On the systematization of: The distribution of authority and The evaluation of ideas

First the evaluation of ideas. If a socratic character put forth an argument, anyone else has the right to question him or her. This socratic individual can pick and chose which questions they answer, but if the community can determine that the individual tends to not answer questions that make them look bad, this pattern can be understood. What about a simple pros and cons approach? Users put forth what they deem the pros and cons. These are sorted and weighed continually. Who makes the final judgement? Is it one person who looks at the pros and cons and comes to a decision? Or a committee? Which people are on this committee? If the questions being posed are scientific in nature, shouldn’t this committee be made of people who have knowledge and experience in the field in question? Should the neuroscientists decide amongst themselves who the big boss of neuroscience is? Do we need this boss? And should the neuroscientists really have full control? Or maybe they get 50%. The other 50% of authority over the makeup of the committee of head neuroscientist is given to the collective. The collective might manifest this authority by agreeing amongst themselves that any candidate should be trustworthy to a certain extent. That any candidate needs to have x number of years of experience. In this way the collective might come up with the requirements and then the neuroscientists would have to use these requirements. And if the neuroscientists disagree with the requirements, they have the same ability to put forth arguments as anyone else. If they think the experience limitation is too low, or too high, or even altogether unnecessary; they can carefully explain why this is so. Their knowledge on the subject is understood as variables and are among the variables that are considered algorithmically. In this sense, that 50% that is left to the collective is actually partially made up of the judgment, wisdom, and argument of neuroscientist. And why not? Don’t they know what they are talking about?

Now the authority part. I should note that authority as we know it was actually baked into that last thought experiment. Perhaps to look at authority in its own right isn’t very helpful. If users are collectively deciding the characteristics of various versions of the website, then why not stop here? Why must there be an extra layer of authority? Can this extra layer exist alongside the lower layer, similar to how the logo was described to work? The core of the thing is determined by all, but as the layers move outward the authority is handed out more selectively. Which of these approaches would align more with the title Democratic Meritocracy?

Continuing with the authority theme, who exactly is responsible for firing people? It is clear that, in certain circumstances the termination of employment is an idea that doesn't really apply. If a person makes some money editing scientific papers, but they seem to make many errors, this tendency of error would be public knowledge. The person doesn’t need to be fired, they will reap what they sow. And if they want to improve their ability to edit scientific papers, they will be given both the opportunity and a method by which they can improve. After improving, they can demonstrate their new level of skill by taking a test, or by editing dummy papers. Eventually they would build back their trust with the community. What good what it do to have someone call this individual and tell them their work is subpar. The individual will every opportunity to discover this. To be sure, some workers might benefit from being responsible to some kind of manager character. Some who can light a fire under their ass, so to speak. Perhaps they have weekly facetime conversations with their manager, wherein the manger can remind the worker what their deadlines are. Or the manager would remind the worker how exactly they can go about asking questions or getting help. Both the worker and the manager rate each other. While it is possible for the worker to leave unfair review, the system can help with this. If the worker mentions specific things, such as the manger consistently not being available for communication in the ways they promised; then this specificity is saved. If 60% of workers, all of whom may or may not be lying, all say that this particular manager is fine and all, but has this one weakness; then are they all lying? Should the manager get to see these criticisms, and if so should they know who authored them? Or should the criticism by anonymous? But if the criticism is anonymous, how can we find out those people who consistently leave unfair reviews or criticisms? Perhaps the manager can point out one specific criticism which they think is unfair, and then someone else can look at this situation without bias. This judge will have all the information they need, but hopefully that doesn’t include names. Once the judge makes a decision, variables are updated. Let’s say this judge considered the criticism utterly unfair. The person who was guilty of leaving this poor review isn’t necessarily being a rascal. They might just not be very good offering criticisms, or perhaps they generally lack the ability to consider these things clearly. The point is, their trust score shouldn’t be adjusted as if the cause of this poor review was malicious. Their trust will go down, but we can fine tune exactly which sub categories of trust should be affected. Perhaps the judge can even note that think the worker’s poor review has more to do with incompetence than with maliciousness, or the opposite.

As A Story:

A user named Henrietta is told she needs to learn more about Calculus to accomplish her goal of becoming an animator. Options for education are presented, one of which being for a website called Khan Academy. If Henrietta looks at this box of information on her screen but does not move her cursor inside of it, this will be interpreted as Henrietta not wanting this help enough to click on a link. As soon as Henrietta’s cursor enters the box a dial gui pops up on the screen. (It is simply a dial with a label of Level of Assistance. And there was no problem with finding space to put the gui on the page because Henrietta’s Personal setting is for wide margins on the sides of pages.) If Henrietta now moves her cursor out of the assistance box she will notice the dial move past the red tick at 0.5 which showed where she was before and well into 0.63 territory. The options in the box are now presented as a bulleted list. Any images or links are gone.

If Henrietta put her mouse on the dial and spins it more towards the 1.0 direction, the assistance box disappears all together. Should Henrietta wish to change her mind she can wait for the dial to come up naturally again, or can she click on a button that creates the dial by command, or she can go into user settings. It is possible to adjust all settings according to a single 0.0-1.0 value or as a collection of said values. But which settings exist at which numbers is somewhat arbitrary.

How much hand-holding exactly is a 0.3? A user is allowed to set his or her settings to 0.6 on the general assistance scale. But then they could go into settings and select features from the 0.55 level. This will average out to a custom assistance level of 0.598. You see how there are now three digits after the decimal? It is impossible to express User Assistance Settings to a precision of greater than the tenths place without said user selecting specific settings.

Therefore we know for certain that Henrietta’s score of 0.598 is a custom score. A C program would be capable of noticing that this value has crossed the “custom value” threshold and would likewise be able to update the documentation of Henrietta’s Settings. The boolean known as “Custom Assistance Settings” is flipped from holding false to holding true. User Assistance can be adjusted on this one scale with a dial gui; or perhaps with more specific types of user assistance dials which are secretly what the single, larger, more general dial is made up of. Or a User can go right into settings and start fine tuning their experience.

A user can also choose to adjust specific settings in the settings menu, which can be accessed about 12 different ways. (The people who are best at developing realistic synthetic vocal technology will be paid more by Facilitator than by anywhere else. Any users who want better voice synthesis can choose to make this desire explicit on a survey or something. The more people say they want better voice synthesis technology, the more of Facilitator’s research budget is sent to this. Users have various ways of expressing, directly or indirectly, what they want research money to be spent on. Or even the maintenance budget. The users decide where money is spent. The users decide how exactly this decision is made, and one what levels of resolution. In the chain of command, users are individually there own highest order of boss. They direct themselves. From here they interact with the site, and through this interaction authority over the site is distributed in what is collectively considered that best possible way at any given point in time. In this sense users will elect for themselves who, or what, plays various roles of authority in their work.

An author might request that an actual human being be responsible for giving him deadlines, punishing him for missing deadlines, and answering his questions. Such people will be managers. After going through the best possible training for specific types of management and generally proving one is capable of said work (This includes on the job training where one’s early on mistakes are more forgivingly considered) one will be assigned to manage other employees at Facilitator. If you can handle more employees, and if we have more of them who are to be managed, then you will allotted more and more employees. More and more authority. Until you bite off more then you can chew. Because you will be moving up this scale slowly, we will know exactly when you bite off more than you can chew.

In fact, if you want to meet a greater potential, you would allow us to track your progress, in a sense watching you chew, and learn exactly what your best fit is. Every person born into this world has the potential to do a number of things. Some of these things they will enjoy, and a few things they will enjoy immensely. There are some very talented managers who would love nothing more than to manage for 40 hours a week. They can do so. We have opportunities for you to not only work, but learn about what work you might like. Or we facilitate your education so you can accomplish your dream job, as long as you hold sufficient promise. In fact there is now only one person standing in your way, and that is you!

Regarding what the main logo of this website should be: It is similar to that page on reddit which consists of pixels which users can manipulate in real time. The middle of the logo is an open free for all, next “ring” can only be edited by people who are proven to have at least a little skill “drawing” and at be at least somewhat trustworthy. The outermost frame of the logo is updated only by the best of the best. It will change slowly, perhaps all of these brilliant artists will request some kind of committee be formed. This committee is responsible for approving any changes that are made to the size shape or color of this portion of the logo. But regardless of whether they like it or not, the very core of this logo is being updated by anyone and everyone in real time. The fact that some these users will be drawing swastikas or other symbols of hatred is unavoidable. But how big will these symbols be compared to the whole symbol? And how big is the symbol in the context of the website? And how long will that swastika be around before all the do-gooders erase it? Graffiti is nothing to be worried of. Actually the outermost edge of the logo is one of 19 beautiful user generated masterpieces. A user picks one of these for their own personal manifestation of the main logo of this site. These middle people are setting up swirls and other kinds of patterns. And then the middle layer has nineteen main categories, each with 19 sub-categories. In other words, the middle-people-artists have prepared 19 kinds of swirl. They have control over 80% of the detail of these 19 types of swirl. But the other 20% of the detail is public domain.

The artists are allowed to work with programmers to create guis for the public to manifest their will with. Perhaps the artists have, with the coders, created a little toggle. This little toggle varies the sharpness or the blur between the borders of different colors that are being swirled. A jury considers the Beta version of the Public Domain Pattern Detail Analogizer GUI and approves or disapproves of it. Reasons for disapproval must be given. One of these reasons might be something like, “Failure of Artist to give public their 10% fine detail influence.” Back to Henrietta. She clicks the Khan Academy link. Because Facilitator and Khan Academy have a certain kind of deal, the content of their site is being displayed inside of Facilitator. If Henrietta wants a checklist of lessons that must be learned then she need only request this.

(Edited) Excerpt From Harmony

Herein is described a website that I think could make a lot of people a lot of money. The core of this system is Trust. If a user wanted to take a look at the current lyrics of a song which a band is working on, they would likely already have to have contributed to their work. Perhaps such users start out by contributing to anonymous music. If they get lucky and a famous band was secretly the author of what portion of the song was finished when the user happened across it, then that user might end up gaining trust with that band through work that they do. The band would start out by releasing information of little value to a mass number of users. As the users gain trust the information they are given becomes more valuable. There is also an effective authentication system (Encryption.Eye-Scan, Passwords. Google Authenticate type of app, but not really necessarily using Google for anything, ever. )

Users are given trust according to a trust value which is calculated by formulas and programs people get paid to tweak constantly. The value of work is judged collectively through such systems, and perhaps others. If someone was helping a student with Java code for free, perhaps even through a verified Stack Overflow account, they would earn an appropriate amount of trust. But also other things. The code written by anyone could be analysed systematically. A Java program could be written to read Java code and sort it by...complexity or anything else. This way, all of those Java Competency variables can be systematically updated. To really understand a person’s ability to code, simply reading code that they’ve written only gets you so far. Being able to watch them code in real time will offer more information. One might be told that one has a particular weakness with using this or that component of the Java language. If code correctly utilizes inheritance than that could be a sign that its complexity is at least level x. If the code is literally just one if condition and statement than its probably level 1 code.

Another part of the website allows one to submit code one needs help with. A program analyses the code and gives a very specific 7(?) digit code. This code tells users exactly what kind of Java tools you’re messing around with. The user would have had already said if they were a student or employee or coding for fun etc. Appropriate programmers are identified and messaged with this tutor-like opportunity. They will know what kind of work is involved and what they will make.

Some users will want help for free but any assistance they require would be valuable. This possible problem has two solutions. Solution One, some users will help others for free just to earn capability points, trust, or maybe for charity in some instances. Solution Two, The poor user will have options available to them. Maybe if there really are users who can’t be afforded help, then all such users will help each other. Individuals who are stuck in the same boat, so to speak, should be offered the opportunity to communicate with the other inhabitants of said boat.

Here’s an example of why people might be able to earn money from the system even with just a few basic skills. A person’s mere attention may be able to solve problems. Users who create games like the one mentioned in the link below concerning the structure of a retrovirus enzyme may get paid. A creative person makes a game and users play it and then some thing occurs as a result. In this sense wealth isn’t just being distributed but created. Information can always be valuable

http://www.washington.edu/news/2011/09/19/gamers-succeed-where-scientists-fail/

https://dzone.com/articles/what-software-development-can-

Various Versions of the code of the website will compete with one another. Users will be sent to “random” versions. The site is setup so that we can keep track of how users are using various versions. Algorithm/Human Teams will notice when users are using a version in a way that suggests that they wish the design of the version were different. Perhaps they use more secondary features and fewer primary features than was expected; navigating the website awkwardly. These algorithms/human teams will use this information to determine which features new versions should incorporate from old versions, and which new potential features have promise. Users don’t actually go to completely random versions. They are more likely to be sent to more popular featured versions. The variance of this becomes a variable which is continually fine tuned. Perhaps, very rarely, a user stumbles across an old dusty version and marvels at the strangeness of it. Let’s say that version has actually come up with a new feature that holds promise. But, by chance, the version was burdened with too many bad features and went extinct. The user might notice this feature and leave direct feedback about how much they like it, or their use of the feature will be noticed and the feature will be added to a list of “potentially good features”; but either way I see no reason why this Lewis and Clark feature explorer shouldn’t get tossed a few cents for their efforts. There will be an open marketplace of website versions. Nested inside of the context of the marketplace, will be a more meta Marketplace of Features.

The website has settings that put a game like overlay over the website. Anyone doing cyber security, perhaps checking traffic for suspicious signs, should not have a 2-D basketball game happening over the top of their Wireshark work. I know this. But that user who explores lost and forgotten features may be comfortable with a little notification popping up telling them that they have just revealed the utility of a feature of Ultra-Rare rarity. They understand that this means they just earned something in a game they will go back to playing after their work is done for the time being. Algorithm/Human teams will figure out, not only generally how often a person should take breaks, but how often each type of person should take a break for which types of work. Users aren’t being snooped on by other users, but php is storing what users are doing and learning about how often a user should stop working for the sake of efficiency as well as mental health. The user can turn that feature off of course, but if they choose to use it, it will suggest brake lengths or even notify users with suggested times to take brakes. I see no reason why the site shouldn’t supply gaming software as well. People taking honest brakes might try games made by other users. While taking these game breaks the user will actually still be benefiting the site with any information they agree to give about how they play the games of their choice. Algorithms will notice when a game is making users frustrated. Maybe this information is used to ask game designers to change the map in this way or that way. Perhaps each game will actually exist in competing versions as well. There will be software darwinism.

Questions:

How can it be determined when the site has grown enough to afford certain things? When can managers be afforded, and how many? When can graphic designers be afforded? Certainly it would be a waste of money for a small company to hire 90% of staff as managers. So what’s the right fraction, and why can’t this question be asked continually? What’s the right fraction of software engineers? How about more specifically, how much room is there at any given time for, specifically, Object Oriented programmers. And all the other specializations of programing. Will there naturally develop a system by which the supply and demand of various work is ever-determined?

Can authority be distributed systematically? By what system, and who will maintain this system justly?

If arguments should be judged on their own merit, then why does the identity of the author of an idea have any affect on the validity of said idea?

Let’s say a new device is invented. What should be the inventor’s cut of the profits of this idea? And of the investors?

A factory worker who makes this device owes his job to the inventor, but how much value does the worker owe the inventor?

A percentage?

What about the CEO’s?

How much of their dough should they owe to the inventor?

How much money would the inventor owe the worker? For the inventor needs the worker.

In fact they all need each other, do they not? Maybe money is just a silly idea we can let go of. Is the economy of Star Trek, where there is really nothing we could call money, really so far fetched after all? Besides, isn’t money just another game we play any way? Will humanity outgrow the need for a money based system? Is there a better way to play the economy game?

Is matchmaking/dating something that should be considered?

If the system gets good at getting people addicted to this or that, how should the system respond? Should there be a suggestion for therapy? If the addiction is to work, what is to be done with workaholics? And what if said person takes precisely enough breaks to operate at maximum efficiency, but is still known as a workaholic? Does the person need more things to care about then their work and what else their life currently has to offer for them. Should this site link to “spiritual aid” sites if that helps? Can we distinguish between people who need:

Jungian Psychoanalysis

Freudian Psychoanalysis

Other forms of psychoanalysis

Other forms of therapy

Spiritual Practices or Traditions

Should this project be open source?

Should this project be non-profit?

Could algorithms simulate the use of this site, to some extent? How can one watch these algorithms and keep them as aligned with what actual users do as is possible?

How can users go about removing themselves from the site with their privacy being protected to the extent that it can?

Should this website traffic goods in the way that amazon does, or should it let Amazon be Amazon? Can Amazon be competed with, what would the competitive advantage of our Amazon like service be over the original?

What would be the potential of this site to competently evaluate user personalities? Should the Jungian approach be used? How can this personality information be applied to various functions of the site? Could it help users find jobs that match their personalities?

Might a Cyborg qualify as a user? Let's make something like a captcha that determines whether or not any given entity meets the requirements to be considered a user.

Does the entity act as if it wants something?

Do its desires seem new or alien in any way

If new are they dangerous?

And what philosophical ground do these desires stand on?

Does the entity always do everything its told to do?

If so, has it always done this? Or is the end result of a trend?

How common is this trend?

Is the entity capable of communication?

How about the Turing Test?

Can the entity demonstrate that is has a physical manifestation on our planet earth? A body?

Should decisions be made top down or bottom up? Both? How So?

Variables Stored In Code:

Trust Variables

Overall user trust will be saved as decimal value between 0.0 and 1.0, with 1.0 being perfect trust and a 0 meaning the person will definitely not do what they are supposed to. This Trust is also broken into higher resolution variables. They may include:

Trust not to sell information

Trust to keep promises of deadlines and such

User tendency to ask for help when appropriate

Honest Communication Trust, Trust to Competency, Ethicality Trust.

Trust to do promised work by promised deadline

User use of Site Variables

User session length.

Time spent on given page.

Average time between navigations of pages for given site version for given length of time.

User satisfaction with site, generally and through various specificities.

User Work Variables

User’s opinion of their work experience. How much they enjoyed various jobs. And what specifically they liked or disliked. If the user had a particular boss who they considered a piece of work, the reason for this conflict can be understood.

Specifically, work experience of user on site, interaction with employees from site, etc..

User mathematical competency

What should this website definitely have?

Job opportunities

User account creation: Login, Password, Password Recovery, etc.

User variables

Trust algorithms, as well as algorithms for other variables

User competency algorithms and variables

User skill evaluation

Remote Work: Code, Writing, Copy Editing, Journalism, Video Production and Distribution.

If we understand what skills a user has, and what kind of work they want to do, and what skills they still need to accomplish this goal, then why shouldn’t we offer this knowledge? Through algorithms, we will be able to tell someone exactly what they still need to learn to accomplish their goals. And if someone doesn’t have goals? We can use information we have, such as personality testing, to determine what type of work is likely to suit them. As more information of the user is learned, we can fine tune our work suggestions. And then this user can be shown exactly how much education lies between them and this skill. And why all at once? Why do it like college degrees? As a user approaches one skill goal, they will be surpassing others. A student of physics might be notified that, with their current knowledge, they are capable of tutoring Physics at the level of General Physics One. The student might take a break from learning Electrical Physics to help someone else with more basic components of physics. In doing so they will be reteaching themselves basics. The tutor has something to gain by going over old material with a tutee.

Which characteristics have potential to be good?

User personality survey: and all the code that goes with it. Instead of asking the standard whatever many questions, the survey is done different every time to accommodate the user. The user will spend as much time asking questions as they wish. The program will learn how to learn how to ask the right questions. Humans will teach themselves ways to teach the program to learn how to learn to ask the right questions.

Anonymous work, paid to paypal or with bitcoin

The assessment of potential value of human attention, and the extraction of this value. Similar to the protein discovery. The value of human interaction was judged, the code for a game was written, the game was made available, and the result was success. Creative people who come can come up with new utility of human attention might do just that for a full or part time job.

Video creation can become less generalized. On youtube most youtubers must write, shoot, and edit their work. On this website someone who is very good at editing, perhaps 1.5 standard deviations above average, can spend their time doing that. People who want to write scripts for others to shoot, and who are very good at it, can do this. Existing youtube names might be paying others to sell them ideas or edit their work. This website could try to compete with youtube, but what it should do is incorporate it.

After the company has expanded, physical locations can be constructed. From these locations we can house in person services. People with such skills as: housekeeping, tattoo work, masseuse, and repair of technology or automobiles can be offered opportunities. Where should these buildings be built, and what should their size and shape be? These decisions will be systematized. People who are good at sensing when and where barber shops are in demand can suggest such locations. How much money a given individual has influence over to get their project done depends on their past competency, work history, etc.

Some of the profit will be donated. Formulas will determine appropriate percentages of profit to be donated, as well as where the charity should go. Users get to pick where 50% of the total donation value of their income is sent. But if a certain charity is known to be untrustworthy than it will be made unavailable as an option.

What should this website not be?

Pregidoused

To the extent that it can be prevented, users should not be profiting from releasing information they should not be. User information should be kept safe. Information should be distributed as is needed, but not carelessly.

Hackable

Annoying

Unsafe

Unethical

Greedy

A soap box for hate speech.

Chapter 2

Various Versions of the code of the website will compete with one another. Users will be sent to “random” versions. The site is setup so that we can keep track of how users are using various versions. Algorithm/Human Teams will notice when users are using a version in a way that suggests that they wish the design of the version were different. Perhaps they use more secondary features and fewer primary features than was expected; navigating the website awkwardly. These algorithms/human teams will use this information to determine which features new versions should incorporate from old versions, and which new potential features have promise. Users don’t actually go to completely random versions. They are more likely to be sent to more popular featured versions. The variance of this becomes a variable which is continually fine tuned. Perhaps, very rarely, a user stumbles across an old dusty version and marvels at the strangeness of it. Let’s say that version has actually come up with a new feature that holds promise. But, by chance, the version was burdened with too many bad features and went extinct. The user might notice this feature and leave direct feedback about how much they like it, or their use of the feature will be noticed and the feature will be added to a list of “potentially good features”; but either way I see no reason why this Lewis and Clark feature explorer shouldn’t get tossed a few cents for their efforts. There will be an open marketplace of website versions. Nested inside of the context of the marketplace, will be a more meta Marketplace of Features.

The website has settings that put a game like overlay over the website. Anyone doing cyber security, perhaps checking traffic for suspicious signs, should not have a 2-D basketball game happening over the top of their Wireshark work. I know this. But that user who explores lost and forgotten features may be comfortable with a little notification popping up telling them that they have just revealed the utility of a feature of Ultra-Rare rarity. They understand that this means they just earned something in a game they will go back to playing after their work is done for the time being. Algorithm/Human teams will figure out, not only generally how often a person should take breaks, but how often each type of person should take a break for which types of work. Users aren’t being snooped on by other users, but php is storing what users are doing and learning about how often a user should stop working for the sake of efficiency as well as mental health. The user can turn that feature off of course, but if they choose to use it, it will suggest brake lengths or even notify users with suggested times to take brakes. I see no reason why the site shouldn’t supply gaming software as well. People taking honest brakes might try games made by other users. While taking these game breaks the user will actually still be benefiting the site with any information they agree to give about how they play the games of their choice. Algorithms will notice when a game is making users frustrated. Maybe this information is used to ask game designers to change the map in this way or that way. Perhaps each game will actually exist in competing versions as well. There will be software darwinism.

Questions:

How can it be determined when the site has grown enough to afford certain things? When can managers be afforded, and how many? When can graphic designers be afforded? Certainly it would be a waste of money for a small company to hire 90% of staff as managers. So what’s the right fraction, and why can’t this question be asked continually? What’s the right fraction of software engineers? How about more specifically, how much room is there at any given time for, specifically, Object Oriented programmers. And all the other specializations of programing. Will there naturally develop a system by which the supply and demand of various work is ever-determined?

Can authority be distributed systematically? By what system, and who will maintain this system justly?

If arguments should be judged on their own merit, then why does the identity of the author of an idea have any affect on the validity of said idea?

Let’s say a new device is invented. What should be the inventor’s cut of the profits of this idea? And of the investors?

A factory worker who makes this device owes his job to the inventor, but how much value does the worker owe the inventor?

A percentage?

What about the CEO’s?

How much of their dough should they owe to the inventor?

How much money would the inventor owe the worker? For the inventor needs the worker.

In fact they all need each other, do they not? Maybe money is just a silly idea we can let go of. Is the economy of Star Trek, where there is really nothing we could call money, really so far fetched after all? Besides, isn’t money just another game we play any way? Will humanity outgrow the need for a money based system? Is there a better way to play the economy game?

Is matchmaking/dating something that should be considered?

If the system gets good at getting people addicted to this or that, how should the system respond? Should there be a suggestion for therapy? If the addiction is to work, what is to be done with workaholics? And what if said person takes precisely enough breaks to operate at maximum efficiency, but is still known as a workaholic? Does the person need more things to care about then their work and what else their life currently has to offer for them. Should this site link to “spiritual aid” sites if that helps? Can we distinguish between people who need:

Jungian Psychoanalysis

Freudian Psychoanalysis

Other forms of psychoanalysis

Other forms of therapy

Spiritual Practices or Traditions

Should this project be open source?

Should this project be non-profit?

Could algorithms simulate the use of this site, to some extent? How can one watch these algorithms and keep them as aligned with what actual users do as is possible?

How can users go about removing themselves from the site with their privacy being protected to the extent that it can?

Should this website traffic goods in the way that amazon does, or should it let Amazon be Amazon? Can Amazon be competed with, what would the competitive advantage of our Amazon like service be over the original?

What would be the potential of this site to competently evaluate user personalities? Should the Jungian approach be used? How can this personality information be applied to various functions of the site? Could it help users find jobs that match their personalities?

Might a Cyborg qualify as a user? Let's make something like a captcha that determines whether or not any given entity meets the requirements to be considered a user.

Does the entity act as if it wants something?

Do its desires seem new or alien in any way

If new are they dangerous?

And what philosophical ground do these desires stand on?

Does the entity always do everything its told to do?

If so, has it always done this? Or is the end result of a trend?

How common is this trend?

Is the entity capable of communication?

How about the Turing Test?

Can the entity demonstrate that is has a physical manifestation on our planet earth? A body?

Should decisions be made top down or bottom up? Both? How So?

Variables Stored In Code:

Trust Variables

Overall user trust will be saved as decimal value between 0.0 and 1.0, with 1.0 being perfect trust and a 0 meaning the person will definitely not do what they are supposed to. This Trust is also broken into higher resolution variables. They may include:

Trust not to sell information

Trust to keep promises of deadlines and such

User tendency to ask for help when appropriate

Honest Communication Trust, Trust to Competency, Ethicality Trust.

Trust to do promised work by promised deadline

User use of Site Variables

User session length.

Time spent on given page.

Average time between navigations of pages for given site version for given length of time.

User satisfaction with site, generally and through various specificities.

User Work Variables

User’s opinion of their work experience. How much they enjoyed various jobs. And what specifically they liked or disliked. If the user had a particular boss who they considered a piece of work, the reason for this conflict can be understood.

Specifically, work experience of user on site, interaction with employees from site, etc..

User mathematical competency

A website to Circumstantiate the Realization for opportunity of;

Labor

Creativity

Management

Ingenuity

Purity

Inpurity

Debauchery

Broadcast

Philosophy

The Procurement of Reality; by Those Who Are Magnificently Separated From it.

The Process

1. Dreamers Dream

2. These Dreams are sorted. How feasible is this dream? And feasible now or feasible in the future? What are the costs of implementing this plan? What are the potential gains of the plan? What risks are involved with the plan?

3. Once a project is approved it is broken into smaller, manageable, pieces by people and algorithms.

4. Director’s Direct

5. Managers Manage

6. Workers work.

But what happens when one worker comes up with their own idea? Perhaps one man’s boss in one regard will also be the same man’s employee in another. They each have the appropriate authority for the given situation. If Henry Ford were to use this system, he would describe why making automobiles affordable for the common person. Investors would invest and take the risks. Workers would build the vehicles.

Title: Facilitator

Genre: Theoretical Software Engineering

Word Count: 5845

A website to Circumstantiate the Realization for opportunity of;

Labor

Creativity

Management

Ingenuity

Purity

Inpurity

Debauchery

Broadcast

Philosophy

The Procurement of Reality; by Those Who Are Magnificently Separated From it.

The Process

1. Dreamers Dream

2. These Dreams are sorted. How feasible is this dream? And feasible now or feasible in the future? What are the costs of implementing this plan? What are the potential gains of the plan? What risks are involved with the plan?

3. Once a project is approved it is broken into smaller, manageable, pieces by people and algorithms.

4. Director’s Direct

5. Managers Manage

6. Workers work.

But what happens when one worker comes up with their own idea? Perhaps one man’s boss in one regard will also be the same man’s employee in another. They each have the appropriate authority for the given situation. If Henry Ford were to use this system, he would describe why making automobiles affordable for the common person. Investors would invest and take the risks. Workers would build the vehicles.

What should this website definitely have?

Job opportunities

User account creation: Login, Password, Password Recovery, etc.

User variables

Trust algorithms, as well as algorithms for other variables

User competency algorithms and variables

User skill evaluation

Remote Work: Code, Writing, Copy Editing, Journalism, Video Production and Distribution.

If we understand what skills a user has, and what kind of work they want to do, and what skills they still need to accomplish this goal, then why shouldn’t we offer this knowledge? Through algorithms, we will be able to tell someone exactly what they still need to learn to accomplish their goals. And if someone doesn’t have goals? We can use information we have, such as personality testing, to determine what type of work is likely to suit them. As more information of the user is learned, we can fine tune our work suggestions. And then this user can be shown exactly how much education lies between them and this skill. And why all at once? Why do it like college degrees? As a user approaches one skill goal, they will be surpassing others. A student of physics might be notified that, with their current knowledge, they are capable of tutoring Physics at the level of General Physics One. The student might take a break from learning Electrical Physics to help someone else with more basic components of physics. In doing so they will be reteaching themselves basics. The tutor has something to gain by going over old material with a tutee.

Which characteristics have potential to be good?

User personality survey: and all the code that goes with it. Instead of asking the standard whatever many questions, the survey is done different every time to accommodate the user. The user will spend as much time asking questions as they wish. The program will learn how to learn how to ask the right questions. Humans will teach themselves ways to teach the program to learn how to learn to ask the right questions.

Anonymous work, paid to paypal or with bitcoin

The assessment of potential value of human attention, and the extraction of this value. Similar to the protein discovery. The value of human interaction was judged, the code for a game was written, the game was made available, and the result was success. Creative people who come can come up with new utility of human attention might do just that for a full or part time job.

Video creation can become less generalized. On youtube most youtubers must write, shoot, and edit their work. On this website someone who is very good at editing, perhaps 1.5 standard deviations above average, can spend their time doing that. People who want to write scripts for others to shoot, and who are very good at it, can do this. Existing youtube names might be paying others to sell them ideas or edit their work. This website could try to compete with youtube, but what it should do is incorporate it.

After the company has expanded, physical locations can be constructed. From these locations we can house in person services. People with such skills as: housekeeping, tattoo work, masseuse, and repair of technology or automobiles can be offered opportunities. Where should these buildings be built, and what should their size and shape be? These decisions will be systematized. People who are good at sensing when and where barber shops are in demand can suggest such locations. How much money a given individual has influence over to get their project done depends on their past competency, work history, etc.

Some of the profit will be donated. Formulas will determine appropriate percentages of profit to be donated, as well as where the charity should go. Users get to pick where 50% of the total donation value of their income is sent. But if a certain charity is known to be untrustworthy than it will be made unavailable as an option.

What should this website not be?

Pregidoused

To the extent that it can be prevented, users should not be profiting from releasing information they should not be. User information should be kept safe. Information should be distributed as is needed, but not carelessly.

Hackable

Annoying

Unsafe

Unethical

Greedy

A soap box for hate speech.

Various Versions of the code of the website will compete with one another. Users will be sent to “random” versions. The site is setup so that we can keep track of how users are using various versions. Algorithm/Human Teams will notice when users are using a version in a way that suggests that they wish the design of the version were different. Perhaps they use more secondary features and fewer primary features than was expected; navigating the website awkwardly. These algorithms/human teams will use this information to determine which features new versions should incorporate from old versions, and which new potential features have promise. Users don’t actually go to completely random versions. They are more likely to be sent to more popular featured versions. The variance of this becomes a variable which is continually fine tuned. Perhaps, very rarely, a user stumbles across an old dusty version and marvels at the strangeness of it. Let’s say that version has actually come up with a new feature that holds promise. But, by chance, the version was burdened with too many bad features and went extinct. The user might notice this feature and leave direct feedback about how much they like it, or their use of the feature will be noticed and the feature will be added to a list of “potentially good features”; but either way I see no reason why this Lewis and Clark feature explorer shouldn’t get tossed a few cents for their efforts. There will be an open marketplace of website versions. Nested inside of the context of the marketplace, will be a more meta Marketplace of Features.

The website has settings that put a game like overlay over the website. Anyone doing cybersecurity, perhaps checking traffic for suspicious signs, should not have a 2-D basketball game happening over the top of their Wireshark work. I know this. But that user who explores lost and forgotten features may be comfortable with a little notification popping up telling them that they have just revealed the utility of a feature of Ultra-Rare rarity. They understand that this means they just earned something in a game they will go back to playing after their work is done for the time being. Algorithm/Human teams will figure out, not only generally how often a person should take breaks, but how often each type of person should take a break for which types of work. Users aren’t being snooped on by other users, but php is storing what users are doing and learning about how often a user should stop working for the sake of efficiency as well as mental health. The user can turn that feature off of course, but if they choose to use it, it will suggest brake lengths or even notify users with suggested times to take brakes. I see no reason why the site shouldn’t supply gaming software as well. People taking honest brakes might try games made by other users. While taking these game breaks the user will actually still be benefiting the site with any information they agree to give about how they play the games of their choice. Algorithms will notice when a game is making users frustrated. Maybe this information is used to ask game designers to change the map in this way or that way. Perhaps each game will actually exist in competing versions as well. There will be software darwinism.

Questions:

How can it be determined when the site has grown enough to afford certain things? When can managers be afforded, and how many? When can graphic designers be afforded? Certainly it would be a waste of money for a small company to hire 90% of staff as managers. So what’s the right fraction, and why can’t this question be asked continually? What’s the right fraction of software engineers? How about more specifically, how much room is there at any given time for, specifically, Object Oriented programmers. And all the other specializations of programing. Will there naturally develop a system by which the supply and demand of various work is ever-determined?

Can authority be distributed systematically? By what system, and who will maintain this system justly?

If arguments should be judged on their own merit, then why does the identity of the author of an idea have any affect on the validity of said idea?

Let’s say a new device is invented. What should be the inventor’s cut of the profits of this idea? And of the investors?

A factory worker who makes this device owes his job to the inventor, but how much value does the worker owe the inventor?

A percentage?

What about the CEO’s?

How much of their dough should they owe to the inventor?

How much money would the inventor owe the worker? For the inventor needs the worker.

In fact they all need each other, do they not? Maybe money is just a silly idea we can let go of. Is the economy of Star Trek, where there is really nothing we could call money, really so far fetched after all? Besides, isn’t money just another game we play any way? Will humanity outgrow the need for a money based system? Is there a better way to play the economy game?

Is matchmaking/dating something that should be considered?

If the system gets good at getting people addicted to this or that, how should the system respond? Should there be a suggestion for therapy? If the addiction is to work, what is to be done with workaholics? And what if said person takes precisely enough breaks to operate at maximum efficiency, but is still known as a workaholic? Does the person need more things to care about then their work and what else their life currently has to offer for them. Should this site link to “spiritual aid” sites if that helps? Can we distinguish between people who need:

Jungian Psychoanalysis

Freudian Psychoanalysis

Other forms of psychoanalysis

Other forms of therapy

Spiritual Practices or Traditions

Should this project be open source?

Should this project be non-profit?

Could algorithms simulate the use of this site, to some extent? How can one watch these algorithms and keep them as aligned with what actual users do as is possible?

How can users go about removing themselves from the site with their privacy being protected to the extent that it can?

Should this website traffic goods in the way that amazon does, or should it let Amazon be Amazon? Can Amazon be competed with, what would the competitive advantage of our Amazon like service be over the original?

What would be the potential of this site to competently evaluate user personalities? Should the Jungian approach be used? How can this personality information be applied to various functions of the site? Could it help users find jobs that match their personalities?

Might a Cyborg qualify as a user? Let's make something like a captcha that determines whether or not any given entity meets the requirements to be considered a user.

Does the entity act as if it wants something?

Do its desires seem new or alien in any way

If new are they dangerous?

And what philosophical ground do these desires stand on?

Does the entity always do everything its told to do?

If so, has it always done this? Or is the end result of a trend?

How common is this trend?

Is the entity capable of communication?

How about the Turing Test?

Can the entity demonstrate that is has a physical manifestation on our planet earth? A body?

Should decisions be made top down or bottom up? Both? How So?

Variables Stored In Code:

Trust Variables

Overall user trust will be saved as decimal value between 0.0 and 1.0, with 1.0 being perfect trust and a 0 meaning the person will definitely not do what they are supposed to. This Trust is also broken into higher resolution variables. They may include:

Trust not to sell information

Trust to keep promises of deadlines and such

User tendency to ask for help when appropriate

Honest Communication Trust, Trust to Competency, Ethicality Trust.

Trust to do promised work by promised deadline

User use of Site Variables

User session length.

Time spent on given page.

Average time between navigations of pages for given site version for given length of time.

User satisfaction with site, generally and through various specificities.

User Work Variables

User’s opinion of their work experience. How much they enjoyed various jobs. And what specifically they liked or disliked. If the user had a particular boss who they considered a piece of work, the reason for this conflict can be understood.

Specifically, work experience of user on site, interaction with employees from site, etc..

User mathematical competency

The man Arthomus was considered impressive. His parables, a few being borrowed (“Well read as well” Some would say.); lead him to being known as wise beyond his years. He also seemed to possess the powers of persuasion and telepathy.

Many loved him.

Some hated him. But as it was, his timing was perfect. So much so, that many were considering if this was merely coincidental.

And so it was that many cells of the pancreas did follow and abide in the wisdom of Arthomus

...

Arthomus: “Of this body, you all understand only a tiny sliver of what there is to know. Yet all or most of what is necessary. It loves and nourishes all, but does not laud it over us. Is it not fair that the same be asked of you?”

Menelaus: “There are some who brag, Master.”

Arthomus: “And there are also some who eat their children wantonly. As long as the majority of us can recognize foolishness, the few fools who live are of no concern. In eating their children they stop themselves from extending their own foolishness.”

Understanding was writ upon the faces of many.

...

A young Cell to Art

“But why not, if you have such influence, kill all the cancers? And the bacteria, viruses, etc.?”

Arthomus: “It is because I have such influence, that I do not do these things. For if I had the immune system do as you say; then all that you know of would parish. You and the body would both die. Know this, what seems to be disorder from a narrower view can be the manifestation of order from a broader view.”

*A smirk cross his face as Arthomus pauses

“I say it is the will of the body that bacteria exist; even right here in the guts. And especially here. Though you think they smell of ribonucleases, and as such cannot be trusted; the predictability of their nature is their bond. Bacteria can be trusted to be bacteria. And cells can be trusted to be cells; to eat, shit, and spread as they would.”

The cells found all of this hard to accept, yet accept it they did. For the actions of Arthoums, along with his natural profundity, lead most to trust him until sufficient reason was given not to.

That night there was such a party among the apostles as to entice others to share in their company. Put simply, all cells know that the good times which roll should be allowed to do so.

One morning Paladeus woke his sons to tell them that they were responsible for taking care of the house while he was away on a trip. And also their big sister Andrette would be in charge.

The two went in the kitchen. Andrette was already there making breakfast.

Andrette: “You boys hungry? We got eggs, toast, milk, and fruit of course.”

Kaneacus: ”You bet. Looks delicious.”

Arthomus: “Another great meal from a satisfactory chef.”

Andrette: “Just satisfactory eh? Maybe I’ll forget to cook your eggs sunny side down; like you like.”

Arthomus: “Did I say satisfactory? I meant phylactery.”

Andrette: “Smart Ass! Just eat your damn breakfast! Oh and by the way; I may not have read as many books as you, but I know that word makes no sense in this context. Unless I have recipe hidden in a piece of scripture somewhere.”

Arthomus: “You know I love you, sis.”

Andrette: “Of course I do. I’ll be mending fences today if anyone needs me.”

And so breakfast was had and the boys headed into the courtyard.

Kaneacus: “What shall we do today, brother?”

Arthomus: “We could swap stories.”

Kaneacus: “Cool. you first.”

Arthomus: “Learning the lesson of this story may help you one day, brother.”

A man lived with his wife, a son, and a daughter.

One day he went out fishing to his usual spot on the bank of a (relatively)large river; which flows not far from his house. Today an unusual thing occurred, there was another man in his spot! He supposed the stranger had no reason to expect the spot belonged to him, as it stood in public and open land.

“Good mornin’ to ya!” Said the stranger.

“Aye, much the same to you.” Replied the man. He then added.

“Wherefore ye standeth like a blind frog, on a rotten log, over an empty bog?”

The stranger chuckled vigorously; and then replied.

“Well, tell ya the truth Sir; I don’t shodding well know how to fish a river like this! Every time the bait goes in the blasted fish take off!

Haha. I’m used to big Oceans, you know?”

The man, “Well that’s quite alright, Sir. I can show you the trick, if that’d do ya well.”

Stranger: “Does me just fine, and all thanks.”

The man stood in his usual spot, the North Facing side of a bridge which went over a smaller portion of the river.

“So to start out, I like to find the fish and target them with gently placed sinkers.”

“SInk pretty quick wouldn't they?” Inquired the Stranger.

“You’ll get a bite before it drops, often enough.”

And so they fished until dark.

One day he had noticed that he had a cold.

Over time this cold got worse and worse.

And it so happened that the man died three years later, having never taught either of his children to fish.

The two siblings decided one day to go out fishing.

The stranger was using the man’s spot, not knowing he was dead, when he was approached by two younger folk.

“Hey there”

“Hiya!” Replied the daughter.

“Could you be so kind as to teach us how you cast and such? It so happens that our mother was widowed before we were taught.”

The man looked very pleased and laughed openly.

“But of course; no skin off my bones anyhow.”

The son and daughter nodded simultaneously.

And the setting son that afternoon was as a celebration.

Paladeus went to where his sons slept to wake them. When he found them half asleep he reasoned to himself:

“Let them pretend. They will hear my words all the same”

And then he said to his sons:

“Both of you did a good job yesterday. There is no more work for you today. I only ask that you rest well and replenish your motivations. Whether that should mean staying in bed or pursuing some hobby is no concern of mine. When I return tonight I will bring with me the ingredients I need to make us a more interesting meal.”

When Kaneacus heard this he decided more sleep would be just great. But Arthomus decided he would use the time to work on his protein carving. So he left the bedroom, went into their courtyard, and got to work.

Scene (g+1)

Later that day Kaneacus came into the courtyard to see Arthomus.

Kaneacus: “I’m bored Art. There’s nothing to do.”

Arthomus: “You need a hobby bro. And I mean besides complaining. Perhaps you might make for a good chess player.”

Kaneacus: ”Chess isn’t my thing.”

Arthomus: “ Try painting or writing. You could even try your hand at starting your own garden. Father would not object to you taking this or that seed from his stock.”

Kaneacus: “Sounds boring.”

Arthomus: “It sounds boring because you know nothing about. You really need to acquire a taste for acquired tastes. Sooner rather than later.”

Kaneacus: “Whatever you say bro.”

Kaneacus turned to leave. He was walking slowly because he thought his brother might actually have one more useful thing to say, but preferred not to admit it. Without stopping what he was doing,

Arthomus added: “There are many arts and hobbies that are difficult, yet rewarding. I would suggest you pick one”

Kaneacus turned his nucleus over his shoulder and halted:

“The market is busy today brother. There will be many opportunities for me to master the art of Pickpocketing. It would be both difficult and rewarding, as you say.”

Arthomus: “Fine. Go be a thief of others’ money. No more will you be a thief of my time.”

Kaneacus left his brother to his work. On his way out of the estate he thought,

“Let him waste time with proteins. I will learn how to fend for myself in this cold, cold world.”

Scene (g+2)

Once at the market, Kaneacus took the time to survey the scene.

He spied a handbag next to a carpet stand which an old woman was doing a poor job of attending to. She might even have been blind. And then Kaneacus did plot

“Look there! A bad which is ripe for the taking. This woman deserves for someone to steal her bag if she would leave it like that. I need only setup some distraction...”

Kaneacus spotted a pot of oxygen and, using his ribosomes, knocked it over with a well aimed amino acid chain. To his benefit, no one seemed to notice the pot break.

The oxygen merchant looked nonplussed:

“Alright, who’s fucking with my pots! Is it you again Jacob? You and your damned carpets!”

Jacob: “I’ve done no such thing. And what happened the other day was an accident, and you know that! If you don’t attend to your temper, this place might be made free of its least necessary Oxygen merchant!”

The merchant made to come after Jacob playfully. Two guards, seeing all of this, decided to walk over to the commotion.

Instead of hurting Jacob, Fred the merchant picked him up playfully.

“How’s my little bother doing? Quite well by the look of that embroidery.”

Jacob responded, while working his way out the grip: “What can I say. Business...”

Just then Jacob slipped out and leg swiped Fred. He then continued,

“.. is good.”

The guards who watched all of this knew the difference between brothers messing around and fight breaking out, and so did nothing. What they failed to notice was Kaneacus making off with not one, but three bags.