Hey, no worries, it was really just a random thought that a whiteboard would be cool. Anyway glad you folks have a board now so you can plan out ssb related development
can you do <iframe sandbox="true"> and then content = CSP meta tag to get full security ?
<meta http-equiv="Content-Security-Policy" content=".........." /> work to set a CSP without a server ?
Consultation on Future Internet from the European Commission, this is a survey here:
But if you read the top, you'll see there is a link to a place where you can add a position paper.
hahaha in order to rectify Newton's 3rd law (which isn't likely going anywhere) you're probably going to need to bring back ether... Suck it Einstein.
Best reading on the US election I've seen so far: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/11/16/you-are-still-crying-wolf/
Looks to be partially UBI (1320$) and partially conditional (people making under 22k, people w/ disabilities)
A Canadian province is to run a pilot project aimed at providing every citizen a minimum basic income of $1,320 (£773) a month.
I'm excited to see how businesses behave. The theory is that they will flourish because there will be more pocket money in the province.
@Dominic "Ha, so all property is perpetually on the market? that is certainly an interesting idea!!!" In retrospect I think this might be a bit too brutal. With the car, we might determine that the tax you pay implies the insurance which you can have on it and even what you can sell it for if you so choose. I believe any state should have the flexibility for hippies who want to drop out of the system so under-reporting or not reporting small amounts of value should be allowed in order to reduce social friction which would prevent experimental lifestyles.
@robin.paulson it seems you're making 3 points:
Well being the crazed bloodthirsty American that I am, I would ask people to report the value of their assets and then allow others to forcibly purchase those assets. This keeps the reported value well above the actual value but they should have a linear relationship which is enough for tax purposes.
About modelling it, I'm not sure how to go about it other than social network / video game economy or just going out and making a commune. Also I'm not sure just how rigorous "real" economists are...
Wrote this to a mailing list a while back, got ~no reply, thought I'd throw it here as well...
Funny you should mention that because I've been searching for a
stable political/economic system and I feel like I've found one
which is not only stable but highly infectous once implemented.
I don't have optimal numbers in mind but here is the basic idea:
Basic Income - Not just to help the poor or because it's "good",
it plays a critical role the functioning of the economy because it
makes people spend.
Hard Asset Tax - This is designed to prevent the establishment
of rentir dynasties which sap the wealth from the economy. It has
a side-effect that asset values go down because people need to
unload their property onto someone who is making good use of it.
Intellectual Property, radio spectrum, mining rights, right-of-way,
money/bitcoin and money loans are all included, stocks are not.
Import Terrif - applied against states which do not offer
Basic Income OR who do not use an equivilant terrif. This is just
designed to prevent Basic Income leaking away to other states which
implement policies to impoverish their citizens thus allowing them
to produce exports at a cheaper price. Note that it is like the GPL
of terrifs, anyone get in but they need to impose the same rule.
Revenues of the terrif are divided evenly between all countried who
Raw materials and technology (computers) for businesses are
subsidized to maintain price stability. Stability of currency
trading price is NOT enforced.
No revenue or VAT taxes.
This is really rough at this point but my gut feeling is this will
trigger the following:
A. People have pocket money so they spend it, small/local
B. Rental Property becomes a worse investment than stake in main
street businesses, housing bubble bursts and a place to sleep
ceases to be a significant part of peoples' monthly bills.
C. Import terrif immediately has the effect of improving the
market for local businesses but other nations pass retaliatory
terrifs, multinationals seriously harmed by terrifs pull out
immediately causing collapse in certain market sectors.
D. Enticed by captive market (by terrif), cheap land and assets,
and no revenue, VAT or stockholder tax, nervous foreigners begin
to invest in local companies. As the economy grows and becomes
better known, this flow of capital becomes a torrent.
E. Spook event causes mass exodus of panicey foreign capital
(South-East Asia 1998) however currency value is NOT explicitly
protected, currency trade value plummits and foreign investors
seeking exit lose most of their investment. Foreign goods spike
in price but protected goods (raw materials etc. for business)
remain stable. Wiser investors stay put and without any serious
cause, currency trading rate springs back.
F. As the economy grows, other markets will consider adopting
similar policies in order to bypass the terrif and sell into the
market. Technically they can do this by implementing only the
"viral" terrif but if they collect state finance by VAT then
their businesses will be at a significant competive disadvantage
to ones which pay no tax except on hard assets so the natural
tenancy will be to implement the whole regime of rules. Upon
doing that, the other countries immediately become an effective
trade union without the need to sign any treaty which makes the
system more powerful.
G. Different nations jumping on the band-wagon will prioritize
different sets of goods to subsidize, this is kept fair because
the terrif revenues are divided evenly so it is not economically
interesting to subsidize goods (effectively ducking the terrif)
and then export them to another nation in the union.
H. After many nations are using these rules, deviations put the
devient at an economic disadvantage (TODO: verify) so most
political attempts to subvert this system will fail.
Ok that wasn't meant to be so long but I suppose you get the
general idea. I'm still playing with it...
Public stakeholder consultation for European Research. A lot of money is spent on "research" and the majority of it is handouts to major telecom companies. More people filling this survey means they basically have to redirect more of this money toward things which we want to happen so it's very much in our interest to sit down and file these types of papers en masse http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/interim_h2020_2016/consultation_en.htm
I just put in a lightning talk for FOSDEM: The Engineering of Consensus
This is a future prediction talk about the coming fusion between social network software, collaboration/productivity tools and political decision making. Right now we have three different technologies and all of them are bad. Today's so-called social network tech either partitions people into small groups of the like-minded or creates a social boiler-room of harassment, bullying and ideological argument. Today's collaboration tools feel alien to their users because they concentrate on the task to be performed rather than the needs of the humans who are performing it. Finally, our political process is an utter mess, our mostly well meaning representatives need to navigate a maze of public policy decision making with little help other than the unwanted help of lobbyists and we ordinary people get to send approximately one bit of information every few years when we re-elect our representatives (or don't).
Social networking technology, if it is to survive, will necessarily aim to guide people toward harmony of opinions. But as this science of opinion harmonization develops it will grow to encompass both the management of business and the business of politics. What Edward Bernays called The Engineering of Consent, an opinion of the few pushed down upon the many, will yield in the 21st century to the Engineering of Consensus, the opinions of the many harmonized into a world-view. This is both very powerful and very dangerous, as we saw in the 1930s it was possible with the power of radio for a few charismatic thugs to mobilize entire nations against one another and we cannot dismiss the risk that a few unscrupulous individuals will find this power and use it to wreck havoc on humanity and the earth. However there is also great reason for optimism because if We The People can only decide together what world we would really like to live in, actually making that world is the easy part.
I might add that another objective - the objective of a state in it's own struggle for existance - is to allocate resources as efficiently as possible in order to minimize it's risk of being conquered.
@mixmix and @Dominic raise good "against" points which if I understand them correctly, mostly boil down to "this is new, we don't have much experience here, it's risky" to which I totally agree. Perhaps there are solutions to manage the risk by starting with limited-scope experiments. Of course these will only be effective if they are closed-system.
On the topic of ideology, I think we should recognize the risk that we will favor UBI because it fits well with the neoliberal freedom self sufficient cowboy narrative which is not proven to make our lives better, if anything we must accept that it is less good for happyness/health/welfair than the enlightened nanny-state à la Norway.
@bobhaugen The argument that it's a bait-and-switch to give only a tiny bit of money and gut the social welfair system is an argument against any social change at all. First I think we should decide whether the idea of a real (approximately minimum wage) BI is logical and then see how to lobby for the right checks against shenanigans...
@robin.paulson "it props up the centralized, dominant, hierarchical state" is this necessarily bad ? I recognize that states gone out of control have done some spectacular damage but I have lived my entire life under states and if given the chance to be teleported to one of the places on earth without a sovereign state, I would not accept. I get the feeling that this argument might be more ideological than reasoned, do you have solid reasoning why there is a better alternative (and perhaps evidence) ?
For: Extreme economic inequality may be seen as a national security risk because a few people gain the political power to unilaterally dictate policy.
Against: Nation-states are in a persistent Darwinian death-struggle, any resource which is not spent on achieving superiority (whatever that might mean) is an opportunity to be undermined and become subservient to another state.
Counter-point: However we do not know that allocating some resources to everyone won't be more efficient allocation than lending to entrepreneurs in hopes they will make a great wealth for the nation.
Unclear: Throughout the 20th century, people wanted ownership of things like cars which created great demand, today we are lacking more and more the economic drive to have things, in a demand based economy the lack of demand is frightening.
Lets start the Basic Income thread, I want to hear thoughts, ideas, feelings and reasoning both for and against. Also any kind of macro-economic trend which might be relevant. Citing sources is cool but please try to explain the points succinctly; "basic income will never work, watch this 4 hour video to understand why" is kind of a bummer.
Ok so now I have to add another point. If you happen to use an Apple computer and chrome, you will need to use firefox for patchwork because using patchwork on chrome on a mac causes a memory leak in
kernel_task which eventually wipes out all of your memory. It can be fixed by stopping chrome but it can be prevented by not using patchwork on chrome (on mac).
Thank you @substack for the tip, this is indeed a very interesting project. In evaluating the consensus problem I didn't spend much time considering the possibility of low-hanging fruit in the deliberation process but pol.is definitely illustrates it. After some consideration, it seems that building a lobbying group is far easier than building an outright state because once you have rough consensus on a course of action, the traditional state can be handle the dirty but necessary business of forcing the selfish and decenters to tow the line for the good of the group.
What's the software ? Can it work on any STL file ? Seems interesting for 3d printing type applications.
To answer your question @ev I've spent about 6 years thinking about the DNS problem (Started here: https://github.com/HarryR/ffff-dnsp2p/commit/ebc094dc26f54f3baa5604a1907cb7fe1c9dfa16 ) and I've decided that for making a naming system which works at scale you require that a name is guaranteed unique to it's owner which makes it a consensus system (something I've taken to calling a State for reasons I will elaborate). I want to be clear that if you don't care about scaling to tens of thousands of users, there are a lot of working systems.
The way the internet got DNS was quite simple, the US military insisted that they needed to control the infrastructure if they were to use it and all the hackers wanted them to use it because it would help everyone, so it was solved before it even began. Piggybacking on the US State.
To elaborate further why I consider States relevant to the conversation of DNS, I will give my definition of a State. Max Weber defines a State as "human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." but I think this definition is lacking. I don't accept the sovereignty of the French State because it holds a baton over my head every day of the year but rather because the French State claims that I am entitled to certain things such as the property which I (in they eyes of that state) own.
I claim that any free-standing system which can make decisions, and enforce consensus amongst it's members, is a State. By this definition, Bitcoin is clearly a State, because it enforces consensus. To revoke one's consent to the Bitcoin system means to give up any claim on any amount of BTC which one has. This is similar to the traditional State's power which stems from the fact that if the people were to overthrow the government, all claims on property are up for renegotiation.
Now this probably seems like too much thinking for the simple question of DNS but I think the definition is important. If we are to have a DNS system with global uniqueness (meaning consensus) then we must either piggyback off of a friendly State (this is what ICANN does, it is not itself a State because it is not free-standing) or we must endeavor to build our own. The obvious solution which is "throw it in a git repo and trust somebody to be cool and take pull requests" is a working model at some scale and this is also effectively a State. It is a monarchy.
Since we're all good westerners and therefore detest dictatorships, we obviously want to build something more democratic than a "trust one guy" system. Namecoin is, like Bitcoin, an effective State, however it is (like Bitcoin) a degenerate one because it does not care for things such as identity management and only attempts to use incentives to limit spam and provide a service while keeping the database size reasonable. This leads to a certain amount of spam and squatting but also to a high domain cost which hinders adoption. Though in building a successful State we must consider capitalist theory, if our state is to be worthwhile then we must build it with socialist ideals in mind.
So what I think will work in the long run is some sort of Web of Trust based electoral/consensus system which allows us to elect a set of rules by which the State will be governed, after that the management of DNS which enforces global agreement and provides names for everyone's needs without high cost but is at the same time unfriendly to squatting is really a trivial problem to solve. Also I think this is the next direction for blockchain-like technology, once people get over this Ancap phase and start thinking about building States that one would really want to live in.