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