Sweet - another day gone
I had seen a similar video I believe - but I did not figure out one could interact with the interface like that.
When I work at a place for a couple of months (esp. in research) I like to get to the point that I can make two cups of coffee, grab two people from opposing corners of the campus, put them in one room, say a couple of key words and stand back. But that needs some time, and a lot of “low level info hum” to work effectively in real life. Also, it generally does not pay (especially if people cannot think in networks). On a similar note @Nadia mentioned something regarding “homophilic tendencies”. I think that is a very important term. I couldn’t say anything smart then, and just now I didn’t find the thread again. I did remember eventually, having heard of silobreaker a while back. They probably have something of the sort on their mind as well. But of course making heterophile groups is a bit of a conundrum in the longer term. It makes me think of Orlov’s Communities that Abide somehow. If @James_Hester moved to the USA he would be in an even better position to link up. He’d probably have a lot of fun as well as reenactment get a lot of play in those circles I think.
Lastly, I’d be interested if you or @Ben could explain to me a little the Benedictine rule thing. But that is perhaps better done via skype some day in detail. Perhaps I can do a short call with @Ben in the near future to get his take. I’d posit my “Rules of the Hand” (working title).
It goes like this: 5 fingers don’t make a hand. It is good if some are similar, but you need the odd opposable thumb, and you need something that holds them together and allows them to support each other. If you accept that man is so successful, not because he has a bunch of fingers, but (among other things) because of the finger’s teamwork as a HAND - then it would seem prudent to focus more on the hand, and less on the finger. One way to do that would be to split income nominally generated by one person into 5 parts of which the person only keeps 1/5th and distributes the rest to a minimum of 4 other people. They each do the same thing until you get under some threshold. You’d still have some “long range tax” that supports the rest of the “body” but it would be significantly lower than now. Permanent collaboration with one or two people would be okay from a tax perspective, but if you don’t change most of your collaboration partners relatively often you’d be paying a slightly higher tax. All this would hopefully be relatively easy to police, as the people you share with can act as witnesses for your claims. The intended result is that resources would be “smeared out”, and there would be a large incentive to help each other, and connect people effectively. If you can think of ways to “game the system” please feel free to tear it apart.