the title immediately grabbed me.

Ben Werdmüller sees the Musk take-over as one of more signs that Twitter as we know it is sunsetting. Like FB it is losing its role as the all-in-one communal 'space'. I think the decline is real, but also think it will be long drawn out decline. Early adopters and early main stream may well jump ship, if they haven't already some time ago. The rest, including companies, will hang around much longer, if only for the sunk costs (socially and capital). An alternative (hopefully a multitude as Ben suggests) needs to clearly present itself, but hasn't in a way the mainstream recognises I think. It may well hurt to hold on for many, but if there's no other thing to latch onto people will endure the pain. Boiling frog and all that.

In light of Hypercard more like 'the industry has been avoiding this on purpose'.

murmuratur http://www.loper-os.org/?p=568 #2011/11/29 that's exactly why it went away, breaking the divide between coder and user, as everyone being a coder, a shaper of their computer as a tool conflicts with the biz model. Fitting it is listed here as letting user and programmer be the same person.

Internal re-use along the lines of [[Data wat de overheid doet 20141013110101]] means questions being asked of the data, that BI teams don't think of. (perhaps because of the common disconnect between bi-teams and operational/policy teams?) This is a repeat pattern of what can be observed externally with open data as well. (Vgl CBS open data community in the 2010s)

companies are their own objects of sociality (the work, processes, habits etc.) companies are their own self-formed user group. I am placing companies here on the spectrum of communities of interest/learning/practice. #2007/10/26

After letting professionals in a company have access to their internal BI data, they made it re-usable for themselves by -adding social structures (iirc indicating past and present people, depts etc., curating it for specific colleagues, forming subgroups around parts of the data) -adding context (iirc linking it to ongoing work, and external developments, adding info on data origin) Thus they started socially filtering the data, with the employee network as social network [[Social netwerk als filter 20060930194648]].

Most data in a company is collected for a single purpose (indicators, reporting, marketing). Companies usually don't look at how that data about themselves might be re-used by themselves. Vgl [[Data wat de overheid doet 20141013110101]] where I described this same effect for the public sector (based on work for the Court of Audit, not tying it back to this here. n:: re-use company internal data

This never happened in this way. Another example of how #socsoft became marketing almost exlusively. With the exeception perhaps of async tools like Slack (2013) or Yammer (2008, still exists as part of MS), although filtering is not their point, their users may use it that way. The whole #socsoft for org internal k-work never got much traction. Still a lost opportunity imo. Tools probably need to better fit existing culture/communication styles in org and be internal, but being created as separate place external with its own assumptions.

I wrote this in 2007, just as FB and Twitter took off, so was thinking not of them but other social tools (social software rather than media). One way #socmed turned toxic is because they started filtering for us?

This one is just silly. None of those costs are seriously influenced by the way you make your income. The costs of living are always there. The comparison between self-employed and salaried work as an artist is odd too, which artist is salaried as such? Meaning journalists here probably. Taking Kelly literally on his 100k/yr is even odder, that is high end earning literally everywhere in the world (top 10% in the USA and NL e.g). Yes living in a city is usually more expensive. Kelly's true fans message isn't promising that costs disappear.

I think this is the key thing. The US-ian idea that there's only 'do it on your own' alternatives in the face of failing larger structures (apart from the 'so let's tear those structures down with gusto' that others conclude from it) breaks because it only works for people doing so within the context of those structures existing failing or not, as a minority. Otherwise there's no comparison to be made. How do I fare on my own, compared to those who still work in 'the industry'?

This should have been the title! And then perhaps use Kelly's essay to illustrate that people used that nudge to try and avoid the bad state of the creator economy, but that it doesn't solve the underlying problems.

This feels like 'Kelly's 1000 fans has proven to be a nicely sticky message so let's make it lead' so that people may read about the bad state of the creator economy in general, because that isn't sticky. Piggybacking on Kelly to make a different point altogether.

and that's all it is and ever was, while pointing out there are now other means at hand to do that, and measure your progress, than pre-web. so why set it up as 'theory' in the title?

bothered by how people use it, is not the same as being bothered by the concept is it? "Kitchen knives are great for cooking, you can now mix ingredients by chopping things up, it revolutionises the concept of meals and dishes allowing a variety of taste combinations. We can all be chefs!" "What bothers me most about the "Kitchen Knive" concept is how nowadays there are bad people stabbing others with it."

indeed. see 'do without intermediaries' and don't make yourself as consumer only a passive element in the whole recommendation circus.

That doesn't follow. I don't read Kelly's 'one click' as meaning that the most obscure thing is directly adjacent to the most famous thing as seen from their end. The one click point is that everything is just one hyperlink away, from the 'consumer's' end. Not everyone in the world is my neighbour, but all people online are indeed one click away (although I may not be aware of that most of the time). For me this points to the importance of self-intermediation, i.e. the weblogstyle curation, that 'word-of-hyperlink' propagation of finds. There are now many ways around the intermediaries, even as those evolve or new ones claim their role, even if they remain dominant.

theory? indeed one way of setting things up so you can be seen to take it down.

Kelly: do without intermediators Karpf: intermediators have found ways to keep intermediating. How does that negate the premise as such?

(The clue is in the word industry, if one's looking for what's wrong with it)

yes, if you let them. The flipside of artists, or anyone, looking for true fans, is that it requires a certain level of pro-activeness on the side of the audience too looking for their niche 'true stars'.

True. You can't afford being a True Fan in Kelly's literal wording most of the time even in affluent societies. If I was a true fan of something in my teens (I wasn't) I wasn't spending money on it. For all the concern W is displaying for artists trying to make an income off Kelly's rule of thumb, then in this turn of phrase turning that creative output into their fans 'hobby' probably is a put-down for any artist reading this. Thanks, mate.

It isn't about 'hobbies' only either. The stacking of subscriptions is also problematic. It's the culture intermediators from above doing the exact same thing, thus eroding potential revenue in any actual existing niches (Netflix, Amazon Prime, Spotify: the point is most people want both the fat head of the long tail to be available to them, in addition to the niches they're fan of. The spending likely still starts at the fat head, esp if it follows the same pattern as niche spending, small amounts regularly), and everybody else too (why does every single piece of software turn into a yearly subscription without realising all the umpteenth tools on my laptop trying to do the same make that impossible)

Yet I've never taken Kelly literally, not about the 1000 people, and not about the $100, you can switch that to any number, relevant to any location on earth, and any lifestyle, and still be invited to think realistically about the actual reach you need to make a living. In all cases you don't need to be a superstar to make it, nor a global market leader. It always used to be you could be 'world famous' in your part of the woods, now your part of the woods can be more distributed and does not depend on locality per se.

More recently I also have come to see translation as creative work, not just placing it in a different conversation, but as a 'language game' a la Wittgenstein, it has different effects when one translates something. When my notes are mixed language, or when I translate one for a blogpost, that act of translation becomes part of the work of making sense of the notion in the note, it regularly offers new avenues of thought. Due to slight differences in meaning between words in languages, or because of the ethymology of a word in another language offering a new line of thought.

My current practice, reading in multiple languages, seeing myself as participant in different conversations, where I sometimes carry those conversations to another place (in another language). If I blog in another language, it's because of the conversational context I am placing that posting in, it's never an attempt to offer the content here in translation.

Meshing is a useful term

This is still how I approach multilingual settings. Building a chain (my go to example is an early 90s example of a students meet-up in Hungary where a Russian spoke Russian to a Bulgarian who spoke Spanish to a Spanish student who spoke English and put the Russian's words in front of the rest of us.) This is imprecise, but human and forgiving.

I think this is still valid. Enforcing a single language is too rigid. Although for a temporary context may well be the best working solution (say, a single meeting), and centralised translation is only worth the enormous effort if there's a strong need for reliably translated material (such as the EU laws)

We're 19yrs on now from when I wrote this. Things are better but far from perfect. I'm getting good use out of DeepL, but it still helps if you know the other language to help understand what is meant.

This is an interesting observation. Also because Memex went on to inspire e.g. Doug Engelbart. Was Engelbart aware of the history when he demo'd outlining and notes? Was Nelson when he thought up stretchtext in 67?

https://www.academia.edu/35101285/Creating_a_Commonplace_Book_CPB_

yes, it's a drag.

This may well be true for Bush too. Why say commonplace and linked notes when you can claim Memex?

I did not realise Johnson made note cards (in DevonThink) but have read his 2004 book Emergence which he probably wrote that way. https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2004/05/the_emergence_o/ I do associate card based interlinked notes with emergence, Vgl [[Emergente structuur ontdekken is kennisontwikkeling 20200922082048]] 'spotting emergent structure is newly developed knowledge'

I played with this at the time in 2004 https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2004/10/tiddlywiki/

My zettelkasten section of notes is called The Garden of the forking paths, from a 1941 short story by Argentinian author Jorge Luis Borges titled El jardin de senderos que se bifurcan. In 1992 it was worked into Victory Garden, an early hypertext novel, published by Eastgate. Eastgate is Mark Bernstein's company. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_Garden_(novel)

Good to see Mark Bernstein mentioned here. He's definitely strongly aware of the history and legacy he is building on with his software. I met him and came to know Tinderbox in 2004. I have been using Tinderbox since early 2008 when I went independent and started using Mac.

I have the 2015 MIT Press version see Zotero

I have a 1969/70 edition

One of the most fascinating things in historical exhibitions or overviews of the work of an artist I find are surviving note(book)s. Across the centuries it is clear that so much of the work of making sense, of developing practices, striving for results, consists of making notes. Even if not for re-use as a way of being present.

This is akin to how I kept notes for most my life. With notable exceptions when I used The Brain and later a local wiki, which made interlinking easy. Before that, it was loose handwritten notes (since I was 10), often bundled in a5 blocks, but still one note per page, or loose txt files on a xt. After it was Evernote. Until early 2020 when I returned to loose notes digitally

Everything has a lineage, and the one for pkm is centuries deep.

there's tools and there's practices.

around 2018 AND later during ... Covid started early 2020, so something is missing here. Was Roam launched 2018? Obsidian is from early 2020 indeed.

Great to read this essay, after folllowing the annotations Chris made in h. that fed into his notes that led to this essay. Fun to recognise bits and pieces from his h. feed in recent months.

For me the first new connection happened at 35 notes, or within a week of starting my notes garden in July 2020. Documented in my blog https://hyp.is/R59hRFKvEe21Cj8MfKmtxQ/www.zylstra.org/blog/2020/07/planting-the-garden-of-forking-paths/ This is an order of magnitude difference (also mentioned by Matthias in the comments) from what you mention. This may well be, in both Matthias and my own case from having worked with these type of notes much longer (just not in this particular fashion), and me in this case recycling my own blogposts and earlier output back into atomic notes. I suppose that results in more 'refined' notes, less processing steps needed to make a new connection in my mind.

ha! an elusive joker that refutes the other concepts in the notes. Sounds like L could be frustrated in his 'communication with his ZK' searching for a note. I've definitely had that, being unable to find a thing in my 1600 or so ZK type notes that I know is in there somewhere in some form. Let alone in his 67k notes ZKII

Another metaphor, the ZK has the complicated digestive system of ruminantia. This says something about the work involved, but also about how there's a temporal dimension at play. Things can come back to be used long after being put in. The internal connectivity determines the process.

L sees ZK as extension of his personal experience with better thinking through writing, although that seems to mostly cover the input side of ZK. The mention of anspruchsvollen Zugriff (ambitious/demanding ways of accessing the notes) in constellation (Zusammenhängen) is very much usage/output related. The mention of clearly establishing differences (einzukerben, which is a raw almost violent choice of words) is notable, also goes back to the stated purpose of ZKII to find the imperfections and inadequacies in the concepts studied.

This sounds bit like [[Gestalten and Constellations above Crumbs 20200426111123]] wrt to exposing context without noting such context all down, but keeping it accessible for when one is going through what was noted.

L says there's a feedback loop to reading when you make notes. Atomic notes change reading and are not excerpts. Fragmentation and non-linearity, also a form of interdependency interruption?

Very interesting. L's preconceived order, and the branches resulting from his numbering, are in a sense introducing the interruption of interdependence between notions here. Interdependenzuntrebrechung afaict is a L term in his system theorie, where creating disconnects is a way to make things manageable. Organisations are a means to create an interdependency interruption, demarcating, fencing off really, the inside from the outside. This is akin a path from complex realm to complicated and locally to simple. A path to production requires such demarcation, a limit, to be able to express it in an output.

Because of the previous notion that an entry point should offer more than a single note, it is not enough to just order things under big themes. 'although that is still needed too' : I suppose because of the physical nature of his ZK things must have some pre-conceived topics. The connections must escape the preconceived structure, provding an emergent one.

ZK is compared to a septic tank here. Don't just add clarified notes, put in rough material too. Postponing evaluation and decision (elsewhere: because the question at time of use determines the lens for that). Also a matter of speed: how? loosing a thought as you're taking too long to get down the preceding one?

I find it interesting to find this septic tank metaphor in ZKII, when compared to his 1980's communication partner one. They are of very different type. To me it feels the septic tank metaphor fits ZKI better, which seems to have been less aimed as tool on certain outputs, whereas ZKII started with more purpose, and was used that way. Notes are undated, is this L's thinking at the time of starting ZKII, i.e. the result of reflecting on ZKI while starting ZKII?

the connections between notes are important because they allow every access point to provide more than just that single entry.

Formulation of the emergent character of working with L's ZK. The unordered/ordered distinction points to it being a means, starting out in the complex domain, bringing it to the compllicated, where scientific method resides. The serendipitous combinations and the clustering are emergent structures that provide new insights [[Emergente structuur ontdekken is kennisontwikkeling 20200922082048]]

"The productivity problem must be formulated in the context of a relation, in the relation of the ZK and its user." This holds generally I suppose, productivity notions must be placed in the context of the producer and their tools. Where the producer also is the one formulating what counts as productivity. Vgl [[A Practice for Note Card Systems Outputs – Interdependent Thoughts 20221023140227]] Reading this I realise I have little purpose for e.g. economic measures of general population productivity, and e.g. in my company staying away from using billable hours as measure for productivity (but struggling to find another way to have such conversations, about effectiveness perhaps more than productivity)

Interesting. L talks here about attempts to make a second brain for himself. Citing that assistants are problematic: hard to find, and ever more unruly and unmanageable. Sounds cranky.

Then says, micropocessors have been announced but not yet available really. ==> L would have done his ZK digitally if given the chance?

Complains human memory is limited and needs relief through tooling.

This is a rather 'human' type of note. Different from densely referenced other stuff, more autobiographic in a sense, as it speaks to throughs/perception more than theories and concepts.

After under 3 weeks I had some 140 notes in my conceptual 'garden' (mostly 'recycled' from my own earlier blogposts and presentations), and I report making the first novel connection for myself at 35 notes.

ZKII was a new start, perhaps coinciding with L having developed a theory of governance. The first card is a programmatic phrasing, that signifies the paradigm of this new start: "Es muss versucht werden, die Methoden und Begriffe so klar als irgend möglich zu explizieren, damit ihr Unzulänglichkeit und Unvollkommenheit deutlich wird" Wow. It must be attempted to make explicit the methods and concepts as clearly as possible, so that their inadequacy and imperfection become clear .

L's first ZK of about 23k notes came about in the 1950s, although occasional additions took place until early 70s. He was a civil servant at this time. Notes cover his readings in public governance, organisational theory, philosophy, and sociology.

L's ZKII created from the early sixties until his death in late 90s, of about 67k notes, coincides with his time in scientific institutions. Sociology focused, methodical access to his readings across diverse scientific disciplines.

L's card collection as intellectual autobiography Vgl index cards as diary, here unintended. L's notes were undated.

Luhmann's description of his cards is varied: - Denkwerkzeug thinking tool (to in a structured, connection oriented and highlighting differences way think) - Zweitgedächtnis, second(ary) memory/brain, but not as a 'simple' knowledge archive - Klärgrube (literally clarification pit), septic tank, in which to put all arbitrary thoughts/ideas and coincidences of reading material in, decisions about its informational value being made later through the internal connectability. - Junior partner in communication, because of the resulting internal complexity of the notes collection

There's a mention of the multiple storage principle here, which is also mentioned in [[Technik des wissenschaflichen Arbeitens by Johannes Erich Heyde]] to prevent having to consult the cards card by card, but can rely on relationships between notes. Is this a hybrid step between L's own system and how Heyde wrote about what was common? Did L actually do multiple storage? If so, how? Heyde suggested full copies.

L's card about multiple storage is titled thus in English (https://hyp.is/QQk9IFKZEe2e1vPRucX3WQ/niklas-luhmann-archiv.de/bestand/zettelkasten/zettel/ZK_2_NB_9-8b2_V) suggesting it did not originate from Heyde here.

Interesting that the card uses English, implying the phrase 'multiple storage' came from an English language reading source. As a necessity for storing complex information and complex evaluations of infromation.

Having put in the work is a frame of reference for providing feedback. To ensure it matches up with the reality of the effort. This goes beyond the context of writing/art, I tie this to cybernetics, thinking about feedback in networks and systems.

Author talks about repair, then mentions emergence. The latter is probably the more important observation. Repeatedly revisiting things and making incremental changes also points back to author's earlier point of the qualitative effects of quantity through paying attention. Says this creates the most interesting value from his work. I'd say this is probably a crucial piece of work. Interacting with ones own material, like linking and going through cards, adding to them is the work. Makes it like Luhmann's communication and writing of books, and Sohrens notion that the written work emerges from the previous work put into the cards.

The process of connecting written fragments is not just editing, it is also creation: make the story work logistically, and improve the language to match characters and locations. The latter can only be done at this stage, because the writing process reveals characters to the author. Author calls this reverse engineering, which is an interesting metaphor.

After writing the first things based on energy, the author makes cards (vgl those in scrivener) that would help complete the story. Cards serve as a tentative map, not as a rigid outline to complete (see advice above wrt rigidity). Works through those to select what to write next, again based on energy/excitement.

A non-linear approach to writing, starting from where your own energy is. Apparently combined with the earlier mentioned showing-up to do things repeatedly. Akin to non-linear reading?

harvesting as metaphor, points to the compounding effect of doing things (not aimless things though, methods/aims above goals)

A rich paragraph of for me hard won insights.

There are compounding effects from the small things of life, if you notice those. Vgl [[Kwantiteit leidt tot kwaliteit 20201211155505]] [[Blogs als avatar 20030731084659]]

showing up

https://web.archive.org/web/20221019165213/https://thecreativeindependent.com/people/writer-bud-smith-on-putting-in-the-work/

https://web.archive.org/web/20220929103452/https://spectator.clingendael.org/nl/publicatie/waarom-een-europese-digitale-identiteit-simpel-moet-blijven

Jaap-Henk Hoepman over de eIDAS. Tot nu toe kijk ik naar eIDAS vooral als een digid dat Europees werkt, niet veel meer (dus om in te loggen op bijv een B of D dienst). En verder facet-gebaseerd zoals Irma doet. J-H kaart hier toch andere punten aan.

Can't go to any of these talks next week. Follow up on the names listed and see if they have a web presence I want to subscribe to.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220112185239/https://medium.com/human-ventures/sane-is-helping-you-reclaim-your-attention-online-6b79297b67f4

Came across Sane in Chris Aldrich's h. feed. Sane looks intruiging, but not yet clear to me what it is/aims to be, or how it works and is/n't interoperable with other things. This is an interview with its founder Ida Josefiina. Explore what the idea/vision behind Sane is.

Fazit: the described observations seem off to me, the motivations resulting from them and the aim of Sane valuable.

It's not just a 'rebellion'. In Europe there is a strong establishment regulatory effort, that recognises the geopolitical significance of everything digital/data. So 'rethinking your relationship to tech' is a pretty mainstream discussion for at least 6 yrs.

nice phrase. but there's a learned behaviour here as a result, that you can't simply discount and counteract by offering a different environment. It seems to require retraining. (Vgl finding my blogging muscle again after ditching FB, and reading more academic papers and books after ditching attentiongrabbing timelines in e.g. Twitter and LinkedIn.)

Goes back to wanting to make it easier to access the institutional stuff. This is a useful type of threshold eroding.

online networked micro-communities have existed as long as dial-up modems have been around. Are they confusing with finding that out for themselves with something actually new? The whole generation phrasing suggest they are.

iow they are growing up.

Sane focuses on reading/text, creating the space for thinking about stuff, and generate insights. It wants to move away from consuming inputs to digesting them. Annotation and note taking similar. Do they see it as social annotation? Does it interact with local note systems?

Where is the boundary between easing the work and friction that is necessary in learning, and doing it for you? Discovery of new ideas and formatting to meditate on sounds valuable. But it also reads like a summary service, like e.g. Blinkist, which helps in determining if something is worth a read but hardly conveys the stuff that creates new insights/K for the reader.

the fundamentals of learning have always been the same. There is a quantitative difference in information availability and speed/ channels of delivery due to digitisation and internet that leads to qualitative differences yes. n::don't have a note yet about this oddly enough, or I named it in a way that doesn't help finding it.

and this is new or unique?

please stop the 'generation whatitsname' is like 'something'. It is never true. Gen Z hypercognitive and comfortable adopting new tools is just as much nonsense as saying they are lazy and can't concentrate on anything meaningful. Young people always more easily adopt things that are newly introduced when they are in their 10s and 20s, afterwards they will be just as locked in as older people. My grandparents eagerly 'adopted' radio, while their parents likely bemoaned them for not reading the paper anymore. Likewise my parents and TV news, and me with internet. Thinking in 'generations' doesn't have any real value imo. It's shorthand for marketing, and hand waving in every other context.

yuck. learning as 'internal experience economy', very marketing speak. The earlier mention of attention in the title makes more sense to me than 'internal experience economy'

3rd purpose of Sane: access to K outside institutions. See earlier mention of not having access to uni libraries. Something that irked me greatly over the years as well. (I registered for uni for some years to gain access to courses I was interested in and to the uni lib, until it became too expensive to do so in NL when they created the non-regulated institutional fees alongside the regulated first time student fees.)

Vgl the topic neutral aspects of commonplacing and Luhmann's approach to ZK, vs the topic focused forms of ZKs.

indeed. No such thing as [[Information overload 20040327145709]], but failing [[Infostrats 20200705214454]] are common in usefully dealing with the abundance [[Informatie overvloed 20051122162501]].

'build a network of connected knowledge' this seems to subscribe to the K as object view, woven into a network of connections. As opposed to connectivism (Siemens, Downes) [[Netwerkleren Connectivism 20100421081941]] where the network is the knowledge itself.

Sane has two purposes: 1 provide entry points to new topics 2 help build an active thinking habit (where the work in note making is too)

Is this communal commonplacing?

This sounds very PKM-ish, and the type of thing the IndieWeb community sees as starting point for the creation of independent webtools. Personal software that may be of interest to more users than yourself.

her LinkedIn profile says she's been a year at a Chinese uni to study Chinese.

[[Aandacht is het schaarst 20201013163120]] meaning [[Aandacht is een morele keuze 20201217074345]], and therefore [[Stuur aandacht met intentie 20220213080032]]

Satterwhite describes making art, the process of it, repeating things, as a form of journaling, as proof to oneself of presence and existence, anchoring mindfulness. Repetition of attempts 'reveal' the compostion. Gives that as reason of why their practice is varied in media. Intriguing. It reminds me of how Austin Kleon makes his collages also as a sort of journal, incorporating stuff from the now. And how Wouter Groeneveld in his commonplacing notebooks has memento's thoughts, doodles and everything. A contextualised creative expression.

From a central idea, Satterwhite expresses themselves across multiple disciplines. This may seem to be fragmented and unfocused. ('all over the place') With a list of current questions one can help soft-focus a range of different information flows, Feynman style, and avoid focusing on 1 type of info. This increases serendipity and combinational creativity. Is what Satterwhite describes the same thing for expression? Having several outlets not as fragmentation, but different probes of expressing the same idea. The idea soft-focuses the expressed across the mediia it is expressed in, not focusing on a single form of expression. Provided one has the skills to do so. Vgl Doctorow exploring in science fiction the same ideas he explores in non-fiction.

Satterwhite talks about how different expressions/media originate from the same process and same context, and form a connected whole.

trusting the process (ones own, or a facilitator's) implies recognising/knowing the process. The source of trust is that the process in earlier cycles delivered useful (to me) outputs. I usually term in Practice, as not all practice is process, but all process is practice. Vgl my [[% Practice Praktijk OP]] elephant path.

So often I encounter an old piece of text I wrote, where it contains the start of ideas I am currently working on thinking it just recently crossed my path. E.g. EU regulations wrt data, I think it entered my work in 2019/2020, but already in 2017 I gave a keynote outlining the things I currently actively work on 5 yrs later.

https://web.archive.org/web/20221018124330/https://thecreativeindependent.com/people/artist-jacolby-satterwhite-on-trusting-your-own-process/

A few months later I blogged about this as being the 'home cook equivalent' of a programmer https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2020/02/i-am-the-programming-equivalent-of-a-home-cook/

Hermans proved that Excel is Turing complete in her thesis.

there is a big opportunity cost to unassisted learning to code: many people will drop-out (in frustration). Again this is how the IndieWeb community quickly drives people away too. the skill level acquired this way is limited (due to absence of Vgl deliberate practice?) the acquired skills do not make following activities more efficient. (Vgl how I usually struggle with the same basic coding issues, no matter how many scripts I try to write).

Still very common to observe as example of such 'coder's ethics'. E.g. IndieWeb community discussion is mostly based on figuring things out yourself and creating one's own code (self-dogfooding), with only generic and hand-wavy assistance most of the time.

The way you learned programming shapes assumptions about how to learn programming.

The fact I self-learned through trial and error without supervision in the early and mid 80s, is common, but not a model for K transfer, and not useful "coder's ethic"

Hermans posits that there is no actual body of work about how to effectively teach programming. In contrast to reading.

Now a professor at VU Amsterdam. In #2019/ we both keynoted NL CoderDojo Conf. and I blogged this beforehand.

Heinz on content strategy for degrowth. Referenced in my blog https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2019/10/10192/ this day in 2019.

This article does not say a word about the how-to of overwriting one's cognitive scripts, rather it states why you might need to. It describes what they are, how they are useful and when not, and how to detect when they're not.

Cogscripts need review if they are still applicable or no longer provide utility. As with all habits, reflection cycles are needed. This does require being aware of the existence of cogscripts/entrained responses. A range of childhood cogscripts are likely past their use-by date.

Scripts in memory for text https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0010028579900094 April 1979.

Abstract mentions how our existing scripts help determine how we remember texts that describe common events. The order of narration, and filling in of details is influenced by our internal script upon recall. Vgl [[Luisteren gaat uit van wat je al weet 20030309070740]] the linguistic notion that listening starts from what you already know (here the cogscripts)

cognitive scripts / habitual behaviour is often an entrained response to a common situation. Situations that are common for many people means there is commonality in their cognitive scripts too. 'Copying the neighbours' is a heuristic that informs the formation of such cognitive scripts in a situation, which is also one of the heuristics that contributes to emergence. Are shared cognitive scripts, through emergence, atomic particles of culture? (Vgl [[Culture is the Greatest Hits collection of social facts 20070828174701]] (Social facts are agreements in groups of people.) and [[The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker 20070828073721]] where he presents a culture as the sum of the individual psychologies of those in a culture.

I don't see that 'control' and 'cognitive scripts' are in juxtaposition. Handing things off to 'subroutines' isn't the same as reducing oneself to that subroutine. I drive my car mostly on cognitive scripts so I can pay actual attention to traffic and surroundings, pilots use checklists to get a plane in the air and back down, it helps to be more aware and in control, and not be swamped in noisy complexity that distracts.

Such an odd paragraph. Yes changing habits tied to aspects of identity can be hard (but the other way around vgl [[Gewoonteveranderingen 20200928165507]] can also be the very starting point of change. "As a business leader I don't do .... and do do ....")

The (another) strange notion here is that the self-identity of 'successful business leader' is tied to 'long hours and managing intense stress'. I'd say that you probably won't be a successful business leader if that is your daily experience. So the example falls flat, reducing working hours and stress will not challenge one's identity as a successful business leader, at least not in any sane individual.

suggestions to reflect and change cogscripts (the article talks about 'strategies but that's bs, these are operational tactics): - journal to see recurring patterns - take some risks (vgl [[Probe proberend handelen 20201111162752]]) - 'update your scripts' which isn't a 'strategy' nor tactic but the objective for which the list is made that this point listed in. it's the key point that the article circles around, but left completely empty. Vgl [[Gewoonteveranderingen 20200928165507]] wrt process changes.

habits can be altered.

Automated responses are shortcuts, but it may blind us to differences (jumping to conclusions), opportunity costs and hidden consequences.

Link: https://sk.sagepub.com/reference/encyclopedia-of-media-violence/i1171.xml article that apparently looks at how "the model of cognitive scripts to explain how children learn aggression-related knowledge structures" which is a diff context than it is cited here. The claims in this paragraph do not stem from that link but are stated in the links abstract as pre-existing knowledge informing the article at the link. Cogscripts may script our social behaviour (it's how we learned it), but it doesn't follow the scripts control our behaviour, even if we can usually expect ourselves and others to stick to them. Control implies force/intent on the side of the script and lack of agency of the individual. Intuitively it's the other way around, it's a tool / aid / scaffold. This is the rules/structure as skeleton vs suit of armour discussion, sounds like.

1977 The link is to a review: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1421499 "Scripts Plans Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry Into Human Knowledge Structures" Nice referral to K structures. Book link https://www.routledge.com/Scripts-Plans-Goals-and-Understanding-An-Inquiry-Into-Human-Knowledge/Schank-Abelson/p/book/9780898591385

Review mentions the book is situated interdisciplinary: cs, psych, ling, phil

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Script_theory Shanck and Abelson extended a pre-existing script theory as early AI work to represent procedural K This to me strengthens the link with emergence and culture. It also compares to [[Standard operating procedures met parameters 20200820202042]] : my behaviour with some input parameters is pretty predictable to myself (because of such entrained cogscripts) and thus also scriptable as personal software tools.

Cogscripts depend on personal perspective and experience (compare how members of privileged in group and outgroups experience the same situation), and on culture you feel part of (i.e. the collection of previously adopted scripts / social facts)

claim: cognitive scripts can become obsolete and hinder your personal decision making. The earlier connection to such scripts being formed in childhood: are we talking behavioural therapy here?

The purpose of cognitive scripts is efficiency of mental decision making.

example of common cognitive script, and in this case a common cultural one too.

only in childhood? source? personal? some yes, though examples given below are more generic within a culture (e.g. typical behaviour in restaurants.)

https://web.archive.org/web/20221019135505/https://nesslabs.com/cognitive-scripts

Peter pointed me to (t)his 2009 blogpost of adding your location to a DNS record. At the time he configured it so that his Plazes location was written to his DNS. e.g. I could share my location by adding DNS LOC to ton.zijlstra.eu e.g.

Posting talks about advice, w.r.t. the word's origin being connected to middle English 'opinion, thought, judgment' and earlier from a vis, apparent / visible to me, and the Latin videre, to see. At first glance an interesting connection, as so much of my work is based on seeing examples and patterns elsewhere and bringing that to a client's context as advice. Vgl phenomenology [[Fenomenologie Husserl 20200924110518]]

IndieWeb POSSE avant la lettre. However I don't point to syndication here, but to services coming to me to fetch the relevant content. Like inbound RSS on micro.blog.

2004 me complaining about silo'd data collections and saying that complaint is routine. This being pre FB and birdsite.

I probably follow Harold's blog since then too. I remember Lilia and Harold interacted about PKM early on, and Lilia I and others organised a PKM workshop at KM Europe in Nov 2004. That came out of conversations on Knowledge Board, then a EU funded KM network of learning. KB based conversation was also what led me to blogging from Nov 2002.

I agree, it's all about the interaction and digital makes that easier, richer and ever more powerful. Reading that paragraph I also realise that my own practical interpretation is simultaneously one more of private knowledge management, rather than personal embedded in my network. Am happy to share my pkm practices, am happy to share most of the material I process in my pkm system, but the core of it feels private, perhaps due to seeing it as fragile still / less robust types of insights?

I stopped traveling heavily mid 2016 when our daughter was born. The pandemic hit right when I was gearing up to do more work outside of Europe again. Like Harold I have reservations about when travel is needed, the reflex to do things on site / in person has changed locally just as much. Am in conversations with WB however to start contributing to their work in Central Asia, maybe sometime next year. Travel is a habit as Bryan Alexander remarked to me, and it is something I do miss. Although I do not miss the tediousness of the travel itself, it's the interaction with professional peers from different context in places that operate differently. Helps me to cut through non-sense excuses at home as well (we can't do this 'cause.... when I just returned from a place where they could with a fraction of the means)

https://web.archive.org/web/20221013051011/https://www.downes.ca/post/74218

Downloaded the paper to Zotero

I'm mostly interested in the current thinking about the role of the external environment in extended congition. Offloading K to our environment is extremely old, and digital PKM takes it on faith. At the same time personal experience suggests interplay with what I offload is also key. Sveiby saw external structure as the next component after PKM, for KM. The better I remember what I offloaded and how/why the more useful it is to work with the offloaded stuff.

Total indifference? The moment of the law's passing in July was the end of years of discussion and debate. The proposal was published at the end of 2020, and had been years in the making. Also it's a continuation of pre-existing regulations. Things only come suddenly if you haven't been paying attention to the process.

This is BS. There is every need to base yourself on the legislative text itself. There's nothing tortuous about that text.

Indeed, and why I think the timeline is a likely the target. The cachet has been severely eroded already though, with Q Anon and covid conspiracy fantasies running rampant in the timeline despite those who do the spreading doing that in the context of their professional reputations.

This may indeed help somewhat. A long time account is more likely to be legit. It does provoke its own wave of online abuse, as also seen on Twitter where people are pressed to hand over long time Twitter accounts.

Maybe it's not the companies or potential scam victims that are the target here. Maybe it is the timeline that is the target. This would fit my own experience that the timeline has been deteriorating enormously, up to the point that I no longer allow the timeline to be visible in my profile. Unfollowd everyone.

The 'new' fake accounts are not doing the same as previous types of fake accounts, and are not responsive.

Reason for fake accounts is unclear as yet. Headshots seem AI generated.

Zijn dit de 2(?) bronnen voor de EUHVDL mobiliteit? RWS' FIS VNDS en de ENCs van RWS, provincies en waterschappen. Meen me te herinneren in FRL dat prov data was ondergebracht in die van RWS. Dingens als profielen en brugtijden zouden mogelijk al in de ENCs zijn opgenomen.

NB rijk, provincie en waterschappen zijn allen vaarwegbeheerders, dus decentraal geregeld.

speculation wrt Nordstream explosions about the cause. Not sabotage but methanehydrage plugs in combination with bad maintenance practice, on a system that depends on gasflows for inspection / maintenance, but where those gasflows have been interrupted / were absent in the past months.

Claim: anarchic ideal is flawed in the face of climate urgency. Solutions depend on working government, other paths would be too slow. First reaction is maybe any 'ideal' is flawed for any type of solution, there's a path between dystopian and utopian visions. Ministry for the Future explores if speed of government is enough, and contains a number of quite violent nudges causing tipping points (like simultaneously blowing a range of (private) jets out of the sky, making flying too high risk for anyone overnight.)

This is a project by Manton of Micro.blog. Check to see if he discussed it in the IndieWeb chat channels in more detail. esp wrt use for check-ins ==> he did, first on #2022/07/20 Also mentions jonhays.me as co-creator. A stated purpose is indeed to move away from using 4sq

Phrasing 'will be' is used several times. It is unclear to me how 'ready' this project is to be used. Repository is at https://github.com/meridianplaces/meridian

Meridian does not itself support check-ins like 4sq of old. It could be build on top of Meridian.

Meridian here suggests to potentially submit data by posting to your blog with micropub (presumably adding a lat-long or venue name) and have the micropub parsing also run data through Meridian's API. I suspect, like with Media, this introduces some non-trivial multiple-rounds of interaction with a micropub client, to get and update the right venue. This is also a potential path to do check-ins on my blog

Meridian wants to solve a) finding places given a current lat-long b) create a new place on a certain lat-long.

Meridian can be used to push changes to OSM under my own account.

Found via Ben Werdmüller https://werd.io/2022/meridian #2022/09/29

Amazon does a platform as a hostage taker move on Twitch streamers.

Stephen Downes points to this https://www.downes.ca/post/74159 and adds One thing I believe is missing from the advice: be clear about why you are networking. What do you hope to accomplish? Are you seeking potential collaborators for research? Are you looking to get hired as a contractor? Are you trying to learn what certain developers were thinking? Are you trying to promote an idea or concept? This is important, because it should also set yourself in a frame where you are considering what they want to accomplish, and how you can best serve that need. This means more listening than talking, usually, to understand where you can help, where you can add value, where you can offer a tangible benefit.

Vgl [[Goed voorbereide ontmoetingen 20210411174134]] and [[Goed nabereide ontmoetingen 20160714174139]] because [[Kruisende paden zijn schaars 20081115170729]]

In general this is a bland list of advice (no surprisal), and Stephen's addition is not new to me either.

Follow-up is something I routinely do. Not just connecting to people online, but adding their blogs to my reader, making notes about some of the stories I heard and the people who told them. Following online traces after an event for at least a few days. Not primarily to be remembered or stay connected, mostly to internalise the interesting things I heard. It helps me to memorise what I encountered much better. [[Goed nabereide ontmoetingen 20160714174139]]

Asking questions works always well, trying to understand someone's work/motivations. People like to talk about the things they find important.

strike up conversations early on. I find speaking at an event helps because it turns it into a place I belong at more. But without it, mentally claiming the space as my 'home turf' helps too. Which is why when I facilitate sessions I want to see and walk around the space before any participants arrive, so I can project my mental image of what we'll do in the session on the space.

I don't much like the premise here (preparing to strike up specific conversations with specific people) as it runs counter to the natural flow of interaction at any event (ugh 'networking event'). I do prepare though because face to face crossroads are scarce. I check who is coming that I know and would like to catch up with, I check sessions beforehand, and whether I'd like to talk to the speaker, I check for preconf meet-ups etc, and follow posts/tags about it from other attendees. That and having a set of questions and interests to guide my participation.

Not mentioned in the video: The ExcaliBrain plugin is clearly based on The Brain software, both in terms of types of links between notes, and how it shows them. The name suggests so too, and the plugin author names The Brain as source of inspiration. I used The Brain as desktop interface from 1997 until 2004-ish

I disagree with Nicole van der Hoeven about commenting out explicit relationships so that the plugin will visualise them but the note won't show the link. The notes should always show all links I explicitly set, that's the whole point. Machine inferred links are a different matter, which deserve a toggle as they are suggestions made to me. Links are my real work in my notes.

Setting explicit links (parent, child, friends) is similar to [[Drie links in een Notie 20220228111240]] after Soren Bjornstadt, where I aim to link from each note to one higher level of abstraction note, to one lower level of abstraction but more concrete note, and one related note at the same level. This creates 'chains' of 4 notes with a content-based implied order.

I strongly dislike the parent-child-sibling vocabulary as it implies an order of creation. Parents first, children from parents. I.e. abstract concepts first. This is not how it mostly works. Abstract notions are often created from, intuited from, the scaffolding of less abstract ones.

Nicole also talks about this implied hierarchy, and mentions a higher level type of use, which is adding more semantics to links. E.g. to sketch out lines of argumentation (A reinforces / contradicts B) (for which the three link approach just mentioned is probably a hybrid). This is the type of linking that Tinderbox allows. She hasn't used it that way but suggests it's likely the most valuable use case. I think that is true. It's where linking becomes the work again, as opposed to lazy or automatic linking between notes.

Def to experiment with this, but need to change the terms used as is made possible by the plugin.

(update, I almost verbatim used this first impressions dump for a blogpost https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2022/09/the-brain-comes-to-obsidian-as-excalibrain/ That's a nice development)

Claudia Dawson writes about before going with a gut instinct to rate ones intensity of emotions, and then trusting ones gut more if those emotions are less intensive. This is building a reflective loop into it, without doing away with the instinctive response. Vgl how I ask Y to rate from 1-10 when she feels pain (which she now does by herself too), to better understand her.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220711060309/http://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/the-benefits-of-mixed-emotions/

Go through listed resources wrt [[Holding questions 20091015123253]] and relation to mixed emotions / discomfort.

Within facilitation [[Holding questions 20091015123253]] is a very useful concept, not seeking to immediately answer them or converge on consensus too soon. It has two effects, that of allowing a more varied range of ideas and responses to surface, and that of better listening to eachother as you pre-empt a first response (which often serves to shut down a new line of inquiry). Such first responses in my experience are tied to discomfort (the immediate response serves to push it away). Discomfort may come from mixed emotions, and the suggestion here is to take pause when that happens and observe it. Holding questions, outside of facilitation is also a tool to scope curiosity, a la Feynman's list of 'interesting problems' to carry around: [[Twaalf favoriete vraagstukken 20201006163045]] Here too a certain unease / set of mixed feelings is a reason to let the issue 'hang' for a while to see what turns up over time.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220927091911/https://flowingdata.com/2022/09/27/design-principles-for-data-analysis/

Nathan Yau shares a link to a paper on data analysis design principles. Find and download, also share with E.

The image at the top in this posting does not occur in the paper cited/linked though it is marked as belonging to the article.

It's indeed an interesting distinction. Does it represent a different approach in starting point, or is it a deeper difference in artisanship? And there's a bridge needed I suppose. Just thinking does not lead to writing, only wordsmithing not to thought through storyline. I can think of fun and great non-fiction books that read more thought out, and those where wording was leading it seems. But is that sense proof of the actual process? Read Venkatesh original text.

If this is a useful distinction and ignoring the fact I'm not an author, I fall on the thinking side mostly. Back at uni I wrote columns where the words were leading the way though. Where the verbal construct was the fun, not conveying a point or story.

Claim: recipes are not copyrightable, cook books claim copyright based on the images (I would suspect based on the selection and ordering in the book too, as well as the 'prose stories' generally above it "I came across this recipe while hiking through Tuscany where in a small village this extermely old lady sat outside rolling fresh pasta, and upon seeing me created the best ever sauce to go with it and feted me until deep in the night. The next morning she slipped her family's secret sauce recipe in my backpack as I said goodbye"

It wasn't legal advice then, and no precedent has been set here. This is just nice marketing for his graphic novel.

Author's intent was not to have AI provided with copyright. Intent was to claim copyright for himself while using algorithmic support in creating images. That would never be in doubt though. In the end author did not claim/receive copyright on the images but on the graphic novel which was even less ever in doubt he would be able to.

BS. Author got copyright on a graphic novel, i.e. an arranged series of whatever images plus authored text. Even if author got copyright on individual images (because of iterative prompting to get useful results), and in any jurisdiction where copyright is automatic/does not need to be claimed/received the author actually does, it still is unremarkable. Claiming the algorithm to be the author would still be unremarkable in terms of copyright as long as it is a person or legal entity claiming those rights. Having the algorithm hold the copyright would be interesting (but copyright presupposes a human or human controlled legal entity) See: monkey-selfies where at issue wasn't whether a monkey could have creative intent, but whether a monkey coud hold copyright (no, obviating the need for an answer on creative intent).

Read an SF novel once where an AI was held by a legal entity, and that AI ran that legal entity, which was how it gained autonomy. Fun enough, but a legal entity would still need a human ultimate beneficial owner and human director / decision maker. Those can be shills, regularly are even, but that does not diminish their liability nor means acknowledging the AI's personhood or whatever.

Example of 'journalism' muddying the waters in order to have a story to publish at all.

• copyright presupposes a human or legal entity copyright holder
• copyright is a given when a certain threshold of creative effort is surpassed
• copyright is given to a work

The work copyrighted here are not the algorithmic assisted images, the work is a graphic novel, a collective of arranged images, written text etc. One could do that with any public domain stuff and still have copyright on the work. Additionally the author prompted the algorithm towards desired outcomes. Both satisfy the creativity threshold. Like in https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2022/06/dall-e-mini-siso-stereotype-in-stereotype-out/ where I listed the images as public domain (because I thought my prompts were uncreative), but the resulting arranging / juxtaposing multiple prompts as copyrighted by me (obviously not the algorithm).

There's no ghost in the machine. Machines are irrelevant to copyright considerations.

Hoe is dit berekend? Ik zit op een gemiddeld verbruik qua gas, en kennelijk 1000 kWh bovengemiddeld qua stroom (gem 2400kWh) / jr. Maar ik betaal, ondanks flexibel contract, niet zoveel dat 190 korting per maand zelfs maar mogelijk is. Er is 100 in de maand bijgekomen in de loop van het jaar. Zijn de verschillen zo groot tussen leveranciers dan? (Wellicht die tussenhandelaren die geen eigen productie hebben? Altijd een een leverancier kiezen die zelf productie heeft zou ik zeggen). Of zijn de bedragen het gemiddelde bespaarde tijdens het stookseizoen en de verbruiksgetallen op jaarbasis?

Ben Werdmüller added h. annotations to his site, based on the example I gave. Nice!

Ha! Fun strategy. Buy an ISBN number (just over 100 Euro, or 28 Euro if you buy 10), and do a vanity print run of blogposts, sending 2 copies to the Royal Library. If you don't curate then 10 ISBN numbers is probably best, so you can spread things out over volumes. Vgl [[Begin een uitgeverij 20201127103101]]

https://web.archive.org/web/20220918065254/https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/something-from-nothing/

The Schwinger effect has been demonstrated. One can make 'something from nothing', at first glance because nothing is not an absence of everything.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220918062147/https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-didn-t-ukraine-fall-

Data (unclear which/where from?) suggests 90% of Ukrainian drones pre July were lost, due to electronic warfare. The large number was what overcame it. Cheap fixed wing models most successful because they are inefficient to target. NATO here is said to underestimate electronic warfare. NATO should re-evaluate role of UAVs. Currently regulated like aircraft, falling e.g. under flight control Needed numbers of them puts them more in the 'ammunitions' column, and regulations should treat it as such.

Never came across her or her work before. Looks interesting, order a couple of her works to explore.

Matt Webb keeps coming up with these fascinating viewpoints, as he did back at Reboot conf in the '00s. Great little points here again too: to make virtual spaces more acceptable they need more 'togetherness' a 'window looking out' and a way of seeing people approach the space.

I once quipped that my blog is already several times older than the average life span of a company, and has indeed survived a bunch of platforms I could have chosen as 'permanent' residence for my blogposts. That Flickr is around after 15yrs is already rather remarkable. Self-hosting is indeed the best guarantee while you live. Paying attention to your digital inheritence is needed. It was already so for my parents who passed 2015, even though they were hardly active online. It was definitely so for my friend N who passed too young and was very active online. Most of the images we have of our daughter are digital. We want to make physical books out of them as a preservation measure.

Archiving is a specialist's job. I've witnessed some of the work the Dutch National Archive does. It's not 'likely needs' selection, it is 'most definitely' needs selection. Letting users mark their images as worthy of preservation is probably not the way. Future generations are likely most interested in ordinary images, street scenes, how family live looked, how we lived, our interiors, how we celebrated etc. Anthropology and history. For all the rest, the elites, the big events, there's press photography.

This is probably a useful perspective: how do you keep collections long term, that are of relevance because of the sheer volume of tracking ordinary lives. Compare to how the Dutch Royal Library has preserved blogs (not mine I think, as I write mostly in English).

Interesting phrasing, value sticking to a place. I assume to the community involved, or as per myself above to the group deploying a tech in the context of their mutual connections and issue to solve. For any given type of value that is. It's a nice positive phrasing for what otherwise amounts to avoiding value extraction out of a community.

This is key imo : created by, with and for. Just for is not enough, with is the minimum. By is preferred if possible. If with, not by, then the community involved needs to be able to fully control deployment and settings. It must be within the scope of the user group.

While community tech is important, being a community is a pretty high threshold. For any group that is connected, and shares the same issue, can increase its agency with what is here defined as community tech.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220916075836/https://rachelcoldicutt.medium.com/the-case-for-community-tech-report-launch-and-fund-news-35784b6498f8

Alberto says of this https://twitter.com/alberto_cottica/status/1570357027485925378 'most communities gravitate towards tech minimalism: "community tech" is 95% community, 5% tech. And then funders lose interest.' Unless funders are from within the community I suppose. Goes back to networked agency / and the need for tech to be smaller than us, to be within scope of control of the people using the tech for a specific purpose.

I think this sentence should read "noone is allowed". If you can't care for an animal in the winter, you're not allowed to graze it. This is what never made sense to me in the tragedy of the commons story in the first place, that there would be no feedback mechanisms elsewhere, that the grazing meadow is the only place this would play out, and inside a community that has many other reasons to balance things out. There's therefore always a different place in the system or constellation to introduce negative feedback, and prevent runaway effects.

take note, and compare to e.g. [[Community building 20100210214508]] a la Wenger. Which overlap / are expressions of the same thing on a different scale? Which are qualitatively different?

Vgl [[Debunking the Tragedy of the Commons]] by Garrett Hardin which was a thought experiment/ Ostrom apparantly countered it with empirical data.

Look up some of her publications. Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom

https://web.archive.org/web/20220916095626/https://networkcultures.org/tactical-media-room/2022/07/26/fighting-disinformation-were-solving-the-wrong-problems/

HvA artikel by Michal Wozniak (rysiek on Masto)

Dealing with 'fake news' is not about counteracting every piece of it with debunking. It is about addressing: - centralisation of socmed-adtech-media (Vgl DMA, DSA, GDPR, AIR, and on the other end of the spectrum [[Algo amplification of hate speech normalises it 201801113123304]]) - media literacy of the public (Vgl 'Finnish model' and [[Crap detection is civic duty 2018010073052]])

Belgian artist Dries Depoorter (he als did the face and mobile detection of MEPs during debates about face recog I think) has a project where he matches influencer posted images with footage from public videocams where they took that image. And how long it takes to take that 'casual shot of me in front of some landmark'. Aptly called 'The follower'

https://web.archive.org/web/20220914080747/https://www.noemamag.com/against-localism-in-food/

The title and skimming first few paragraphs reads as a potential straw man argument? Local isn't equal to sustainable, yes. Transport is less emissions than local beef, yes. But local is a relative term (50km circle, or national, or EU sourced e.g.). Local sourcing (regional) does improve margins for farmers, allowing them to actually reduce their footprint by producing less for the same income. Transport does matter if it's the same product that's obtained locally (EU or other continent) vs someplace else (apples coming in from half a world away still in my supermarket vs picking an apple from my own tree as it is September). Agree that stuff from someplace else that isn't available locally, improves variety and well being, but I don't think that's the point of the local movement. It's MacD hamburgers being shipped frozen from Middle America to the EU, eating Argentinian steaks not EU raised beef etc. Stuff that is available locally sourced year round but shipped in from far away because it is more efficient for the producer. Local movements are less about the local, more about the obvious flaws of shaping global supply chains to purposes that do not include sustainability or foot print, and treat it as a side effect to be ignored or fixed afterwards instead of prevented. Vgl the two farmers who could choose to increase their heads of cattle to remain economically viable but instead did away with their cattle, started growing soy beans on their few hectares and verticalised their set-up, selling their own vegan yoghurts etc. That reduces footprint massively (no cattle), locally sources something that would otherwise come from far way (soy beans) and improves their margins by replacing a global supply chain with their own vertical and a national customer base.

The entire 2009 posting by Alex Bayley is provided here. Sumana's response is marked further down. The original Yahoo text is at https://web.archive.org/web/20140916121930/https://developer.yahoo.com/ypatterns/social/people/reputation/competitive.html At the top it's labeled 'best practice', which is a tell of not actually understanding community building/stewarding. At the bottom there it mentions Tara Hunt on healthy community, which brings us back to Wenger's work I think. Yahoo was after design patterns here, which make sense as such. I think my issue is that such design choices in a platform tend to be fixed after design and thus can become dominant. The natural flow of a community interaction likely will go in multiple directions over time. Would any such platforms, not the ones mentioned by Yahoo as examples, be ever able to change which design patterns come to the fore? Meaning, built your platform to have all of these available, with the community using a platform able to choose time and place where one of those design patterns is expressed in the platform.

It's a category error to equate the users of a platfom, or worse the platform itself, with a community. A tech company's view is often limited to customer audience, and dubs it community. A person's view starts from within the communities they're already part of: how does a tool support (my role in) my communities? Vgl https://www.zylstra.org/blog/2019/09/on-being-human-tech-and-the-abuse-of-community/

At first instance not convinced of this spectrum. Is a group still a community if it's combative (or competitive) as a group? I do recognise that each of those spectral 'lines' occur within any community. Yet, the defining aspect of community is its social cohesion, pointing towards the collaborative end of things.

That's a good observation, this tie in to reputation. It connects to individual action, within the context of a community, with the purpose of gaining reputation. Vgl the role of identity as alternative in building scientific reputation as opposed to journal publishing. [[Identiteit als wetenschappelijk reputatieinstrument 20091019074407]] Vgl Jim Wales wrt wikipedians, "I don't need to know who you are, I need to know who you are within Wikipedia", as sort of a faceted reputation.

nice metaphor, tide pools. The examples are intra-communal though, not defining the community as the spectrum seems to imply. Formulated this way it falls back to [[Community building 20100210214508]] a la Etienne Wenger, where varying spaces, juxtaposing internal/external perspectives, balancing safety for members with excitement of stuff happening, rhythm, and pathways for more/less engagement are the knobs one can turn after reflecting on the overall situation of a community of practice. In such reflection individual's behaviours are part of what leads to (probing) interventions.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220914071049/https://harihareswara.net/posts/2022/the-community-spectrum-caring-to-combative-insight-from-alex-bayley/

https://web.archive.org/web/20220914051328/https://andysylvester.com/2022/09/13/adding-value-to-information/

Andy Sylvester says his engineering type of notes don't fit with the concept of atomic note. A 'how to solve x' type of note would fit my working def of 'atomic' as being a self-contained whole, focused on a single thing (here how to solve x). If the summary can be its title I'd say it's pretty atomic. Interestingly in [[Technik des wissenschaflichen Arbeitens by Johannes Erich Heyde]] 1970, Heyde on p18 explicitly mentions ZK being useful for engineers, not just to process new scientific insights from e.g. articles, but to index specific experiences, experiments and results. And on p19 suggests using 1 ZK system for all of your material of various types. Luhmann's might have been geared to writing articles, but it can be something else. Solving problems is also output. I have these types of notes in my 'ZK' if not in the conceptual section of it.

Vgl [[Ambachtelijke engineering 20190715143342]] artisanal engineering, Lovelock Novacene 2019, plays a role here too. Keeping a know-how notes collection in an environment where also your intuition can play a creative role is useful. I've done this for coding things, as I saw experienced coders do it, just as Andy describes, and it helped me create most of my personal IndieWeb scripts, because they were integrated in the rest of my stuff about my work and notions. Vgl [[Vastklik notes als ratchet zonder terugval 20220302102702]]

This is the wrong way around, positioning the tech corp's perspective as more imporant than society's. It's insulting to position community as a means, similar to talking about users which limits the view one has of people and what they try to achieve to only their interaction with a tool.

The aim of scaling tech is again a tech company's limited view of the world, that should not be adopted by people using a tech tool. Individual acts scale to community to society/culture, but that's a different type of scaling. One through sideways copying and adoption. Not to scale a tool but to amplify/scale an effect or impact. Tech is a scaffold for enriching society, society is not there to scale tech corps.

A tech company's view is often limited to customer audience, and dubs it community. A person's view starts from within the communities they're already part of: how does a tool support (my role in) my communities?