Hey now I am an INTJ too.
I always come down 55/45 on the J/P split every time I take that test.
Ha ha lots of INTJ's out there. INTJ discrimination I tell you =)
Then again maybe it has to do with the degree of judging.
We have some weaknesses
INTJ are driven to come to conclusions about an idea so you may see us jump into a position early.
We are quick to express judgment and are often initially convinced we are right about a position initially (even when we are not).
INTJ strongly favor systems and organization and this may give us a tendency to favor socialist solutions early in life.
However, our weakness are offset by some very powerful strengths.
INTJ apply (often ruthlessly) the criterion "Does it work?" to everything including their own ideas.
If an INTJ discovers that a system does not work he will focus his efforts on dismantling and repairing the broken system.
We tend to be very strong strategic planners (arguably the strongest of all of the types)
INTJ's are very good at seeing the objective reality of a situation.
Edit: Retook the test recently and came out ESFP. Thats new. Maybe I was feeling outgoing that day.
Topic: Dark Enlightenment - page 22. (Read 69245 times)
A test claimed I used to be ENFP, 44/88/25/22%. Took the test again, and P increased but more balanced E @ ENFP, 22/88/25/56%.
As for the slight preference for F but it is local in scope (e.g. I didn't hesitate to predict massive technological unemployment ahead), and let's say I can switch it off and go into thinking mode. The update is saying I am less extroverted but only very slightly so, because I answered that I get pleasure from quiet and solitude, but this only so I can think and it didn't ask me if I am constantly interacting with others in forums. I just find the forum interaction more stimulating than parties which are superficial and less focused on common interests. I answered that have empathy for others and that I proceed on problems without calculating the complete solution in advance. This isn't lack of T and S, rather it is me incrementing the "publish early and often" process of open sourcing my learning and R&D process.
So actually I am very balanced ET, and moderating more on P for perceiving than Judging, but on the N I am very intuitive even though I do incorporate sensing but I don't allow sensing to slow down my process of discovery and experimentation.
This is what I strive for, balance on ET, more P but not carelessly, and turboboost on intuitive experimentation and inquiry.
I share more in common with these people:
http://www.celebritytypes.com/entp.php (Visionary)
http://www.celebritytypes.com/intp.php (Thinker)
Than these:
http://www.celebritytypes.com/infp.php (Indealist)
Or these (although I share slight characteristics with Mark Twain and some other writers/artists there):
http://www.celebritytypes.com/enfp.php (Inspirer)
See also:
https://www.personalitypage.com/high-level.html
Add:
BS Obama is not ENTP, rather he is ?N?J (and not quite sure if he is extrovert with feelings or if that is a facade), as quite evident by these quotes and joins Newton, Karl Marx, Aryn Rand, Nietzsche,ZSuckerberg, Elon Musk, Keynes, and other judgmental introverted thinkers or the extrovert judgmental thinkers such as Napoleon, Caesar, Bill Gates, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove or the introverted judgmental feelers such as Noam Chomsky, Adolf Hitler, Robert Mugabe, Chiang Kai-shek, Osama bin Laden or the extroverted judgmental feelers such as Cicero, Joe Biden, Tony Blair, Michael Moore, Joseph Goebbels, Oprah Winfrey, Bono. The key is that all evil politicians and wacko philosophers are judging types. They want to force their will on others, rather letting the free market decide and just perceive what the free market is doing.
I am nearly sure Obama is non-feeling and is feigning empathy. His "you didn't build that" is an example of his judgments. He isn't perceiving and interacting with the world. He is privately forming his pet Theory of the Day which is based in his sole judgment not on actual data or perception. One of the quotes Obama says he is faced with decisions every day where at best one can only be 30 - 40% chance of being correct. So he is saying that his judgment is applied. An ENTP would refuse to make a decision in that case. We would step away and let the free market decide. You can see him say in the linked video that the American dream of non-ideological liberalism wasn't working out, so clearly he is making a judgment. Obama was exposed to a lot of judging in his childhood and decided to make its his role to fix it (with more judging).
The salient trait of judging is they think they must act and it must be applied to others against their will for the greater good.
Quote
ENFP
Extravert(22%) iNtuitive(88%) Feeling(25%) Perceiving(56%)
You have slight preference of Extraversion over Introversion (22%)
You have strong preference of Intuition over Sensing (88%)
You have slight preference of Feeling over Thinking (25%)
You have moderate preference of Perceiving over Judging (56%)
Extravert(22%) iNtuitive(88%) Feeling(25%) Perceiving(56%)
You have slight preference of Extraversion over Introversion (22%)
You have strong preference of Intuition over Sensing (88%)
You have slight preference of Feeling over Thinking (25%)
You have moderate preference of Perceiving over Judging (56%)
As for the slight preference for F but it is local in scope (e.g. I didn't hesitate to predict massive technological unemployment ahead), and let's say I can switch it off and go into thinking mode. The update is saying I am less extroverted but only very slightly so, because I answered that I get pleasure from quiet and solitude, but this only so I can think and it didn't ask me if I am constantly interacting with others in forums. I just find the forum interaction more stimulating than parties which are superficial and less focused on common interests. I answered that have empathy for others and that I proceed on problems without calculating the complete solution in advance. This isn't lack of T and S, rather it is me incrementing the "publish early and often" process of open sourcing my learning and R&D process.
So actually I am very balanced ET, and moderating more on P for perceiving than Judging, but on the N I am very intuitive even though I do incorporate sensing but I don't allow sensing to slow down my process of discovery and experimentation.
This is what I strive for, balance on ET, more P but not carelessly, and turboboost on intuitive experimentation and inquiry.
I share more in common with these people:
http://www.celebritytypes.com/entp.php (Visionary)
http://www.celebritytypes.com/intp.php (Thinker)
Than these:
http://www.celebritytypes.com/infp.php (Indealist)
Or these (although I share slight characteristics with Mark Twain and some other writers/artists there):
http://www.celebritytypes.com/enfp.php (Inspirer)
See also:
https://www.personalitypage.com/high-level.html
Add:
BS Obama is not ENTP, rather he is ?N?J (and not quite sure if he is extrovert with feelings or if that is a facade), as quite evident by these quotes and joins Newton, Karl Marx, Aryn Rand, Nietzsche,
I am nearly sure Obama is non-feeling and is feigning empathy. His "you didn't build that" is an example of his judgments. He isn't perceiving and interacting with the world. He is privately forming his pet Theory of the Day which is based in his sole judgment not on actual data or perception. One of the quotes Obama says he is faced with decisions every day where at best one can only be 30 - 40% chance of being correct. So he is saying that his judgment is applied. An ENTP would refuse to make a decision in that case. We would step away and let the free market decide. You can see him say in the linked video that the American dream of non-ideological liberalism wasn't working out, so clearly he is making a judgment. Obama was exposed to a lot of judging in his childhood and decided to make its his role to fix it (with more judging).
The salient trait of judging is they think they must act and it must be applied to others against their will for the greater good.
The scheme makes me feel myself a person with low IQ ! 
You will rapidly change that and find your place in the Knowledge Age, especially if you are young.
I'm young. What do you suggest?
1. Get involved with a micro payments, cpu-minable, anonymity coin to accelerate the coming of #2 below. Some discussion on that at another thread I started.
2. Develop your skills in some creativity activity in which some aspect of it interfaces with content that can be delivered electronically, e.g. 3D printing designs, programming, biotech, nanotech, marketing plans, medical tech and art, visual arts, audio arts, etc..
Did you know it is possible to print an entire house of marble using a 3D printer:
http://d-shape.com/
Get in touch with your creativity ability. Most men have this as it is sort of innate to being a man. There are so many areas. This isn't restricted to just programming. You see that D-Shape is very hands on, get your hands dirty. Some men like to work with their hands, not just their mind.
In short, become a hacker, in the broadest definition of the term.
http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html#what_is
P.S. I'd love to see you guys help improve the Flying Car.
Thanks for the post AnonyMint. I've been reading your posts almost everyday for a few weeks now and I appreciate your sharing of astute observations, it has helped me get a better sense of where I should be spending my time in.
The scheme makes me feel myself a person with low IQ !
You will rapidly change that and find your place in the Knowledge Age, especially if you are young.
I'm young. What do you suggest?
1. Get involved with a micro payments, cpu-minable, anonymity coin to accelerate the coming of #2 below. Some discussion on that at another thread I started.
2. Develop your skills in some creativity activity in which some aspect of it interfaces with content that can be delivered electronically, e.g. 3D printing designs, programming, biotech, nanotech, marketing plans, medical tech and art, visual arts, audio arts, etc..
Did you know it is possible to print an entire house of marble using a 3D printer:
http://d-shape.com/
Get in touch with your creativity ability. Most men have this as it is sort of innate to being a man. There are so many areas. This isn't restricted to just programming. You see that D-Shape is very hands on, get your hands dirty. Some men like to work with their hands, not just their mind.
In short, become a hacker, in the broadest definition of the term.
http://www.catb.org/esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html#what_is
P.S. I'd love to see you guys help improve the Flying Car.
The scheme makes me feel myself a person with low IQ !
You will rapidly change that and find your place in the Knowledge Age, especially if you are young.
I'm young. What do you suggest?
The scheme makes me feel myself a person with low IQ !
You will rapidly change that and find your place in the Knowledge Age, especially if you are young.
The scheme makes me feel myself a person with low IQ !
This must be what limbo feels like
Generally speaking, the point of life (at lower levels) is to make more life. This is someways is explained well in The Selfish Gene. It will do this by any means necessary and those means often mean creating gradients. So life doesn't reduce gradients, it creates them.
Maximizing entropy (disorder) is the maximization of the number of equiprobable outcomes, i.e. maximizing degrees-of-freedom. Btw, degrees-of-freedom is potential energy. Creating more unique (every human is!) instances life increases diversity, granularity, and degrees-of-freedom. Procreation is breaking down the concentrated gradient (order a.k.a. kinetic energy) incoming from the Sun into maximum entropy or potential energy.
I got into this in the Information Is Alive! and The Universe essays at my blog (see my signature).
Schneider is semantically incomplete though on one point. jabo38 is correct, the goal of life is to maximize the instances life, yet life goes hand-in-hand with death because if nothing dies then procreation rate has to diminish. So in that sense Schneider is correct as quoted.
That was appreciated but let's not discuss that philosophical tangent further in this thread, so we don't bury the main point of this thread. We've already built a sufficient case for the point w.r.t. to stated goals for crypto-currency. I strongly urge to move further discussion on that to the Dark Enlightenment or Economic Devastation thread. I will copy this post there. You can click "Quote" then copy+paste into a Reply at any thread.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-481122
I assume your implied point is that as knowledge moves more freely then no one can build a Buffet-esque moat to defend profit. Your correct use of the term "middleman" goes to the heart of my counter-logic. Remember I wrote upthread that knowledge creation isn't fungible. So when you need something created based on an existing body of work, you need an expert. Let me distill that for you. As the transactional costs of knowledge sharing decreases, the profit moves closer to the producer of knowledge and away from the rent-seeking middlemen. Diversity of creation and the maximum division-of-labor guarantee that moat but where it is rightfully deserved personal property. People will finally own their expertise and creative energy.
Eric I continue to honor you. Peace.
Quote from: AnonyMint a.k.a. whodat? a.k.a. Jocelyn a.k.a. JustSaying a.k.a. Shelby
Quote from: Christopher Smith
Decreased transactional friction leads directly to elimination of the opportunities for arbitrage. I can buy plenty of products and services directly from Shenzhen, and there’s no profit for a new middleman.
I assume your implied point is that as knowledge moves more freely then no one can build a Buffet-esque moat to defend profit. Your correct use of the term "middleman" goes to the heart of my counter-logic. Remember I wrote upthread that knowledge creation isn't fungible. So when you need something created based on an existing body of work, you need an expert. Let me distill that for you. As the transactional costs of knowledge sharing decreases, the profit moves closer to the producer of knowledge and away from the rent-seeking middlemen. Diversity of creation and the maximum division-of-labor guarantee that moat but where it is rightfully deserved personal property. People will finally own their expertise and creative energy.
Eric I continue to honor you. Peace.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-480286
I am in the Lazarus Long camp that says there is nothing the government can't unimprove if it can touch it. Plumbing is not an extremely highly skilled activity, at least without the kafkaesque, labyrinth of building codes that must be navigated in some jurisdictions. Of course I am not arguing that building best practices aren't a good idea if done in the free market. I strongly suspect the supply of plumbers is restricted by the onerous licensing requirements which mismatch the education level of someone who wouldn't be bored out their freakin' mind to pursue that career. I was an autodidact plumber when I was 5 years old. Currently it is difficult to find a plumber in the post-BRICs NICs portion of the developing world, because the debt was driven sky-high by the Fed's ZIRP carry trade and uneconomic construction is going full tilt (to implode globally 2016 in a massive conflagrapocalypse).
I expect the discussion will likely digress to the usual pissing politics, so I won't participate further unless there is a solid refutation of my salient point about knowledge networking scaling faster than vertical integration.
Quote from: AnonyMint a.k.a. whodat? a.k.a. Jocelyn a.k.a. JustSaying a.k.a. Shelby
Quote from: Greg
> We’re still a long way from solving the shortage of skilled labor, as anyone who has ever needed a plumber can attest.
I am in the Lazarus Long camp that says there is nothing the government can't unimprove if it can touch it. Plumbing is not an extremely highly skilled activity, at least without the kafkaesque, labyrinth of building codes that must be navigated in some jurisdictions. Of course I am not arguing that building best practices aren't a good idea if done in the free market. I strongly suspect the supply of plumbers is restricted by the onerous licensing requirements which mismatch the education level of someone who wouldn't be bored out their freakin' mind to pursue that career. I was an autodidact plumber when I was 5 years old. Currently it is difficult to find a plumber in the post-BRICs NICs portion of the developing world, because the debt was driven sky-high by the Fed's ZIRP carry trade and uneconomic construction is going full tilt (to implode globally 2016 in a massive conflagrapocalypse).
I expect the discussion will likely digress to the usual pissing politics, so I won't participate further unless there is a solid refutation of my salient point about knowledge networking scaling faster than vertical integration.
Eric presented his refutation and I replied. This pretty much cements it for me.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-480217
Mea culpa I haven't read the book. I indicated in my linked refutation, that I wouldn't agree with any Communist basis and agree with Eric's critique on that aspect. For the conceptual idea to scale, there must be symbiosis between individual gain and collective gain, per the Eric's Inverse Commons in the Magic Cauldron.
For example, one could argue that any initial start-up cost for a creation couldn't be offset by the knowledge network value of incremental edits because the initial creator is not directly receiving the return on investment. My counter logic is there may be business models dealing with modularity or diminishing trail of appreciation (citation) that when combined with micro payments can route remuneration backtracked to the creators. Moreover the non-monetary square law scaling of the Inverse Commons applies in that participants gain the return of the creations and incremental improvements of their brethren. It is a mesh topology N-highway of sharing. My belief is that according to gift culture Eric outlined, the community is aligned towards acknowledging sources especially when the act of doing so is only an insignificant (automated) micro payment or other remuneration models the ingenious may develop. Insignificant micro payments then aggregate to the creators at the rate of the participants squared. The squared law seems to be so powerful and at the heart of why the Inverse Commons is the "only known positive scaling law of software engineering" as so eloquently and astutely noted by Eric. That audio of Eric is permanently imprinted in my primary consciousness. I can never forget random "monkeys beating on the code" can outperform the cathedral of closed source (which I want to extend to vertical integration in general).
Also I noticed in the Bitcoin and now especially in the Dogecoin community, there is much more tipping and donations than I know about in the fiat world. The participants understand that to make their ecosystem grow, they need to reward participation. That is not Communism because it is an individual decision, no Max Weber central authority is holding a gun to each of our heads. You can see in my linked discussion thread, the participants are rallying the concepts and refining them perhaps better than I could, or at least differently and scaling requires diversity.
Atoms are heavy but that is lacking information. How heavy? Relativity is all the matters here. I never wrote zero, I wrote relative value is trending asymptotically towards zero.
In fact food declined from say a third or half of someone's income to something on the order of a tenth now in the developed world. The third world didn't industrialize so was devalued. The industrial economy was more valuable than the agricultural economy, and to survive the agricultural economy had to move to higher economies-of-scale and automation, thus significantly lowering relative prices.
And now the Knowledge Age economy is devaluing the Industrial and Agricultural age economies. Food is maybe a hundredth of my income and that is the future.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-480217
Quote from: AnonyMint a.k.a. whodat? a.k.a. Jocelyn a.k.a. JustSaying a.k.a. Shelby
Quote from: esr
> For Rifkin’s predictions to come true it would not suffice for knowledge creation to rise in value. For his predictions to come true, material goods would have to fall to zero marginal cost. That will not happen, because atoms are heavy.
Mea culpa I haven't read the book. I indicated in my linked refutation, that I wouldn't agree with any Communist basis and agree with Eric's critique on that aspect. For the conceptual idea to scale, there must be symbiosis between individual gain and collective gain, per the Eric's Inverse Commons in the Magic Cauldron.
For example, one could argue that any initial start-up cost for a creation couldn't be offset by the knowledge network value of incremental edits because the initial creator is not directly receiving the return on investment. My counter logic is there may be business models dealing with modularity or diminishing trail of appreciation (citation) that when combined with micro payments can route remuneration backtracked to the creators. Moreover the non-monetary square law scaling of the Inverse Commons applies in that participants gain the return of the creations and incremental improvements of their brethren. It is a mesh topology N-highway of sharing. My belief is that according to gift culture Eric outlined, the community is aligned towards acknowledging sources especially when the act of doing so is only an insignificant (automated) micro payment or other remuneration models the ingenious may develop. Insignificant micro payments then aggregate to the creators at the rate of the participants squared. The squared law seems to be so powerful and at the heart of why the Inverse Commons is the "only known positive scaling law of software engineering" as so eloquently and astutely noted by Eric. That audio of Eric is permanently imprinted in my primary consciousness. I can never forget random "monkeys beating on the code" can outperform the cathedral of closed source (which I want to extend to vertical integration in general).
Also I noticed in the Bitcoin and now especially in the Dogecoin community, there is much more tipping and donations than I know about in the fiat world. The participants understand that to make their ecosystem grow, they need to reward participation. That is not Communism because it is an individual decision, no Max Weber central authority is holding a gun to each of our heads. You can see in my linked discussion thread, the participants are rallying the concepts and refining them perhaps better than I could, or at least differently and scaling requires diversity.
Atoms are heavy but that is lacking information. How heavy? Relativity is all the matters here. I never wrote zero, I wrote relative value is trending asymptotically towards zero.
Quote from: esr
> You are just as wrong as anyone who around 1900, observing the steep fall in marginal cost of manufactured goods, predicted that food would become effectively free.
In fact food declined from say a third or half of someone's income to something on the order of a tenth now in the developed world. The third world didn't industrialize so was devalued. The industrial economy was more valuable than the agricultural economy, and to survive the agricultural economy had to move to higher economies-of-scale and automation, thus significantly lowering relative prices.
And now the Knowledge Age economy is devaluing the Industrial and Agricultural age economies. Food is maybe a hundredth of my income and that is the future.
Discussion continues over at the blog of the creator of "open source".
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-479716
What does agriculture have to do with network value of knowledge creation?
Do carrots have anything to do with open source business models?
Carrots will continue their downward spiral of relative value. Iron used to be a precious metal. Commodities have trended downward in price for millennia. If knowledge can be unleashed from vertical integration gridlock, those trends should accelerate.
The refutation I expect is that there are many contributors to Linux and to aggregate value and then distribute it to the contributors requires business models such as corporate sponsorship. I agree a dearth of modularity is a barrier, but it doesn't apply to all types of creations. And I was working on higher-kinded semantics computer language to hopefully improve modularity.
Even for Linux we could ponder a pay-per-download micro payment with a new crypto-currency, then have a list of contributors ranked by LOC and distribute to them. Not sure if that works, but I am not going to try to pretend I'm as omniscient as you and know all the limitations of ingenuity of mankind.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-479742
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-479716
Quote from: AnonyMint a.k.a. whodat? a.k.a. Jocelyn a.k.a. JustSaying a.k.a. Shelby
Quote from: Greg
There is very limited ‘knowledge networking value’ for carrots. Extrapolate from there.
What does agriculture have to do with network value of knowledge creation?
Do carrots have anything to do with open source business models?
Carrots will continue their downward spiral of relative value. Iron used to be a precious metal. Commodities have trended downward in price for millennia. If knowledge can be unleashed from vertical integration gridlock, those trends should accelerate.
The refutation I expect is that there are many contributors to Linux and to aggregate value and then distribute it to the contributors requires business models such as corporate sponsorship. I agree a dearth of modularity is a barrier, but it doesn't apply to all types of creations. And I was working on higher-kinded semantics computer language to hopefully improve modularity.
Even for Linux we could ponder a pay-per-download micro payment with a new crypto-currency, then have a list of contributors ranked by LOC and distribute to them. Not sure if that works, but I am not going to try to pretend I'm as omniscient as you and know all the limitations of ingenuity of mankind.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-479742
Quote from: AnonyMint a.k.a. whodat? a.k.a. Jocelyn a.k.a. JustSaying a.k.a. Shelby
Performers and analysts are earning tips from their YouTube videos. These seed creative thought, which spawn other creations.
We will be able to produce all the food, raw materials, and energy we need with robots. There is no reason the price shouldn't trend towards zero, once the robots can build more robots.
The activity that can't be automated is creativity and knowledge creation. Thus it should rise in relative value.
We will be able to produce all the food, raw materials, and energy we need with robots. There is no reason the price shouldn't trend towards zero, once the robots can build more robots.
The activity that can't be automated is creativity and knowledge creation. Thus it should rise in relative value.
I am happy to inform that Eric says I am not banned as long as I can remain respectful and has allowed my input to be considered. I posted another summary of my idea.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-479608
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5558&cpage=1#comment-479608
Quote from: AnonyMint a.k.a. whodat? a.k.a. Jocelyn a.k.a. JustSaying a.k.a. Shelby
Thanks. A refutation would be more helpful.
The point is about the relative value of the autonomous knowledge (capital) economy versus the vertically integrated (monetary) capital economy. As the autonomy of creation increases in both granularity and speed-to-market (Linus principle of "publish often"), the number of nodes of sharing increases and the value of that knowledge sharing network increases by the nodes squared. We have chart confirmation of that law with the history of the Bitcoin price.
Specific example would be sharing a 3D printing design, and others autonomously iterating on that design. The design is open source. Music compositions, medical art, etc.
Thus the vertically integrated economy falls in relative value. How can you reason that we will pay the same or significantly for something produced by the economy that will be worth relatively much less than it had been?
With mass production, the value-added of the knowledge input was amortized over the capital cost of the factory and millions of produced copies. Thus the knowledge networking value was insignificant. Whereas, when knowledge can directly create with near real-time publishing, the knowledge networking value increases by the square and outstrips any startup costs. Moreover, incremental edits amortize the startup costs over many knowledge networking connections, and the value is the square of the connections.
The key is that open source knowledge is always changing and the knowledge workers benefit from autonomously iterating each other's designs, because the value of the network increases by the square of the participants who share. Metcalfe's (or Reed's) Law is at the heart of why sharing creates more value for all participants. That is not saying all nodes connect with all other nodes, rather the value scales proportional to the square.
The point is about the relative value of the autonomous knowledge (capital) economy versus the vertically integrated (monetary) capital economy. As the autonomy of creation increases in both granularity and speed-to-market (Linus principle of "publish often"), the number of nodes of sharing increases and the value of that knowledge sharing network increases by the nodes squared. We have chart confirmation of that law with the history of the Bitcoin price.
Specific example would be sharing a 3D printing design, and others autonomously iterating on that design. The design is open source. Music compositions, medical art, etc.
Thus the vertically integrated economy falls in relative value. How can you reason that we will pay the same or significantly for something produced by the economy that will be worth relatively much less than it had been?
With mass production, the value-added of the knowledge input was amortized over the capital cost of the factory and millions of produced copies. Thus the knowledge networking value was insignificant. Whereas, when knowledge can directly create with near real-time publishing, the knowledge networking value increases by the square and outstrips any startup costs. Moreover, incremental edits amortize the startup costs over many knowledge networking connections, and the value is the square of the connections.
The key is that open source knowledge is always changing and the knowledge workers benefit from autonomously iterating each other's designs, because the value of the network increases by the square of the participants who share. Metcalfe's (or Reed's) Law is at the heart of why sharing creates more value for all participants. That is not saying all nodes connect with all other nodes, rather the value scales proportional to the square.
A lot of discussion about my prior two posts proceed at the following new thread:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-adoption-slowing-coinbase-bitpay-is-enough-to-make-bitcoin-a-fiat-557732
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-adoption-slowing-coinbase-bitpay-is-enough-to-make-bitcoin-a-fiat-557732
One connection between some of these nodes in the chart are Christian Reconstructionism aka dominionism. see google.
Also Eric screws up the logic on anonymity.
It is not personal identity that is important, but rather reputation. Reputation can be separate from personal identity so that we can't be enslaved by totalitarianism, debt rating agencies, etc.. We can be reborn and creative at will. He is trying to say that reputation is a corner case. No it is the case.
Good to read that he at least understands anonymity for programmers can become entirely necessary.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5640&cpage=1#comment-471894
And Eric's completely uninformed reply:
Yes. And that’s his real name, too – everybody thought it was a concealing pseudo, but it turns out not.
Winter makes the type of post I would if I wasn't banned:
Eric cuts to the meat of his authoritarian culture:
One that is designed to be easily repudiated so that the user can avoid the legal or reputational consequences of behaviors performed under that identity.
It is not personal identity that is important, but rather reputation. Reputation can be separate from personal identity so that we can't be enslaved by totalitarianism, debt rating agencies, etc.. We can be reborn and creative at will. He is trying to say that reputation is a corner case. No it is the case.
Good to read that he at least understands anonymity for programmers can become entirely necessary.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5640&cpage=1#comment-471894
Quote from: RubeRad
Is Satoshi Nakamoto a “hacker”?
And Eric's completely uninformed reply:
Quote from: esr
Quote
>Is Satoshi Nakamoto a “hacker”?
Yes. And that’s his real name, too – everybody thought it was a concealing pseudo, but it turns out not.
Winter makes the type of post I would if I wasn't banned:
Quote from: Winter
This sounds relevant to the discussion:
Write Gambling Software, Go to Prison
http://www.wired.com/2013/01/coder-charged-for-gambling-software/
Write Gambling Software, Go to Prison
http://www.wired.com/2013/01/coder-charged-for-gambling-software/
Eric cuts to the meat of his authoritarian culture:
Quote from: esr
Quote
>Also how exactly would you define a Concealing Handle?
One that is designed to be easily repudiated so that the user can avoid the legal or reputational consequences of behaviors performed under that identity.
I am quite flabbergast that Eric S. Raymond (self-professed to have 150 - 170IQ, the creator of the "open source" movement) could get the logic so wrong on the coming Knowledge Age.
In his critique of Jeremy Rifkin's book, The Zero Marginal Cost Society, he misses the key generative model of open source, which is that the source is always changing. The enslavement of knowledge by capital is due to the transactional cost of the propagation of creations. As we lower that friction, knowledge takes over.
And he apparently fails to comprehend capital can't buy knowledge because thought isn't fungible, and this becomes more evident as the diversity of innovation becomes more fine-grained.
The claim that the material input costs will be significant relative to the marginal cost of distributing more copies of intellectual property is wrong because the only costs in material production that can't be reduced asymptotically to 0 at economy-of-scale and automation are the knowledge inputs. Thus knowledge is infinitely more valuable than material production at the asymptote. The only reason that capital has been able to enslave the knowledge portion of the cost in the material cost is due to inability of fine-grain, autonomous knowledge to control the creative outputs of material production. The 3D printer changes this because the printer will be in every person's home. The commodity value relative to knowledge value of raw material inputs will fall asymptotically to 0.
What Eric misses is that many types of intellectual creations and creative processes can be incrementally fluid and shared, including music, video production, medical processes, etc.. People can take the designs of others and refine them. This is precisely open source. It is not that we won't possibly use fungible money (micro payments perhaps) to pay each other for creations, but that money won't be in control of the startup costs. Individuals will choose what they want to work spontaneously. This destroys the power of stored capital to enslave knowledge.
We will still use this money to buy those non-creative things that drop near to 0 in price, such as raw materials and food.
This is what I was trying to explain to Eric a long time ago, but it just flew right over his (and his readers') cuckoo head(s) so he banned me.
Note this doesn't mean I am agreeing with Rifkin's Marxist conclusions about the end of private property rights.
Ah he was so close to getting the point, then he screwed it up on the last sentence. Yes Eric, but what capital are they accumulating? Stored capital or knowledge capital. He just hasn't quite had the epiphany yet on how the relative value of stored capital can plummet.
You can't seem to agree that knowledge will 1000X more valuable than those raw materials.
You have entirely missed the point of my post here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6065144
So I think we will stop the discussion now. I don't have more time.
Let them raise the price of oil to $1 million per liter. Our knowledge value will rise proportionally. Then I (and others) will be earning $1 trillion per day.
It is the value-added to raw inputs that is relevant. With mass production, the value-added of knowledge was amortized over the capital cost of the factory and millions of xerox copies.
Now the creations will change 1000s of variants per day or minute. The value-added is unfathomable.
It is the speed of the propagation of creation of product innovation that destroys (devalues) their control.
In his critique of Jeremy Rifkin's book, The Zero Marginal Cost Society, he misses the key generative model of open source, which is that the source is always changing. The enslavement of knowledge by capital is due to the transactional cost of the propagation of creations. As we lower that friction, knowledge takes over.
And he apparently fails to comprehend capital can't buy knowledge because thought isn't fungible, and this becomes more evident as the diversity of innovation becomes more fine-grained.
The claim that the material input costs will be significant relative to the marginal cost of distributing more copies of intellectual property is wrong because the only costs in material production that can't be reduced asymptotically to 0 at economy-of-scale and automation are the knowledge inputs. Thus knowledge is infinitely more valuable than material production at the asymptote. The only reason that capital has been able to enslave the knowledge portion of the cost in the material cost is due to inability of fine-grain, autonomous knowledge to control the creative outputs of material production. The 3D printer changes this because the printer will be in every person's home. The commodity value relative to knowledge value of raw material inputs will fall asymptotically to 0.
What Eric misses is that many types of intellectual creations and creative processes can be incrementally fluid and shared, including music, video production, medical processes, etc.. People can take the designs of others and refine them. This is precisely open source. It is not that we won't possibly use fungible money (micro payments perhaps) to pay each other for creations, but that money won't be in control of the startup costs. Individuals will choose what they want to work spontaneously. This destroys the power of stored capital to enslave knowledge.
We will still use this money to buy those non-creative things that drop near to 0 in price, such as raw materials and food.
This is what I was trying to explain to Eric a long time ago, but it just flew right over his (and his readers') cuckoo head(s) so he banned me.
Note this doesn't mean I am agreeing with Rifkin's Marxist conclusions about the end of private property rights.
When people speak of “capitalism” and “free markets” as being separable ideas, and I inquire into that, I generally find that they’re identifying capitalism with the way free-market economies behave in the presence of high communication and transaction costs – big firms with lots of vertical integration, deskilled employees treated like cogs in Taylorized processes, and elaborate hierarchical management structures designed to manage the largest possible lumps of capital to collect economies of scale.
Economies mostly stop looking like that as the costs of transaction and communication drop and technological leverage increases revenue per employee. But it’s still capitalism because specialists in capital accumulation drive most of the productive activity.
Economies mostly stop looking like that as the costs of transaction and communication drop and technological leverage increases revenue per employee. But it’s still capitalism because specialists in capital accumulation drive most of the productive activity.
Ah he was so close to getting the point, then he screwed it up on the last sentence. Yes Eric, but what capital are they accumulating? Stored capital or knowledge capital. He just hasn't quite had the epiphany yet on how the relative value of stored capital can plummet.
Oil is food, Oil is materials, Oil is Energy, Oil is what backs USD
Oil is what you can't print. Oil is your Tax.
Oil is what you can't print. Oil is your Tax.
You can't seem to agree that knowledge will 1000X more valuable than those raw materials.
You have entirely missed the point of my post here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6065144
So I think we will stop the discussion now. I don't have more time.
Let them raise the price of oil to $1 million per liter. Our knowledge value will rise proportionally. Then I (and others) will be earning $1 trillion per day.
It is the value-added to raw inputs that is relevant. With mass production, the value-added of knowledge was amortized over the capital cost of the factory and millions of xerox copies.
Now the creations will change 1000s of variants per day or minute. The value-added is unfathomable.
It is the speed of the propagation of creation of product innovation that destroys (devalues) their control.
I'm awaiting a CO2 tax effectively banning breathing and a consumer protection law banning death.
Tax on breathing fresh air? In Spain there is a tax for sunlight.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.in/2013/07/spain-levies-consumption-tax-on-sunlight.html
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/04/02/constitutional-convention-2016/
Constitutional Convention 2016?
A very interesting political development has taken place, but you can bet the Democrats will fight tooth-and-nail to prevent it. This week the state legislature of Michigan became the 34th state to demand a “Constitutional Convention” in the United States. Pursuant to Article 5 of the US Constitution, if 2/3rds of the states call for such a convention, (meaning 34 states) it MUST take place. We will see if this is actually honored. At the very least, there is no time requirement so this could be dragged out for years.
Nevertheless, in such a convention, the ENTIRE Constitution is subject to review and can be altered and changed. This could be everything from installing “social justice” to the dissolution of the federal government. Everything is on the table as if we were back in 1776 Philadelphia.
This is an unprecedented event to amend the U.S. Constitution emerging from the states. Normally, Congress proposes a bill to amend the Constitution as was the case with income tax. Keep this one on your radar – we are looking at the potential for real change good or bad.
Constitutional Convention 2016?
A very interesting political development has taken place, but you can bet the Democrats will fight tooth-and-nail to prevent it. This week the state legislature of Michigan became the 34th state to demand a “Constitutional Convention” in the United States. Pursuant to Article 5 of the US Constitution, if 2/3rds of the states call for such a convention, (meaning 34 states) it MUST take place. We will see if this is actually honored. At the very least, there is no time requirement so this could be dragged out for years.
Nevertheless, in such a convention, the ENTIRE Constitution is subject to review and can be altered and changed. This could be everything from installing “social justice” to the dissolution of the federal government. Everything is on the table as if we were back in 1776 Philadelphia.
This is an unprecedented event to amend the U.S. Constitution emerging from the states. Normally, Congress proposes a bill to amend the Constitution as was the case with income tax. Keep this one on your radar – we are looking at the potential for real change good or bad.
Jump to: