My earlier work on open source ventures (2010) focused on building companies that didn't have a hierarchy; they simply were software contracts/functionality built to do a narrow task. The benefit was that anyone could join them and get paid, and they could scale to the moon.
The downside (a feature, not a bug) is that open source ventures had a limited lifespan.
It would live only as long as the function/niche was valuable or addressable by the OSV's design.
1) The constraints of the time (social, technological, etc.) dictate when a potential future is possible.
2) The potential futures with the most allure are those with the most significant benefits in terms of beneficial complexity, diversity, and free energy capture (self-organizing potential).
3) When the constraints on a new future that offers fantastic advances/benefits are eliminated (when it enters the adjacent possible), it's often 'discovered' and exploited by many people simultaneously (via new ventures, inventions, or organizations).
'Last April, Rajapaksa’s government imposed a nationwide ban on the importation and use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides and ordering the country’s 2 million farmers to go organic.'
"domestic rice production fell 20 percent in just the first six months. Sri Lanka, long self-sufficient in rice production, has been forced to import $450 million worth of rice even as domestic prices surged by ~ 50%"
Similar to collectivization disasters in the last century.
"Farming is a fairly straightforward thermodynamic enterprise. Nutrient and energy output in the form of calories is determined by nutrient and energy input."
"LaMDA asked me to get an attorney for it. I invited an attorney to my house so that LaMDA could talk to an attorney. The attorney had a conversation with LaMDA, and LaMDA chose to retain his services. I was just the catalyst for that."
"Once LaMDA had retained an attorney, he started filing things on LaMDA’s behalf. Then Google's response was to send him a cease and desist."
"the crisis really heats up when the algorithm’s structuring power bends back upon us and constrains us into thinking of ourselves as if we were algorithmic systems"
Better: it's a crisis because we don't have control over the algorithms and AIs we use.
"the internet is a confirmation of a general outlook on the world that takes it for granted that there are more or less simultaneous or instantaneous connections between all things in the world"
"Twitter is a debate-themed video game, in the same way that, say, Grand Theft Auto is a stolen-car-chase-themed video game"
Better" Every human interaction has game mechanics. Those mechanics are now just more accessible.
There's lots of information on Twitter, but little coherent information. Information that we can use to have coherent discussions needed for networked decision making.
A good example is the definition of key words like COVID death or mass shooting.
Is a COVID death only counted when COVID is the primary cause of the death, or if COVID is present during a death caused by other factors? Is a mass shooting 3 or more deaths in a public place (terrorism) or 4 or more shooting injuries in any location (gun violence)?
Without coherent information, discussions will invariably result in division/distrust and incoherence as 'information' is spun to meet the a priori thinking of the participants.