports, in which disproportionately rich rewards going to winners has fostered cheating.

      How the priority rule is killing science.

    1. Editors, Publishers, Impact Factors, and Reprint Income

      On the incentives for journal editors to publish papers they think might improve IF... and how citations are gamed.

  14. Jun 2015
    1. Users earn points by doing things on the network — uploading, voting, referring, posting, or commenting about content. Users vote on whether they like content or not by swiping, with the most-liked content driven to the top of charts. You can post content to your entire Channel, which is Minds’ term for your fans. To post outside your Channel, you need to use points, like offering 10 of your points to another user for 10 views of your post on their Channel. Points can be also be exchanged with Minds for site-wide sharing.

      The absolute worst incentives. Engagement generates reach? This network is going to amplify the people who already participate the most. This is absolutely upside down. This is rewarding the powerful with more power.

  15. May 2014
    1. Usage-based pricing, where you pay for the capacity that you use, would properly incentivize ISPs to support net neutrality

      YES!!! And if people want to oppose this on the basis that Internet access is an important element of basic literacy then we can invest it in like we once did with libraries and public educational institutions. Subsidize access to reference websites, etc. The libraries of the future could be free, but you must pay for frivolous cat videos. I'm all for this.

  16. Feb 2014
    1. In addition to broad economic trends affecting domestic politics evenly, Fisher also notes the uneven distribution of effects stemming from intellectual property rights (1999, Sect. II. C.). The positive effects of intellectual property rights accrue strongl y to a small number of rights - holders (the paper assumes that there are no significant negative effects to rights - holders); for this reason, rights - holders have significant motive (and potentially greater means) to overcome the significant barriers to acti ve political lobbying.
  17. Jan 2014
    1. If federally funded research is going to broadly benefit society, it has to be widely accessible, not just to curious private citizens, but also to industries, private organizations, and federal, state, and local governments where scientific knowledge can help create new products, solve problems, educate students, and make policy decisions.

      It is The People who will most benefit from open access to federally funded research.

    2. Giving the public what it paid for sounds noble, but from where I sit, a scientist at a well-funded research university, ensuring that research papers are available to the public for free seems pointless.

      This seems to be a comment sentiment-- the open access arguments don't address the individual "what's in it for me?" question. And it is not wrong for people to be asking this question-- not just what benefits them, but also what misery are they in for if they start down this unknown (and possibly treacherous) path? It is the rare few intrepid leaders in this space that can see beyond the immediate benefits and risks-- that can see a new world of science that could exist and are willing to make the epicly dangerous journey along with their loyal argonauts who can withstand the siren song and sail safely through the academic scylla and charybdis.