Identity
Filter
Visitors
(2) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (16) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
- 01/06 04:48 +1 Re: Default voting SD2.
- 01/06 03:00 +1 Re: Default voting SD2.
- 30/05 23:58 +1 Re: Default voting SD2.
Latest posts
- 01/06 04:48 +1 Re: Default voting SD2.
- 01/06 03:00 +1 Re: Default voting SD2.
- 30/05 23:58 +1 Re: Default voting SD2.
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: Default voting SD2.
-
Mark wrote:
G: Same thing with ID. So, I suppose we should get oriented on common principles, not on our babies not legitimated only by their pretentious fathers, if we want to succeed.
-M: A centrality algorithm has to be chosen.
G: It seems it does not in this very time at least.
-M: Then there is no definable collective. We are merely individuals and not a team.
We moved from yahoo to google with no SD2. How is that possible? No commonly acknowledged voting procedure at all and we made decision? How, Mark?
Or that part is not esential in this very moment? PS. I suppose we agreed that SD2 starts showing its quality in the larger groups than- So, if you want to acknowledge SD2 by others, you will need much more people ready to test it to see its potential. This is what I am offering to you. You do not have to accept it, of course. You might start programing in Ruby, if you get a good code, maybe I will use it also. In the other hand, Emmanuel and Markus might do it as long as they might realize it is their direct interest to test it in larger community.
M: I have SD2, and I have debated against competing algorithms. This is how to do it, correct?
G: I do not see this dabate necesssary. I prefer reality says the answer to that question.
-M: How is reality to be known if not by debate?
By concrete mesaruble effects of these debates.
G: Nevertheless, I believe made my point. If you find your aproach be more rewarding one for you, keep working on that way. Maybe you succeed. Who knows?
-M: So now its just personal opinion? What does that do for unity and commonality? Shouldn’t the best debator win? If not, what other option is there?
G: The best by opinion of whom? ATB, Gale
-M: The best opinion by: 1. who you consider to have the best debate. 2. who the defined collective of the group considers to have the best debate. (Defining the collective requires a centrality algorithm.)
So, in this moment it is to my personal opinion. Right? ATB,
Galeshanti Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
Mark wrote:
G: Same thing with ID. So, I suppose we should get oriented on common principles, not on our babies not legitimated only by their pretentious fathers, if we want to succeed.
-M: A centrality algorithm has to be chosen.
G: It seems it does not in this very time at least.
-M: Then there is no definable collective. We are merely individuals and not a team.
G: We moved from yahoo to google with no SD2. How is that possible? No commonly acknowledged voting procedure at all and we made decision? How, Mark? Or that part is not esential in this very moment?
-M: We moved as individuals.(Our internal algorithms and their hierarchies may be similar to PageRank/SD2.)
G: PS. I suppose we agreed that SD2 starts showing its quality in the larger groups than 18. So, if you want to acknowledge SD2 by others, you will need much more people ready to test it to see its potential. This is what I am offering to you.
-M: What people? Give me as many people as you can. All I need are their votes(with my new SD2, the algorithm could vote for most of them! Ha! “The computer will vote for you!” – how is that for a marketing tactic?(for those who are scared by this, the algorithm would NEVER vote for the top guy, it simply linearizes the rank distributions.))
G: You do not have to accept it, of course. You might start programing in Ruby, if you get a good code, maybe I will use it also. In the other hand, Emmanuel and Markus might do it as long as they might realize it is their direct interest to test it in larger community.
-M: No matter who does the coding, community testing is manditory.
M: I have SD2, and I have debated against competing algorithms. This is how to do it, correct?
G: I do not see this dabate necesssary. I prefer reality says the answer to that question.
-M: How is reality to be known if not by debate?
G: By concrete mesaruble effects of these debates.
-M: A measurement is fixed in time, it doesn’t measure the future. You may see what seems to be a trend, but it may be a cycle instead - measurements aren’t predictive, only MODELS are, this is why a debate is knowable only by its theoretical merits.
G: Nevertheless, I believe made my point. If you find your aproach be more rewarding one for you, keep working on that way. Maybe you succeed. Who knows?
-M: So now its just personal opinion? What does that do for unity and commonality? Shouldn’t the best debator win? If not, what other option is there?
G: The best by opinion of whom? ATB, Gale
-M: The best opinion by: 1. who you consider to have the best debate. 2. who the defined collective of the group considers to have the best debate. (Defining the collective requires a centrality algorithm.)
G: So, in this moment it is to my personal opinion. Right? ATB, Gale
-M: Yes, and your ability to influence the personal opinions of others.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
Mark wrote:
Mark wrote: > > >G: Same thing with ID. So, I suppose we should get oriented on common principles, not on our babies not legitimated only by their pretentious fathers, if we want to succeed.
-M: A centrality algorithm has to be chosen.
G: It seems it does not in this very time at least.
-M: Then there is no definable collective. We are merely individuals and not a team.
G: We moved from yahoo to google with no SD2. How is that possible? No commonly acknowledged voting procedure at all and we made decision? How, Mark? Or that part is not esential in this very moment?
-M: We moved as individuals.(Our internal algorithms and their hierarchies may be similar to PageRank/SD2.)
Does it really matter was it individual/group moving if we succeeded in our group intention?
G: PS. I suppose we agreed that SD2 starts showing its quality in the larger groups than 18. So, if you want to acknowledge SD2 by others, you will need much more people ready to test it to see its potential. This is what I am offering to you.
-M: What people? Give me as many people as you can. All I need are their votes(with my new SD2, the algorithm could vote for most of them! Ha! “The computer will vote for you!” – how is that for a marketing tactic?(for those who are scared by this, the algorithm would NEVER vote for the top guy, it simply linearizes the rank distributions.))
Would you help me in getting you the people? In that way we can do it sooner and better.
G: You do not have to accept it, of course. You might start programing in Ruby, if you get a good code, maybe I will use it also. In the other hand, Emmanuel and Markus might do it as long as they might realize it is their direct interest to test it in larger community.
-M: No matter who does the coding, community testing is manditory.
Absolutelly. I suppose cyber community is the one that breakes the ice in this story.
G: By concrete mesaruble effects of these debates.
-M: A measurement is fixed in time, it doesn’t measure the future. You may see what seems to be a trend, but it may be a cycle instead - measurements aren’t predictive, only MODELS are, this is why a debate is knowable only by its theoretical merits.
Models are predictable in modeled context, not in the reality.
ATB,
Galeshanti Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
G: Same thing with ID. So, I suppose we should get oriented on common principles, not on our babies not legitimated only by their pretentious fathers, if we want to succeed.
-M: A centrality algorithm has to be chosen.
G: It seems it does not in this very time at least.
-M: Then there is no definable collective. We are merely individuals and not a team.
G: We moved from yahoo to google with no SD2. How is that possible? No commonly acknowledged voting procedure at all and we made decision? How, Mark? Or that part is not esential in this very moment?
-M: We moved as individuals.(Our internal algorithms and their hierarchies may be similar to PageRank/SD2.)
G: Does it really matter was it individual/group moving if we succeeded in our group intention?
-M: It was individual intention. The only way you can know ‘group’ intention is by first defining what that ‘group’ is in a measurable way.
If this measure isn’t centrality algorithm based, what else would it be?
Again, back to centrality algorithms.G: PS. I suppose we agreed that SD2 starts showing its quality in the larger groups than 18. So, if you want to acknowledge SD2 by others, you will need much more people ready to test it to see its potential. This is what I am offering to you.
-M: What people? Give me as many people as you can. All I need are their votes(with my new SD2, the algorithm could vote for most of them! Ha! “The computer will vote for you!” – how is that for a marketing tactic?(for those who are scared by this, the algorithm would NEVER vote for the top guy, it simply linearizes the rank distributions.))
G: Would you help me in getting you the people? In that way we can do it sooner and better.
-M: Give me Ruby code with SD2 features, and I will be your SLAVE.
Imagine this:
A website called “Solidarity Systems” with the web address: “www.solisys.org” The host would be http://www.bluehost.com/
It would run “Ruby on Rails”, “Depot”, and “WEBrick”.When people register, they would be provided with two default representitives that they would be encouraged to replace as soon as possible. They could be provided with a window of randomly selected voters by which the new voter could read through their public portfolios before deciding on their favorite representitives.
A person’s voting account would be secured -
I may even use a modified shopping cart or similar scaffolding to build my code on.G: You do not have to accept it, of course. You might start programing in Ruby, if you get a good code, maybe I will use it also. In the other hand, Emmanuel and Markus might do it as long as they might realize it is their direct interest to test it in larger community.
-M: No matter who does the coding, community testing is manditory.
G: Absolutelly. I suppose cyber community is the one that breakes the ice in this story.
-M: OK. I have a plan brewing.
G: By concrete mesaruble effects of these debates.
-M: A measurement is fixed in time, it doesn’t measure the future. You may see what seems to be a trend, but it may be a cycle instead - measurements aren’t predictive, only MODELS are, this is why a debate is knowable only by its theoretical merits.
G: Models are predictable in modeled context, not in the reality. ATB, Gale
-M: ‘Predictive’ vs ‘predictable’ – different words.
The predictability of models isn’t the issue.
Models can be predictive of reality, and that reality tests models.shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
+1
-
-
