// Would it be possible to make it so, that other organisations could set up membership-based websites on top of Ooo

Yeah, [Ruta], in fact it is very possible to make a category into a domain, like medium.com has been domain, allowing users to set their domain, however, sharing single database. I'm still considering best initial way to implement communities functionality, and think about it. :)

// create "oo" communities functionality

Hello! I'm curious about this. Would it be possible to make it so, that other organisations could set up membership-based websites on top of Ooo and pay a monthly tax (based on their revenue from memberships) to 0oo for providing such infrastructure? What would be customisable? Could it be made so, that these views - Homepage, User Profiles, Project page - are customisable?

I'd be interested in this as KOKONO. Also, if clear documentation provided on how to customise the design (even for design/development colleagues), I believe many micro organisations who facilitate online learning and online communities would be interested in this too. At the moment, tools like Discord, WordPress, Kajabi, Circle, ... are used.

Actually, this would not require the problems be in-game, it is enough that click-through is hard, and those, who are able to get thought, get rewarded (think: "click-through prizes"), essentially, just a new type of conversion, but potentially with a requirement for specialized widgets to assist the entry of complex answers, and a verification end.

I'm thinking, now that we have 0oo.li/blog for news as community blog, we could try to produce interesting and more abstract content just by stripping existing news from their proper nouns...

Like an opportunity engine, so we can filter those opportunities (advices), right? However, usually, opportunity engines are not free. For example, silos charge for matches. Ideally, we could just add ratings and look up for matches, occasionally with anonymized identities (when surprise is the expected product).

Umm, however, how would this really work? This idea doesn't have substance, it's more like a wishful thinking, which I agree with, but it more belongs to the Questions then.

I'd like to feed all my data into a machine. All my skills, talents, abilities, personal demographics. Have the computer whizz on various opportunities for me based on my skills. The data could be community submitted. I call it advice engine.

P.S. I enjoy using my project space as a Twitter feed, sharing puzzles, which will eventually become a final product. I'd like to see other creators puzzles too! That -- interacting with puzzles -- sparks cocreation.

Storyline update!

"We are all Moms". The book ends when a character realises they are a Mom, when they raise brainchildren through the symbiosis with Life, and thus a character becomes the Universe*.

*Symbiosis with life as exploration input and creation output.

**Observer and observed .. creating reality

Notes:

Every moment we birth life (no matter genders or other boxes) when a constructive thought leads to life, while destructive - to death as decay, compost. And so, there is a dance of life and death! Regeneration as a micro habit of how we think and where thinking leads us.

So the storyline goes from escape, solo to togetherness to realise that we are her (as a metaphor for creativity as a value).

Right... Since computers are good at storing and sifting through lots of data, the only thing we humans need from them, is discovering, collecting, weighting, and sorting opportunities with respect to world's things, regarding the desired futures ;)

Where are those perfectly matched: friends, partners, projects, products (services), work and help opportunities, that optimize value of our time?

I think, specific low level algorithms are already mostly there, and the main question is in scaling the higher level of their organization, data and computing resource sharing: anyone can run a closed silo to answer some important questions for fees, but transcending silos with deeper public resources is challenging.

// Visual Basic [...]

It was for programmers, not for end users. What this idea is about, is a tool for end users, obsoleting app UIs, so in the future apps don't need their own UIs.

Visual Basic was ahead of the industry on this account and was very powerful. I never learned how to program most widgets though. Just tables.

We want to avoid what has happened to XMPP - which is a committee which adds any old stuff into the protocol making it impossible to implement simply. Because it's not simple.

Making protocols simple is the goal. I have an epollserver which is useful for building text based protocols in C:

https://github.com/samsquire/epoll-server

Comment order is reversed in the market, but let's see. It can easily be done, and I think best to be per-user customizable. ;) Very much looking forward to evolving the UI/UX, so, you can start such topic, just tick the "Base Administration" box ;)

Let us please reverse the comments order =) to see the latest first. Also [+comment] button better be on top. I want to start a project about 0oo UI upgrade.

[chronological], I agree, we need like a pallete of widgets, or a library, and these widgets must be available globally, so it could be like a browser plugin that brings those widgets into existence, and, I suppose accessible via something like right-clicking of mouse in a new empty browser tab to drop a new widget from a library like https://vueuikit.com.

In fact, dead widget snapping is already realized within app prototyping tools for designers, like proto.io, uxpin.com, etc.

However, those are not live widgets, and not for end users:

• too granular (end users generally won't have time to build a menu from scratch, or a chat window from scratch, etc.)
• not protocol-defining (a complex widget usually defines a composite data type or even interaction protocol itself, for example, a glTF widget like this defines the data type that can be provided to it for it to work properly. Similarly, a chat widget may have its own input validator, and an output validator. However, those big and complex widgets like chat window, repeats across apps -- telegram, whatsapp, line, whatsapp, etc. -- all have very similar chat windows, and creating a protocol-defining chat window widget, the developers would think about all possible needs of chat apps to display things, so that the non-programmer user who drags and drops this widget can have lots of compatible data sources without having to program anything.

insert into widgets (type, name) values ("dropdown menu", "countries") I'd like to be able to define what widgets are available separately from their positioning on the screen. Positioning widgets is harder than deciding what widgets are available. We should separate these functions to make snappy widgets a reality.

Interesting. I just visited the demo ( https://app.treenity.pro/ ), though, it is not loading yet. :)

The parent ideas are clear though, so, I'm very curious.

You may also take a look at the metaformat idea, because it introduces a pattern that may be useful in realizing this.

A simple solution. Nothing should be enforced. So, you pay for anything is voluntary, including taxes. Why would it work? Cos the culture of a strong community and respect and goodwill and live. Yep, it's not gonna work in the now dominant culture of a culture. How do we change it? By building communities with nee culture, succeeding and gravitating more people, and connecting those into larger distributed community. Where do we get land to build seed communes? Off the blockchain. We build daos that generate upside, cos freedom sells well, proven by crypto growth, and we distribute land Grants. A Robin hood scheme

I agree, and working on such an idea for more than 5 years now. And could explain my ideas. Let us connect.

Thanks [Mindey] :) Weekly updates to the world, yes! Like recordings from Missions, love that! Creative explorations are indeed like Missions :) Deep dives, life changing, sometimes. So curious about your update!!

Welcome back, [Ruta]. Just thought of weekly updates to the world, like the ones that space travellers in sci-fi movies tend to do for record, - living life like on a mission ;) I'll make my update some time soon as well, as there is definitely new things lately. :)

Hello, World! So I'm back with my project :)

Latest thinking:

• How to visualise the inner body?

This came out of realisation that ideas/projects shape me, and there's some sort of symbiosis there between a project as a living being and me.. and how diving deep into this phase of the project shapes me! (I borrow thoughts on 'everything as alive' from David Abram here.)

And I borrow inspiration on inner body visualisation from short 3D videos I see on Instagram about neurons, cells and so on. I wonder, how could I learn to create such videos? And so, create/play with the story plot by doing/making videos first.

Other thoughts in my mind lately that go into a moral of the story:

• Universe as a Mom and Humans as her kids looking for each other (marking a shift from solo to coexistence). This came out when reflecting on Struppi's question about Universe and Consciousness in Living Systems Study Group ("If Universe is a Living System, what is the quality of its consciousness?"). I thought, Universe as energy/higher-level system is indeed smart just letting her kids, humans, mess around because that's the only way to learn by exploring freely and making mistakes. And when we learn the language of "co-", we finally see our mom and feel that we belong (because we always did!). And suddenly, all human problems evaporate... The happy end!
• Conversing With rather than Talking About living world (David Abram!)
• Effortlessness, non-doing, uselessness (Tao or Dao and Living Systems Philosophy)

(Also, it seems that some things I thought about like Kickstarter or printing may not be relevant now anymore, as they were someone's thoughts not mine anyway.)

Of course not everything should be free, but a funds should be distributed in a way associated with actual usage or usefulness of the things, that receive those funds.

For example, all people could pay an amount of „tax“ to a central place, and then this collected budged would be distributed to projects who create value.

Budged distribution should be fully automatic using an algorithm, algorithm would be based on some metrics.

Graveyard of startups? Check: startupgraveyard.io seem to exist already.

The complexity of Multi-Master replication does not stop at looking up what's been new in other replica sites. We could make the data that was created on one node only editable via interacting with that node, but all created by every node replicated to all other nodes.

Yes, I think, currently, the BDR project is a way to go, for example, clickup.com uses it. However, need to dig into it, it would be great to have it decentralized.

// 疑问：狗是通过什么感受器来判断的？ //

Right, so, what human features are dogs sensitive to, and how to extract those features? Now, you're talking of how AI could replace dogs...

// If people look for computational complexity in coins when buying them, then all coins are like NFTs.

Well, computations themselves would be fungible, while the coins in the old sense would not.

Currency wallets "have" the amount it claims to have, because machines believe in the balance computed one particular way. If you introduce that other (more correct) way of computing balance, it would change the game.

If people look for computational complexity in coins when buying them, then all coins are like NFTs.

I read an article that said performance with regard to instruction selection is 10% of total performance.

The rest is cache behaviour. If you get a cache miss, you slow everything down. Computers should be able to analyse our code and work out how to arrange it so that the data is always in the cache. By simply placing data together which belong together.

I should be able to host a variety of services with low maintenance effort by bringing my servers with me.

I should be able to download a program, enter an AWS access key and secret key and get creation of servers in the cloud for me. And use the same program to manage the servers. This program should show me the resource use of the servers and let me create user accounts for various services.

I found this thread about semantic sysadministration quite interesting: https://ttm.sh/dVy.md

Got to be kidding. This is really an issue, how people can be the first-class systems of the web (web sytizens)? How can individuals be as reliable as large enterprise systems, and as clear, interactive and interoperable as standard-compliant APIs, yet as free as text and binary files?

I think we need a general purpose resource scheduler. An organisation could have one for jobs. Allocates people to teams, to jobs.

It is interesting to consider, that pretty much any application is just an arrangement of related objects of types with modification rules. One could imagine having something like "Application-Independent-Related Objects" (AIRO), that in combination behaves like an application, but are not an application, but rather are free objects with their independent identities and locations in address spaces.

This idea is a bit modified. The original idea was to freeze by pressure alone, because water freezes at +36.5'C under pressure of approx. 1GPa, directly into Ice VI, but this idea was criticized, because the body undergoing such pressure would heat up, and that may cause unwanted chemical changes in the body, even if water stays solid at much higher temperatures with even higher pressures.

// competitors will see who they are buying from //

if your business depends solely on your supplier secrecy, then your business is one step away from being a commodity.

Competition is a good thing.

Destroying other people who want to do the same thing as you is also destroying competition. And companies hate legitimate competition. They would rather be a monopoly. Monopolies are really inefficient.

I worry with a transparent marketplace, a company would startup and hire people to pick up all the work and give nobody else a chance to pick up the work.

I think society needs to escape this idea as competition as a means of destroying your competition. it's good when there are multiple people offering the same services. So they can compete on price, quality and branding. But this idea of destroying your competition and creating moats is really harmful. We should have a society where people don't fear being made irrelevant.

Yahoo SM (competitor of Google AdWords) was once a transparent market with "allows you to see who you are bidding against and what they are bidding, so you know exactly where you will rank, and how much you will pay". :)

So, what you're proposing, is some kind of open database or aggregation of market orders, right? It definitely relates to your idea of Wantsfiles and Wants Manifestos.

A problem with that is people's privacy: people don't always want their orders be visible due to multiple reasons:

• competitors will see who they are buying from
• ideologically different will despise each others (while they are friendly to each other not knowing)

So, how do you resolve that? Should people have one big open market, where they know that what they share there is public, and then they can have encrypted orders optionally, or how else would you propose?

Think about it -- in fact, every search query is a market order, and I think, "Categories" are "Queries" :) Obviously, Google has been getting lots of queries, and if every "Query" is a category, it has been hierarchically grouping them to fill these search orders (market demand) with link excerpts (market supply).

Thinking that way, we can see that every request-response (or client-server) system can be viewed as order-filling apparatus. Since the cost of fulfilling an order is usually computational-time, and human-time, and machining-time, you could measure the cost of said orders as such. For example:

• ask a friend to a party -> (human-only)
• make a cup with ready dumb coffee machine -> (machine-only)
• buy bitcoin -> (computational-only)
• buy a product on Amazon -> (computational, human, machine)

It is easy to imagine that, given such open knowledge about world's orders, it would be possible to figure out where to make money, but it is also important to make a distinction between "compute-money" and "human-money" and "machine-money", because human brain (with current BCI capabilities) will never mine the amount of bitcoin that a machine can, and a computer (with current I/O capabilities) will never go for a walk with a friend with intentions to go doing something together, as humans can.

It may be surprising, but most fiat money (call it "human-defined money"), can be made by simply making meaningful friendships, and while Facebook may be trying to fill those orders (with everyone's interaction behavior histories as standing demand orders, and daily feeds trying to fill those orders as supply orders), the most money-making orders is being made within the BS (banking sector, where the fiat money originates) and B2B supply-demand marketplaces.

Imagine if banking sector would have a social network from data like on BoardEx (and from other financio-political databases), and political needs (or "demand orders") of leaders to have certain securities (say "policies") were on the market. I think that would be one of those places with greatest bids, and opportunities in making fiat money. However, indeed, while information about policies is quite open, the downstream orders with specific work demands are less so, because they are often on various B2B marketplaces with less transparency.

// Are you assuming that same needs got to be valued at same price? A glass of water in a desert may be worth a lump of gold for a person who is dying out of starvation. //

I should be able to bid an amount I'm willing to pay for a service or product in a marketplace. I should be able to list an item I am willing to sell for. The finance industry makes this very hard to do for arbitrary things. So we need a socialized mechanism for making money. I suspect it would be a phone app with an extremely large marketplace. Every job is distilled to a set of tasks.

There would be no market secrets. I should be able to work out how to make money by looking at the market place and seeing the money I can earn by doing different tasks.

// I propose a marketplace of needs with monetary amounts shared. //

Are you assuming that same needs got to be valued at same price? A glass of water in a desert may be worth a lump of gold for a person who is dying out of starvation.

// Making money is a fiercely guarded secret right now. It doesn't have to be. It could be openly shared to benefit society with competition.

The crazy thing about money, is that it's a medium of economic communication, and making money is essentially, aligning interests and mutual expectations... How does this idea solve the fact that not everyone is equally socially connected?

Fair enough, that is how most people would think of "making money" -- collecting points.

No, I mean earning money from work or investing.

I presume, by making money, you mean launching a widely recognized new currency?

I'm thinking -- the "A" tag in HTML was meant for referencing -- but most of the time, we do not include a proper semantic relationship, other than link title (but we could, if we had a list of commonly used semantic links). For example, Wikidata P is a list of such link types (they call them properties)...

But then, URL itself as such was meant for referencing, so why shouldn't a URL include semantic link data.

And then, usually URLs are long, if you want to reference things in plain text (rather than hypertext).

These are certainly challenges in cross-referencing.

Like in scientific papers, where claims have references leading to a table of references, and then links to them?

Look no further than a DSL for a modern ERPs.

"Resource management is what almost every company is doing, and larger companies use sophisticated resource planning software for that. It is entirely possible to apply machine learning algorithms to automate increasingly many company decisions by analysis of data being collected in such systems, and it seems likely that that some hi-tech companies are already doing that, effectively creating AI-augmented corporations." (me, circa 2010)

Btw., there's one modular framework, called Odoo, written in Python and PostgreSQL, that tries to replace all cloud apps (it's quite amazing). If you replace every module with a business language symbol, you'd get something like what you're talking about. Obviously, such language then can have symbols (or words) with implementations for cloud choices of operators (like what is done via cloud DevOps with cloud services).

Such language obviously would be helpful in understanding any business processes, but not the human relationships and motivations, which usually is the glue that ties processes and restructures those processes. Management relies on personal insights, social measurements, market estimations and risk computations to decide what next domains to pursue next, and that relies on ideas of what's possible, which is inherently an exploratory process. Would such language try to capture these things as well? (human relationships, motivations, exploratory improvizations)