Source Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZmpb-jSTnY
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZmpb-jSTnY&lc=UgxWyoK2KuG_YCNB6jl4AaABAg.8mzLg1gyP6H8n6aJGDpXH1
In Reply To:
@Colin Kilburn Sure, some of us are here to observe, myself included, that's what I do too (sort of). It's very difficult to identify wants/needs/requirements/use-cases where there is no coherent notion that such are needed at all, or what they could be, but I think on a 1:1 level with individual participants who want to do a specific job, an action sub group could do some work that's for the benefit of themselves and the larger whole. With software as a specific implementation of a fixed procedure and therefore the need to define said procedure, is almost by definition following an industrial model approach. In general, some may ask if software can be of help at all or if it doesn't contribute to make matters worse. I have some moderate interest in tools that help with live conversations and recorded material thereof, which is why I haven't stopped to observing the GCC a long time ago. For your findings in terms of requirements/needs, would you mind sharing those, and have me contribute some ideas maybe? Who else might be interested, Glenn and Josh from the website action group, Sam for TimeBrowser, Tammy for identity wallet and value? That's basically everybody with the others as users or designers, but I don't understand why so little practical collaboration is going on around this topic and the work that is going on in this space is done in the way it is, so with little interest on GCC's side, I lost mine as well by now and got me busy again with other things.
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZmpb-jSTnY&lc=UgyTXIuyBt4eQstOf8B4AaABAg.8mzK85ijAPJ8n2ct5EoaY8
In Reply To:
@Colin Kilburn Yeah, kind of forget that, for fundamentalism, it depends entirely on the fundament, it's an approach and not a particular world view. You might just as fundamentalistic about your agnostic world view as I am in terms of my Christian belief. I think you care about something else, or would you object if somebody would present constitutional patriotism or something like that? Maybe I'm confused about the usage of those words ;-) Addition: Forgot, we could look into evolution and science, but I think there's no point in doing that, I guess you know exactly, precisely what you're doing there and there wouldn't be any great news for you or me in it. I tend to engage in such discussions, but I really hate to do it over and over again, so in lack of proper tools, I rather spend the time to build the tools first and then have more decent discussions with the help of their augmentation.
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZmpb-jSTnY&lc=UgxWyoK2KuG_YCNB6jl4AaABAg
27:49 The activity of a tool builder is building tools, which can best be observed/recognized during the process of tool building. What tools do you build, when, where, how? Also, note-taker or reporter are honorable and useful activities if done properly.
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZmpb-jSTnY&lc=UgxMwXIlUOmgeRXWeKR4AaABAg
21:03 You say the other doesn't progress, the other says you don't progress, so no progress happens without some initial investment at the risk of no return. How big can the initial investment be if time/resources are limited and you have to try a whole lot of potential collaborators, and too don't understand each other's language and values/motivations?
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZmpb-jSTnY&lc=UgyTXIuyBt4eQstOf8B4AaABAg
19:11 You obviously have no idea what "fundamentalism" is. If religion wouldn't matter to you two, you wouldn't have a conversation either (about those topics at least).
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZmpb-jSTnY&lc=UgyzzJsrA_d7-SKySu54AaABAg
7:42 What do you need, that's the question.
Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZmpb-jSTnY&lc=UgyzzJsrA_d7-SKySu54AaABAg.8mzI_qNc00i8n6c5Oyj9JR
In Reply To: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZmpb-jSTnY&lc=UgyzzJsrA_d7-SKySu54AaABAg
@Colin Kilburn OK, let's see if I can interpret/translate this: people have biases, and I wonder if there can be a perspective without individual, subjective, personal bias, but even if not, we might ask if it is helpful to think in this category, so what you're saying in essence, you want a way to make more clear/explicit where and which bias is incorporated in statements/positions? To make visible that different players/parties engage in a strategy game over the outcome of a conversation, each aiming to convince the others of their own positions? Hold space to allow hidden agendas to be made explicit, encourage to point them out explicitly, validate/verify such claims and protect the mechanism from sabotage/misuse, to get a clear picture/(map?) of what's really going on, who's opposed or allied (regardless if they're aware themselves or not)? There are plenty of software people, but none of them have time/interest, so it might make sense to try to align with those with same interest, if only the interest/topic can be determined. Same goes for ideas, there are plenty of them and gratis, everybody as a whole lot of them, what is missing is the execution/implementation. I don't get what smart contracts could offer, facing the same problems of AI (artificial intelligence) but avoiding some of the problems by reducing human language, meaning and feelings to formal rules so they are more easy to process and do some reasoning with them, but I'm very interested to get something going in the AR (augmented reality) space, I would want to do some things nobody else apparently looks at, especially around smartphones, QR-codes, GPS, IoT (Internet of Things).