signal-boost

Among the many phenomena we’d tentatively attribute, in large part, to the trend: the rise of sharebait (nee clickbait) and the general BuzzFeedification of traditional media; the Internet hoax-industrial complex, which only seems to be growing stronger; and the utter lack of intelligent online discourse around any remotely complicated, controversial topic.

Whiten and Erdal focused on food-sharing as the most visible aspect of hunter-gatherer egalitarianism.

Local- using social media, technology, keeping it horizontal, keeping it simple and humble, celebration is important.

There are all these different structures. Thirdly, we need to inter-pollinate, and share these experiences. We need the culture of dialogue. We need to learn how to communicate in different ways- to share patterns, dance, paint etc. Finally, I would like to call it a carnival, and not a confluence- including different worlds,

One of the proposals would be togenerate more spaces for sharing knowledges. Eg providing virtual spaces, eg I have done this, what has and hasn ́t worked. I admire what you do in Unitierra, and the Zapatista, and my context is very different, so we need to change the way of looking atthings.

I think the internet's core message can be summed up in one word: Share.

To understand the current information ecosystem, we need to break down three elements:The different types of content that are being created and sharedThe motivations of those who create this contentThe ways this content is being disseminated

Right now, they estimate the global taxi market is worth $108 billion, which is triple the size of the $36-billion ride-hailing market. At the same time, they calculate an average of 15 million ride-hailing trips a day globally, which they expect to increase to 97 million by 2030.

In historical context, Uber’s extraordinary losses are thus not just a case of growing pains of an ambitious Silicon Valley startup, but a reflection of the deep structural deficiencies in ride-hail industry economics. Prior to artificial regulatory supply caps, the unregulated taxi industry was unprofitable and subject to growing concerns over negative externalities. Uber is now facing the same relentless drag on its P&L.

The Achilles’ heel of Uber and Lyft is their centralized management of pricing. This week's uproar by drivers — and their willingness to join an alternative — shows the failure of that approach. You cannot build a long-term relationship with drivers if you are taking away their ability to set their own pricing. Arcade City will decentralize those decisions to the level of the driver and their customers.

Here is my sense of the topics that resonated most clearly:

Center of Excellence

Creating simple bookmarklets on your Android phone with URL Forwarder

Miracles are teaching devices for demonstrating it is as blessed to give as to receive.

Most proposals (148) were for a new study and publication, with confirmation of original studies’ results (3) being quite uncommon.

t’s noteworthy that 174 of the 177 proposals submitted did not involve reanalysis of original results or disproving of the findings of the original analyses; the bulk of the proposals were for new research. Thus, sponsors’ fears regarding making these data available have not been realized.

Of course, if you want to put a positive spin on this kind of work, you can call it flexible, decentralized micro-entrepreneurship. But pan out, and it looks more like feudalism, with thousands of small subsistence farmers paying tribute to a baron that grants them access to land they don’t own.

as faculty mature in their understanding of OER they will have a greater desire to engage in these and other open pedagogy practices

Within the workings of the informal economy bullying and violence is rife. The harshness of these conditions, and the sword of damocles of deportation, is precisely why this labour is so cheap, and so many businesses opt for it. Bullying makes workers subservient, and scares them away from industrial organising (although there are now amazing unions now fighting for workers in these sectors - the IWGB, IWW, and UVW.) It is not just those businesses that do well out of this exploitation. It makes things cheaper for everyone, and oils the cogs of the whole economy. Many people are happy to reap this work’s benefits without ever taking responsibility for the suffering it causes. 

So its really 1894 to 2100- correct -without the Supers. She didnt cross the threshold, the author needs to be corrected.

Here’s a presentation at the 2013 Personal Democracy Forum that provides a little more context for our project.

Uber is synonymous with its “surge pricing” policy—when cars are scarce and rides in high demand, users are warned that the cost of a ride may be much higher than normal. It’s then up to them whether to pay the premium or find another way to get where they’re going.

The showdown in Austin highlights a paradox for cities and citizens as peer-to-peer platforms like Uber and Lyft extend their operations. Their wide-reaching outreach campaigns mimic the style of local politics, waging attacks and appealing to and seeking our support as “constituents.” But in practice, their actions don’t necessarily represent our best interests.

Luca and his colleagues found requests with African American sounding names were roughly 16 percent less likely to be accepted than their white-sounding counterparts. They found discrimination across the board: among cheap listings and expensive listings, in diverse neighborhoods and homogenous neighborhoods, and with novice hosts as well as experienced hosts. They also found that black hosts were also less likely to accept requests from guests with African American-sounding names than with white-sounding ones.

If you want people to find and read your research, build up a digital presence in your discipline, and use it to promote your work when you have something interesting to share. It’s pretty darn obvious, really: If (social media interaction is often) then (Open access + social media = increased downloads).

My friends here who started a micro-brewery tell stories that when they were starting, the other micro-breweries in the region did not seem them as a threat/competition, and in fact, offered advice, equipment, supplies. The people who do this stuff see it as a net gain for everyone if someone can help raise the regional interest in craft beer; if everyone grows more customers, everyone wins. It’s not a tech startup mentality.

Education Is Sharing

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

he only problem associated with this second block of sharing time is stopping. Sticking to the 10-minute time limit is often very difficult because children sincerely enjoy this time for sharing their ideas, work, and discoverie

What do we know about sharing?

Research  looking  at  the  learner  experience  of  Open  Education  Resources  (OERs)  is  sparse

We need to talk about sharing

people loading their own music up to SoundCloud

A “sharing economy,” by definition, is lateral in structure. It is a peer-to-peer economy. But Uber, as its name suggests, is hierarchical in structure. It monitors and controls its drivers, demanding that they purchase services from it while guiding their movements and determining their level of earnings. And its pricing mechanisms impose unpredictable costs on its customers, extracting greater amounts whenever the data suggests customers can be compelled to pay them.This is a top-down economy, not a “shared” one.

Google is merely interested sharing the code. As Dean says, this will help the company improve this code. But at the same time, says Monga, it will also help improve machine learning as a whole, breeding all sorts of new ideas. And, well, these too will find their way back into Google. “Any advances in machine learning,” he says, “will be advances for us as well.”

This is problematic because the article has been influential in the literature supporting the use of antidepressants in adolescents.

Access to primary data from trials has important implications for both clinical practice and research, including that published conclusions about efficacy and safety should not be read as authoritative. The reanalysis of Study 329 illustrates the necessity of making primary trial data and protocols available to increase the rigour of the evidence base.

“The cat is out of the bag. The content people have no clue. I mean, no clue.” - Bram Cohen

There is now a strong body of evidence showing failure to comply with results-reporting requirements across intervention classes, even in the case of large, randomised trials [3–7]. This applies to both industry and investigator-driven trials. I

“the registration of all interventional trials is a scientific, ethical, and moral responsibility”

Anyone withholding the methods and results of a clinical trial is already in breach of multiple codes and regulations, including the Declaration of Helsinki, various promises from industry and professional bodies, and, in many cases, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendment Act of 2007. Indeed, a recently published cohort study of trials in clinicaltrials.gov found that more than half had failed to post results; and even though the FDA is entitled to issue fines of $10,000 a day for transgressions, no such fines have ever been levied [3].

The best currently available evidence shows that the methods and results of clinical trials are routinely withheld from doctors, researchers, and patients [2–5], undermining our best efforts at informed decision making.

This week there was an amazing landmark announcement from the World Health Organisation: they have come out and said that everyone must share the results of their clinical trials, within 12 months of completion, including old trials (since those are the trials conducted on currently used treatments).

If you have the link you can participa

There is also no easy way of informing an author that someone has commented on his or her work, especially if he or she is not a Hypothes.is user.

Reasons for not making data electronically available. Regarding their attitudes towards data sharing, most of the respondents (85%) are interested in using other researchers' datasets, if those datasets are easily accessible. Of course, since only half of the respondents report that they make some of their data available to others and only about a third of them (36%) report their data is easily accessible, there is a major gap evident between desire and current possibility. Seventy-eight percent of the respondents said they are willing to place at least some their data into a central data repository with no restrictions. Data repositories need to make accommodations for varying levels of security or access restrictions. When asked whether they were willing to place all of their data into a central data repository with no restrictions, 41% of the respondents were not willing to place all of their data. Nearly two thirds of the respondents (65%) reported that they would be more likely to make their data available if they could place conditions on access. Less than half (45%) of the respondents are satisfied with their ability to integrate data from disparate sources to address research questions, yet 81% of them are willing to share data across a broad group of researchers who use data in different ways. Along with the ability to place some restrictions on sharing for some of their data, the most important condition for sharing their data is to receive proper citation credit when others use their data. For 92% of the respondents, it is important that their data are cited when used by other researchers. Eighty-six percent of survey respondents also noted that it is appropriate to create new datasets from shared data. Most likely, this response relates directly to the overwhelming response for citing other researchers' data. The breakdown of this section is presented in Table 13.

Data sharing practices. Only about a third (36%) of the respondents agree that others can access their data easily, although three-quarters share their data with others (see Table 11). This shows there is a willingness to share data, but it is difficult to achieve or is done only on request.

Nearly one third of the respondents chose not to answer whether they make their data available to others. Of those who did respond, 46% reported they do not make their data electronically available to others. Almost as many reported that at least some of their data are available somehow, either on their organization's website, their own website, a national network, a global network, a personal website, or other (see Table 10). The high percentage of non-respondents to this question most likely indicates that data sharing is even lower than the numbers indicate. Furthermore, the less than 6% of scientists who are making “All” of their data available via some mechanism, tends to re-enforce the lack of data sharing within the communities surveyed.

Journals and sponsors want you to share your data