Tevo Saks : Why we want to get unintellectual?
Dor Garbash : Love if you could elaborate on what unintellectual means in this context
Dan Verowski : To mitigate habit due. To specialization
Tevo Saks : You lost me at unintellctual side, but you got me back on board with accountability mechanisms :D
Zoé Kleist : Maybe unintellectual means idiot-proof?
Carlos Leite : Unintellectual in the sense that everyone should be able to understand the ideas and not the case were ideas are so over-intellectualed the only “experts” “understand” what is going on
John Wellesz [ANFRA] : Is an anthill considered antifragile?
Dor Garbash : I would call unintellectual - “understandable”
Marta L : Unintellectual helps to avoid silos
Dor Garbash : Makes it less triggering
Dan Verowski : 100% @Marta
Dor Garbash : Also understandability has it’s own definition and “recipe” how to achieve
Dor Garbash :
Marta L : Does removing leave a scar? How many scars before the system changes its form?
Zoé Kleist : regarding the "unintellectual" discussion: I also think that there are Problems with Levels of competence. they all have their own language, so it would Need work from "translators"... I mean some Things just cannot be broken down to easily understandable language...?
Jeremy K : @zoe can you give some examples of things that you feel cannot be broken down to easily understandable language?
Jeremy K : redundancy leads to resilience and robustness but is different than anti-fragile
Zoé Kleist : @jeremy, well, Maybe, everything can be broken down - but there's Always so much information that just gets lost. think about something very very complex like how a computer works or quantum mechanics. the "lower" you go, the more information you throw out - and! the more metaphors you use! but metaphors don't only highlight aspects, they also hide some. to understand in metaphors, you Need to have several metaphors. (well, our understanding works Pretty metaphorically, if you are interested in that I'd recommend reading into Lakoff & Johnsons work :)) during studying that, i continued to spot more and more both Advantages and disadvantages of metaphors that get used to let others understand something better. conclusion: if you want to make something understandable for everyone, you will have to throw out a lot of information and this is something to Keep in mind. it may get understandable, but it will be in language of the lowest Level of competence.
Daniel Ribar : everyfork will bring more parameters potentially 🙂
Zoé Kleist : am sorry for writing a book here :) but Stephen talked about how Switzerland’s Government works, which is a good example here: when we (I'm Swiss) vote, we get information for different Levels of competence. there are even organisations that specialise on some groups of people, like youth. and then they get something Illustrated (additionally!) while the official stuff contains both average Level understanding and also the law text that are up to Voting (which is expert Level of competence, but it is still there)
Zoé Kleist : (i mean the Texts that explain what is up to vote:))
Vanessa Cardui : @Zoe - that's interesting, ta. In Switzerland, who decides what level of competence you are, and what info you are given? Do you decide for yourself, is it all available to anyone who wants?
Zoé Kleist : if you can vote, you get the average/normal AND the law text / the very detailed one if you fit into a Special group like youth, you get that Special Explanation additionally :)
Peter Van Garderen : https://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/q0307
Self-Organising Multi-Agent Systems. Algorithmic Foundations of Cyber-Anarcho-Socialism (2021)
Daniel Ribar : and you have to practice flying or you are becoming dangerous over time if you don't
Tyler Wales : Maybe start with flying a drone before a passenger plane @daniel
Marta L : There is an interesting concept by A.N. Whitehead, on “concrescence” which discusses a way to move from past to future, which may be applicable. In middle of this simple video:
Marek Buchowiecki : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_factor
Hamza Developer : @poetic when do you consider the challenge to be failed? Is it by the metrics?
Poetic Science : 16 years in the insurance industry and doing risk assessments, I have to say.....I probably would not "insure" what we are doing.
Poetic Science : @hamza, not specifically. test/fail. The challenge wouldn't be a real "fail", it would be
Poetic Science : when testing something and it doesn't work, that's a failed hypothesis.
Peter Wolcott : The hypothesis failed… how do you differentiate that or express that in terms of “return on intent”
Tevo Saks : Welcome to Proposal Factory
Poetic Science : Return on Intent is confirmation of practice or testing. Return is 100%.
Poetic Science : Anyone familiar with the Star Trek movie, When Jim beats Spocks test? But the test was designed to fail?
Vanessa Cardui : If we think about a project having “failed”, and if we agree this not necessarily a bad thing, and that we want to be able to risk failure – then we need audit/evaluation processes that build in some kind of process of looking at what we *learnt* from what superficially looks like a failure (e.g. a project not achieving its stated aims).
Vanessa Cardui : We also need to be able to record not just bluntly “did we meet our stated aims or not” but also processes that can record and capture “well, we didn’t achieve what we expected, but we did achieve things we never expected.”
Poetic Science : yes Vanessa. And, as technology develops, we can retry the experiment
Nori Nishigaya : Are we trading efficiency for resiliency?
Jo Allum : Balancing? Rather than trading…
Poetic Science : I think it's important to realize that they all rely on participants within their network
Chris Keller : When you crash a racecar in practice vs crashing at the finish line of a race. Two very different objectives at the time. While crashing in testing has less at risk, some moments are more fragile like last lap of a championship. We need to crash to learn and midigate risks at time.
Matthias Sieber : agile is in fragile *mind blown*
Poetic Science : if you have groups of heterogenous and homogeneous groups, engaged groups and exploratory groups, that all interact, similar to sociocracy, then it's an antifragile system.
Poetic Science : groups of skilled participants is what I meant
Nori Nishigaya : Some very deep areas require hyper-levels of specialization because of the decades of learning required to even master the basics, let alone adding to the field.
Poetic Science : distributed decision making eventually promotes a type of autocratic, or empowerment of an individual to act autonomously, yet within the norms or guides of the group
Tevo Saks : specialization is good thing, but I back up Oscar a little. There are new skills emerging which is combination of those. and some of us like to be jack of all trades.
Poetic Science :
Poetic Science : there needs to be groups of domain experts
Nori Nishigaya : It’s nice we live in a society that is diverse enough to accommodate all styles of living and achieving so we don’t have to pick one over another.
Poetic Science : once we reached a shared collectiveness, a higher consciousness, we will no longer need these things. We will self-heal
Nori Nishigaya : I like the idea of optimizing flow or throughput. It’s the difference between Scrum that looks at optimizing predictability and story points delivered, and Kanban, which looks at optimizing flow and unblocking the pipeline.
Jo Allum : 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻Optimising for thrive-ability… all the messy and the structured parts of the experiment… what do we measure? Aotearoa New Zealand’s experiment: the living standards framework - https://clik.vc/lsf21
tegegne Tefera : @Oscar I am wondering about your understanding about the emphasis antifragility being distribution of knowledge rather than being until specialisation.
Vanessa Cardui : @tegene tefera – “antifragility being distribution of knowledge rather than being unit specialisation.” so you mean that in antifragile system, you can know HOW to do a lot of things – the knowledge is distributed to you and everyone else - but you might specialise in actually doing only some of them? or am I misinterpreting?
Nori Nishigaya : I think it happens naturally and we don’t need “police”
Tevo Saks : audits = police
Poetic Science : Stephen = Police
Hamza Developer : Is social pressure a natural policing?
Matthias Sieber : @Nori in short, I'm not a fan of policing, but of education, training, and practice
Nori Nishigaya : I’d prefer feedback over training, so I can correct in real-time based on what I did well or poorly.
1) A great idea with a big perspective. We need a governance oversight to establish a framework and be specifically focused on auditing. Yet, the tools used for it- are detective - finding a deviation after it occurred. We would need a more dynamic tool since we are living in a dynamic online world. Yet a good idea. Rating given 4.
2) The given solution completely solves the problem statement of the proposal. I am strong belive that. The given problem statement is defined and regarding almost all aspects of the challenge.
3) Although the Challenge is well described and is an important component open with smart contract the proposal partially addresses the challenge. The success criteria are relevant to the first half of the challenge question. The Proponent Also Mentions The Current Processes and Some How-Tos and Offers A Test Solution in this Fund 7
1)The experience and the team stated are sufficient and reasonable to deliver and implement the proposal. Rating given 5.
2) The 7 team members are identified, and they gather relevant skills and experiences in the field of digital authentication. The definition of success is described, and it is clear how can be verified the successful implementation of the proposal. The proposer has listed potential challenges and risks in many details and already has established some measures to avoid them.
3) The project team is very well presented, we know the names, training areas, interests and social profiles (such as twitter, linkedin and even websites) of the team members, which generates a strong security and reliability in their work. The problem and solution are well articulated and easy to understand and there is a detailed plan of deliverables. The Proponent Gives A Detailed Implementation Plan With 8 Members and 8 Implementation Steps There are a lot of potential risks that have been foreseen, some risks have a solution, some have not.
1) Metrics stated such as surveys or zoom meetings are easy to be audited. The progress can be also audited e.g. by meeting subtasks such as recruiting new people. The roadmap seems reasonable. Points 1 and 2 The Oversight group will be formed The Audit Circle will be formed. requires more detail. Unless it just "will be formed". Rating given 4.
2) It can be seen that the proposers know how to properly set up an actionable plan. The metrics provided can easily serve to audit and track the progress on the promises. It has a detailed budget breakdown which seem reasonable based on my intuition.
3) Positively, there is a roadmap which states how the proposer plans to deliver their outreach programme to various audiences. The budget is clearly defined and concise, with a reasonable amount of funds requested The metrics for the success of this proposal are clearly defined.