Identity
Filter
Visitors
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: Dance-Monkey algorithm
-
> > The comparison was for the recieved inputs from the individual voter: > > V-V-V – voter chooses a delegate OR an issue position > > SD2-S – voter chooses delegate(s) OR, delegate(s)-AND-issue position.
>ec: Once more, please, repeat after me: users can vote and delegate at the > same time on the same issue. But the direct vote overrides the > delegation.
-M: I did say ‘recieved inputs’ , meaning that I am looking downstream of the override.
At that point, the centrality algorithm recieves only an issue vote OR a delegate vote. This is the point of action, and therefore the point most fruitful for comparison.[…] > > > Because as you yourself agreed, direct expression is more potent > > > than indirect one.
> > What is more ‘potent’(whatever-the-fuck that is supposed to mean), > > direct expression OR, direct expression-and-indirect expression? By > > your convoluted logic my way still should be better.
>ec: It’s not convoluted, and you accepted it: direct expression is more > meaningful than indirect one.
-M: Maybe more meaningful is some contexts, and SD2-S does measure it. And I still asked: “What is more ‘potent’, direct expression OR, direct expression-and-indirect expression?” Well?
>ec: The word “potent” should be easy to find in any dictionary.
-M: This is a strange word for the context.
> > I did question you about this trip. How is there a command-hierarchy > > in a distributed system? Emmanuel, this one appears completely bonkers > > to me.
>ec: There is no command-hierarchy defined by the system. But users can define a command-hierarchy if they want to.
-M: Is there a hierarchal initial condition for a snowballing into more elaborate hierarchies? An example would be to have a popular vote to have SD2-S.
DD is the initial hierarchal condition here.But if its just DD, then you aren’t coming up with anything new.
> > Communication and command are two different things.
>ec: Command require and can be defined by communication.
-M: No, command needs to be defined by centrality algorithms with thresholds.
This is atleast DD with 50%+1. I did tell you that I was a theoretican.Communication only relates to individual inputs.
> > Your argument here is dependent on there being no need for top > > administrators – completely ‘horizontal’ administration. This hasn’t > > been established.
>ec: I don’t care about it and “parlement” doesn’t care about it. “Parlement” > can be used by its users to define whatever they want, including a > hierarchy.
-M: Again, there still needs to be a pre-defined hierarchal initial condition.
> > I am a theoretician, so I may understand things that you don’t, and > > therefore ‘care’ about them.
>ec: Arrogant and unfounded.
-M: Au contraire.
>ec: A surlemming who is merely an elitist prick.
-M: It doesn’t serve humanity to disrespect those who actually know what they are talking about. You have attitude problems.
> > > Not only that, but no one here will ever code your project.
> > If someone doesn’t want to serve humanity, that is their problem. > > I’ll code it if I have to. Because of its superior theoretical basis, > > it will whup V-V-V.
>ec: Great. It’s always fun to observe. Do point us to your subversion repository.
-M: SD2-S will get coded, probably in Ruby.
> > > You are a kid playing alone. Stop with your attitude please, and try > > > to join the rest of the world.
> > I am a part of the world because I follow the rule structures that > > have been established by the world. Because of your violations of > > these rules, you have more of an attitude than me.
>ec: Please, do ask around about your attitude. It’s easy to confirm or > infirm. I DON’T CARE ABOUT YOUR GAMES.
-M: Then you don’t care about established and proven rule structures. This makes you arrogant and a deviant. Maybe you should join rest of the world.
> > Did you see my “Proof of Lemmingism” post? > > Well, is it TRUE?
>ec: Don’t you see how arrogant and judgmental you appear?
-M: I am asking you about TRUTH, not appearances. Well, is it TRUE? Yes/no?
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
OK, conversation is over as far as I’m concerned.
It leads nowhere, and illegale asked me to stop it. Fine.
echarp – http://leparlement.org
+1
-
