CC YT Live DDKR

Source Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbPENnpqVR8

Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbPENnpqVR8&lc=UgyGqWKasEjQ0W-kHRZ4AaABAg

Chat at 8:04 @Grizwald Grim:

Please add what’s missing and report what’s wrong.

Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbPENnpqVR8&lc=UgyiZMelIf2C2pGUOM54AaABAg

33:34 The answer, what I basically want to say from 34:53 on, is: YES! Semantics in data formats (of category that drive interaction controls, not identity for reasoning/AI) make that possible, so software can recognize the meaning, patterns and work with/on it. For my failed attempt 34:53 to offer a clearer description of how it could work, please take into account that I wasn’t prepared with a topic/agenda provided in advance and back in 2019-02-01, I didn’t do much in the groupware sector, but by now I have several different projects for structuring/organizing/coordinating collaboration. I’m also at this point in time still heavily influenced by William Charlton’s SOS and primarily was exploring Engelbart from the perspective of system theory in those weeks, so I was wondering about the different perceptions, intents, interests, problem/issue identification by those who participate in attempts to work on solving complex, urgent problems (a key Engelbartian theme I got away from a little bit towards more simple groupware tools to get some bootstrapping of the improvement process going). I guess I also had the capability infrastructure in mind that would be needed to power such work environments, here called an “engine”. Also want to make the point that besides semantics/structure, there’s some tacit/cultural/emotional/unknown/non-encodable aspects involved, so there will always be some “textual” media characteristics to it and it can’t all be AI and accurate, complete, intelligent patterns. From Michael Polanyi, “Personal Knowledge” to counter Dmitry’s hope for cognitive machines. Today, I assume that Lauren wasn’t asking about how to support groups that try to solve urgent, complex problems, but instead general online group collaboration.

Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbPENnpqVR8&lc=UgwNzB5QfBpN_QVB-Mx4AaABAg

38:42 Retrospectively, this particular assembled group tried that rudimentary, but with very little follow-up/seriousness, so we failed and Greg’s suggestion was abandoned with still nobody doing it, despite it remains super-important.

Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbPENnpqVR8&lc=Ugw5FHSzs6MKwCgL0O94AaABAg

39:28 Tried to look into it and start doing something practical with it, but found out that Greg was at the stage of refining/designing these formats with no intent yet to build software implementations/tools for these.

Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbPENnpqVR8&lc=Ugzx3dBmlkTJKX9eJV54AaABAg

43:58 No, language isn’t code. Language is language and code is code (that’s why there are these two separate terms for it for being able to speak about two things that are different from each other). Code is a formalism for a deterministic, primitive, stupid machine, while language is dynamic for biological beings. Programming languages have a very, very, very small vocabulary and machine code carries almost no intrinsic meaning other than how electrical circuits are supposed to interact with each other.

Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbPENnpqVR8&lc=UgzumZBEeOxe96ujnKZ4AaABAg

50:38 That’s not a problem I have, I’m full-time employed and in the spirit of the lean startup approach trust in spare-time voluntary contributions that collectively add up until the “knowledge worker” (curator) actually becomes a real thing and people start paying money on the effort of building public knowledge infrastructure. As a business, it didn’t work for Otlet, Engelbart, Nelson, because it’s not data/mathematics to gain benefit from computation of formalisms. With human, dynamic language/text/media, it’s far more difficult, computers aren’t as much of a help in that sector (consider the value in data processing compared to word processing). Also 1:01:09 funding, I don’t currently need that myself, also wouldn’t know what to spend it on (salary?), also wouldn’t know who would fund stuff like this (who’s paying, who’s the customer, why + for what reason is someone buying, to get what problem solved?), are very worried about the waste on capacity of handling money concerns and potential disagreements/fights about who gets what, as well as the risk of failing with execution and prematurely disappoint the funder/customer. Dmitry Sokolov on the other hand, needs and explicitly requests funding. He’s not a software developer by the way.

Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbPENnpqVR8&lc=UgwyByNEHSS3knGLCkt4AaABAg

51:39 Well, if they can do it, you (or anybody, the public) could too. What’s the difference? They keep their own code/software for themselves and propietary, so they benefit, but you can’t get what they keep for themselves, and just because people don’t understand digital, believe that “intellectual property” exists, plus the historical legacy that companies that understand digital and exploit it were allowed to establish legal “protections” in jurisdictions and have the state enforce it.

Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbPENnpqVR8&lc=Ugwu1rL17DkCer3V7fN4AaABAg

52:20 The communities went to Facebook voluntarily. People didn’t see a problem with becoming dependent and locked-in in a centralized service – it is gratis (in terms of money) at least, right? And now they complain and can’t do anything about it. Great. Who was the enemy, again?

Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbPENnpqVR8&lc=UgyuXUo02RfYLcnoD8x4AaABAg

52:31 And who again is using Amazon as a marketplace just because there’s an incentive like a few percent off the price and the convenience of fast delivery? I mean, sure, people are low on budget and kept in precarious situations, so that’s why they have to save the money, but still, it’s about creating alternatives instead of lazily staying within the conspiracy and complaining when it’s too late. Who are these people who order from Amazon? Why don’t they order directly from the website shops of vendors? Why didn’t we build a neutral, public marketplace infrastructure as the net was architected to allow (and the hardware supports it, the software in its centralized style + copyright is the lacking part, and in part deliberately so to great benefit of those who understand and exploit digital).

Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbPENnpqVR8&lc=UgwUHZ7kYKF1keF0gAt4AaABAg

59:22 Didn’t plan anything else for that evening and at that point was assuming that we would do an official “checkout” for Greg leaving and then continue with some sort of “aftershow” (that’s the reason for my stupid question at 1:09:06 and assuming at 1:09:25 that this isn’t actually the end of the call/conversation, but stopping/starting again so that it would be two separate videos for the first official meeting and then a second additional video), as if a reasonable DKR discussion could happen in 1h, especially as very little was discussed in terms of DKRs and instead a bunch of other topics. But I guess the participants don’t interpret the term “DKR” in the sense of Douglas Engelbart, and have their own borader notions of what the term might mean in their own context. It was very strange for me that we didn’t discuss what a DKR could be, what it would do for us and why we might want/need it.

Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbPENnpqVR8&lc=UgwdlUhnFsnimTEcBqt4AaABAg

59:33 Said: You mean checkout for Greg leaving.

Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbPENnpqVR8&lc=UgyjcXmTds8FCNjqD-B4AaABAg

59:46 Weren’t provided in advance, and also only in part after the call, had to research that myself and post it as a YouTube comment.

Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbPENnpqVR8&lc=UgxezXdOZWbJD38A5Op4AaABAg

1:01:51 The repositories with their data/content are different from the software powering/augmenting it, which is different from the people who curate/maintain it. Also, improvement of our lives is not necessarily correlated to the extraction of value.

Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbPENnpqVR8&lc=UgxmxeOjKrMb2BKRRfN4AaABAg

1:09:53 We never bothered to figure out the practical stuff for actually bootstrapping our own DKR out of it.

Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbPENnpqVR8&lc=UgxYmxejSl0HxVjweEZ4AaABAg

1:10:19 Didn’t happen in this constellation or in documents, except for the documents that were already existing for the different projects Greg and Dmitry have.

Comment Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbPENnpqVR8&lc=UgwZKw7caF8ofebi7g14AaABAg

1:11:32 If you yourself don’t know what you want and Google presents you with an answer, how would you suddenly know that the result is what you wanted initially, in the first place? That’s impossible by definition, isn’t it? So Google or an “intelligence” might anticipate or guess, and the recommendation might be useful (better than nothing anyway), but it can’t satisfy the requirement of being something that you wanted because “want” is something you consciously decide what it is and therefore know about. When seeing the result, you decide for yourself if the presented answer is what you wanted, with no initiative/involvement/superiority of the other involved party Google, and if you decide that you don’t want a particular answer or any of the answers, Google is always wrong and can’t do something about it (or would they stop recommending results?). One can’t want what one doesn’t know, for how would one be able to know if the unknown is actually wanted?

Speaker Statistics