2005-06-11 reboot day 2 The Algorithm and Operation System for Human Creation Kesera Nicolai Peitersen value = max(k(t) + s^v) * f(p(e)) k is knowledge v is values, which changes from culture to culture s is creativity f(p(e)) is the probability of embracing the unknown he's developed a new ethical community, coming up on the www in 2 months time (Actics) was playing the martin bigum overmorgen album # Object-centered sociality Jyri Engestšm -- zengestrom.com social networking services have been very short lived. there are loads now. most fail. why do some many fail? theory from sociology about this: people don't just connect to each other. they connect through a shared object. karin knorr-cetina talked about this [i didn't catch this quotes] eg, people are growing their own potatoes and gathering together tangible objects invite play [more beachballs in conferences! actually, it really shows the space.] so, people bouncing a ball around--is that a social network? maybe. [i don't know about this. it's the shared experience, isn't it? and the object is the way we talk about that experience.] object centred *knots* not networks when a services fails to offer the users a way to create new objects of sociality, they turn the connecting itself into an object. frank bekkler: a surrogate object is on that's not sustained by the activity it promotes [or something, i didn't get that down either] question: what are the next candidates for online sociality? [actually, i think it's all to do with shared experience, and the appearance of the object is to do with the semiotcratic imperitive. experience hooks are used in marketing because you can discuss them. the object is a proxy for experience. it's a tangible label.] [object is a shorthand. what causes social networks is the different between shared experience. the differences cause creation, which is like the first thread over the ravine making the bridge. we talk about the object because we have no words for the invisible thing. what causes continued interaction is this: the unexpressable understanding is articulated, or inscribed into an object. that creates one difference. the object is consumed and digested into understanding, that creates another difference. this creates the spiral, because the understanding differences multiply. so where are the shared experiences? craftblogs. the shared thing is the journey of knitting. you demonstrate it happens with the object, but the pointer is towards an invisible thing.] # couple of nice ideas talking to alice about play: - aim chatrooms i was mentioning how i was once in IM with someone, and installed a simple MUD on my server. we moved over to that, and immediately it became a much more playful interactions, we just kept going north/south and moving rooms (there were only two rooms). which made me think, why aren't aol/aim innovating with this? in a chat (or chatroom), you should be able to type: /dig north "another room" then type /go north to actually move chatrooms. that would open another chatroom. i'm sure this could be mimicked with bots that automatically make rooms and join you to chats, but it should be inside the system. - excel sandbox mode divorce play from "fun." play as a way as exploring the shape of a system. i remembered before when i was looking at tellic and atellic activity, i was thinking there should be an atellic mode for excel. to express this in terms of play, imagine you have a complex spreadsheet. you should be able to play with it. this means that you should be able to experiment with it with no possibility that what you had before (saved) is going to be lost, and that what you come up with can be merged back into your document. so excel needs a sandbox mode, where you branch your document with no change of overwriting your real work. if you find something that works, you should be able to take that and use it. # weinberger nature of knowledge aristotle was the first person to figure out the nature of knowledge. he asked 10 questions: what is it? what's it doing? etc what is it? for the answer he used was a tree structure: the tree of life. this results from thinking about knowledge in a physical way, eg sorted laundry: lumping and splitting and repeat gives taxonomy. [nelson referred to this as the paper metaphor] knowledge for aristotle ends when organisation can no longer occur: it ends at the misc. "principles of organization mirror the limits of the physical" certain principles of the real world have been imported into how we understand knowledge: - there is only one way knowledge can be sorted (it must be the same for 2 people) - the is a right way and a wrong way to sort knowledge three ages of organisation: - first order: keep and sort the photos - second order: keep and sort the metadata about the photos - third order: digitise and do what is not possible in the physical four principles that can be violated at the third order (expressed as things we can now do): 1. leaf on many branches 2. messiness as a value 3. unowned order (you would get in trouble if you reordered a clothing store to pull out all the clothes that fit you. online, not the case. the owners no longer own the organisation of the data). 4. users build info. (they can add data.) => from trees to piles of leaves http://evident.com/ conversations are replacing aristotle's hierarchy of whatness multiple subjectivity # peter lindberg on software architecture the definition: the structure of the system comprising software elements and relationships among them so it's about the interplay of things. there are differences. software architecture originally emphasised the user, but modern definitions emphasise the fabricator (eg mythical man month). there has been a shift in the role of the architecture from being a user advocate to being a producer of structural plans. three pillars of software architecture: - technology - social - users last two often forgotten. social: QA, leads, clients. the system is to do with components that emit signals, and wake up other components to do signals. order and structure is beginning to emerge. francis ford copella: the diff between a good and bad movie is getting everyone involved in making the same movie. [good analogy: the software architect as a director] people don't think about this. we think that the same diagrams of the same are understand in the same way. people don't envision them in the same way. how do you make memorable systems? how to make future architectures more memorable, have more clarity, and are less vulnerable to misinterpretation? as you see somebody propose a system on a whiteboard: your mental picture evolves as you hear about and understand new components. it may stabilise over a series of meetings. it has an almost spatial sense in the mind. you must be able to navigate the system in your mind. this is like some disciplines, but not like painting. painting has the whole canvas in the mind simultaneously, but they don't need to remember every stroke. what makes some architectures more memorable and more navigable? don't get hung up on the technology. books that are inspiring on these topics: - how buildings learn, stewart brand - porches fill in by stages. they're made first, then warmed, then doored off. it happens like that because the next stage can always be visualised. software is easier if you have a strong vision of the product. - the image of the city, kevin lynch - imageability: a quality that gives an object a high probability of evoking a strong image - extreme programming explaining - "system metaphor": metaphor enables developers and non-developers to discuss the system - metaphoric architecture can make more useful systems - hamburger restaurant is a useful metaphor. imagine being a newcomer to my system. saying that the system is laid out like a mcdonalds is a very useful thing to say: there are multiple lines of clients; there are objects made ahead of time and placed in queues; etc. [clever!] - the art of memory, francis yates - about a time, 2000 years ago, before printing, when memory was very important - no inscription - have to imprint on memory, loci [is it a mistake to use the word "software" architecture? the imageability of a city depends on its inhabitants. if all the inhabitants are novices, a different kind of city would be appropriate. if there are more experts, the city can be more complex because people can help each other out. you have to understand the developer knowledge and how they move through it, to architect software. you're architecting a whole team, a whole system.] other recommended books: - the timeless way of building, christopher alexander - first book, before the pattern language and the oregon experiments - resurrect lost knowledge of vernacular building, not capture working patterns - serve as tools for non-architects to make decisions - le corbusier, the [something] - kuhn corbusier talks about old cities being shaped by donkey paths