There are some additional interesting questions here, like: how do you get to the edge quickly? How do you do that across multiple fields? What do you do if the field seems misdirected, like much of psychology?

So, given the enormity of this change, I was trying to find the right phrase. The notion of being between worlds has the power to name this transition we are in.

We are starting with creators building in frontier communities: builders creating DAOs in Decentralized Science (DeSci) and Regenerative Finance (ReFi); artists creating Music NFTs; writers on Mirror.

successfully retrieve, assemble and interpret knowledge fragments from more than a hundred thousand publications relevant to children’s health.

Or the PIs who enjoy and excel at raising funds can do so and even re-deploy it to the right scientists, akin to founders who become angel investors and venture capitalists.

How do we design for Difficulty Matching so the users don't get bored or frustrated from the tasks they are being asked to do?

1. How can the community achieve legal clarity for DAOs?

Another inefficiency for today’s P2P models is insurance, as the renter has to purchase an insurance policy for the trip at a significant premium from the P2P operator – even though the vehicle and the renter might already have coverage.

But with the boom of electric micromobility, I definitely see more potential in battery-as-a-service. First of all, batteries are high tech products that require a lot of expertise to be properly build and maintain. Operators are also lacking long-term data for failure rates and lifespan, and are therefore taking a lot of operational and financial risk by managing it themselves. With the growing importance of the environmental impact of their services, the recycling complexity is another argument for outsourcing their batteries management.

this time the Web should have a memory. We’d build in a form of versioning, so the Web is archived thru time.

And it also needs to be Private—so no one knows what you are reading.

transactional use cases between a single creator and a fan rather than community ownership. We still need to answer questions like how to reward editing and peer review, whether that’s via social tokens or some other solution. Those are the first experiments I plan to launch and write about.

Getting the insight-through-making loop

Tools for thought are (mostly) public goods, and as a result are undersupplied:

They convince people – indeed, entire organizations – to make long-term commitments to their products. Schools offer classes so people can call themselves “Photoshop experts” or “Illustrator experts”.

Put another way, many tools for thought are public goods.

In 1996, technology historian Jennifer S. Light compared the talk of “cyberoptimists” about virtual communities to city planners’ earlier optimistic predictions about shopping malls. As the automobile colonized U.S. cities in the 1950s, planners promised that malls would be enclosed public spaces to replace Main Streets. But as Light pointed out, the transition to suburban malls brought new inequities of access and limited the space’s functions to those that served commercial interests.

we should ask: (a) is the platform essentially new, and therefore productive of new organizational forms?; (b) is the platform essentially digital?; and (c) if the answer to both is ‘no’ then what do organization studies, technology studies and media studies miss by treating platforms as both new and essentially digital?

The point of a pluralistic society, however, isn’t to find a single, absolute, dogmatic ideal. It is rather to discover ways of coexisting productively, despite and perhaps even in celebration of our differences.

But the problem is that these companies over-saturate their platforms with so many teachers that all teachers only get a couple of students a week, so they are paying up to 35% of their salary. Very few are paying 18%, which is one of the lowest percentages I have seen.”