mindey: (Default)
We are information processes defined by what we do. We are part of the world, that grow within our immediate information sources. We have devised a variety of systems with useful properties to deal with data access permissions, querying, serialization, analytics, search... the last four of which are quite synonymous -- they are all about information retrieval, and the last five of which fall under a single word -- sharing.

Maximally Flexible Sharing


I had been thinking of an ideal information system, that would transcend the boundaries of database schemas, and the boundaries of disk files. What I mean, is a system that would allow to give permissions to any single byte, and allow to integrate and manage records of any type and in any language, so that when we write something on our home system, then it is universally reusable if we want to, and when we read something from other systems, we bring the control interface together to our system, so that we can interact with those objects on other systems without manually revisiting those other systems.

The question is -- how?

NoAPI, a metamarkup instead


APIs create interfaces to objects (they objectify systems), defining limited set of functions to interact with them. That makes the data behind them only as useful as the API defines, no more no less. If you want a single byte that Bob shared to Alice, you have to implement user system, and then special functions to return those type of queries. However, if you want the sysadmin not to be able to see it, you have let Bob and Alice encrypt the data with Bob and Alice's keys. The best example of that is Protonmail. However, for a function to be able to extract a single byte that Bob shared with Alice, the function needs to see the mask, and apply it to source text. If the function that does it, is compromised, then the system administrator may see the original text.

So, I thought, there has to be some dumb and simple function, and metalanguage that you use to mark the fragments of text within your texts, that allows designating whom to share it with. To illustrate the idea, I've created the sharesplit, which works by introducing a tag {:CONDITIONS|CONTENT:}. For example, to share something with Alice, you'd write like this {:Alice|And, btw., this should be only visible to Alice:} within the text.

NoSQL, a generic hashmap instead


The SQL in combination with very specific schemas for tables and APIs allow software engineers to design efficient structures to deal with very specific I/O or analytics and permission systems. However, the generic need for integration and analysis of all data from all sources, means it is time-inefficient to come up with new schemas to import that data every single time.

To unify all the different schemas, which can be very diverse, I have come up with a metaform, based on ontologies, that allows combine the datasets by first, writing raw data with schemas, where each record has a schema attribute, like so:
item = {"field1": "Joe", "field2": {"field3": "21"}, "*": "https://github.com/wefindx/ooio/wiki/example#test1"}

The key with star (asterisk) specifies, where the explanation of the schema lives, and that allows to normalize it with something like pip install ooio:
import ooio
ndata = ooio.metaform.normalize(item, ooio.get_schema(item['*']))
ndata

{'_:username#string': 'Joe',
 'field2': {'_:age#float-years': '21'},
 '*': 'https://github.com/wefindx/ooio/wiki/example#test1'}


ooio.metaform.formatize(ndata)

{'_:username': 'Joe',
 '_:properties': {'_:age': 21.}}

This translates the data into data with fields normalized to ontological vocabulary defined by the map provided in the schema link (in this case https://github.com/wefindx/ooio/wiki/example#test1) at arbitrary levels of JSON nestedness, which is ready to be saved to information retrieval system, where rules can be applied at the value of keys level, to apply the sharesplit slicer, or any other filters to share fragments of information with whom necessary.

This pattern, unlike JSON-LD, is not constrained to a single parent vocabulary (@context), it allows combining multiple vocabularies on a per-key basis. For example, it is possible to use term from one vocabulary to one field, and from another vocabulary to another field of the same record, this way, making use of multiple ontologies at once.

In other words, this is a bit like speaking multiple languages in the same sentence, but if there is a good term for something in language A that doesn't exist in language B, why not to use both languages at once, rather than trying to introduce and define loan words, or trying to implement the features of one language in another, making languages compete?

But what about that bit, of "and when we read something from other systems, we bring the control interface together to our system, so that we can interact with those objects on other systems without manually revisiting those other systems."?

HERE WILL BE A VIDEO DESCRIBING IT...

The good bit -- this allows to take raw applications data, and understand it. Take raw source code, and auto-understand it, save it to general purpose database, and when we change it, automatically change object in its origin.
mindey: (Default)
Alright. Long time now write here. As G+ is about to retire, I'm planning a come-back to LJ/DW. Sure enough, would be useful to import my posts from other services, but for now, let me see, if my math markup still works:



That should be Lévy distribution over the domain , where is the location parameter and is the scale parameter.

Ah, and yeah, we could Draw that in Sympy:
from sympy import symbols
from sympy import sqrt, pi, E
from sympy import plot

x, mu, c = symbols('x mu c')
levy = ((c/(2*pi))**(1/2)) * ((E**(-c/(2*(x-mu)))) / ((x-mu)**(2/3)))

%matplotlib
plot(levy.subs({mu: 0, c: 1}))



This brings me to think, that we could have here much more thoughtful and in-depth conversations than anything like modern social nets. One thing that I miss, is multilingualism... but yeah, こんにちは、你好、Sveiki ~ HTML freedom rulez!
mindey: (Default)
I find it quite fascinating, that certain very simple ideas work across all the levels, from solving personal problems to general world's problems.

One of such ideas is the idea of "average". Every school kid knows what mean means, and yet, we call the same thing by the word expected value at college, and then, we call the same kind of thing by the word risk. Then, we realize that this concept is essential to so many things, from defining trust (set of expected values) to carrying out rational decision making, and we generalize its computation by inventing the most general sums on well defined systems of sets.

Reportedly, when Kolmogorov was asked in his later age, what does he think to be his greatest achievement in his life, he didn't say that it is axiomatic definition of probability. He responded, that it is the introduction of conditional expectations.

I don't know why, but my guess is that it is because, in order to find the best action to take, we condition the risk landscape on our possible actions .

We define , which is our goal, a set of conditions to meet, and try to solve for .

We know that the reality, the real world has already defined the for us. So, in order to learn the estimate of the world , we use statistics. Knowing and , we use mathematics to solve the equation.

We specify in terms of set of random variables, and as their desired value ranges.

To simplify the matters, we classify these variables, as mankind, into hierarchies -- cosmic, geographic, tribal, organism-specific, etc.

People from all over the world generally solve all problems by doing just several key actions:

1. Thinking of what they want,
2. Looking for principles how to get it,
3. Planning their steps of actions,
4. Dividing tasks until they see a manageable chunks,
5. Attempting to do the chunks of work.

Artificial intelligence planning is concerned with 3...5. The top objective of a plan is called goal, while terminal indivisible tasks are called atomic, which we embark upon by applying primitive operators (instances of our skills).

Financial institutions, including wealthy individuals, today use money to accept or reject results of 3. People think of 3, and propose 3.

Most people think of money as numbers expressed in bills and coins. They tend not to think of all objects as money. They don't tend to define "money" as "anything used to transact". They don't assign transaction IDs for ordinary exchange. Bitcoin has taught us, that money = trust = expected values w.r.t. certain objectives, computed from information about a history.

However, it is the flows of capital that define cooperation and direction of the world, no matter what currency they are expressed in.

Today, people try to generalize the economic utility in terms of money, and in terms of market prices.

However, these generalizations are imprecise. Value of something is exactly how much it brings you closer to your goal, what brings us all closer to our goals.

Mankind, however, does not explicitly and dynamically define its goals. The definitions of goals are implied by market conditions, arising from people's needs expressed in terms of trading behaviours.

Trading behaviors are of little coordination. Market players pursue utility for the sake of narrowly defined utility, without looking at the big picture.

The automated trading algorithms are defining the first A.I. that is truly in control of our behaviours.

You could think of automated trading systems in the market as prioritization systems. By investing into one or another company, an algorithm is prioritizing tasks in a society, because companies have their task management systems inside, and by losing or getting investment, these tasks get prioritized, or deprioritized, automatically -- the trading algorithms are directly affecting the people's behaviors, so, they are in control of their behaviors.

You could think of the modern societal system, as a kind of object-oriented software packaging system. People are trying to come up with a startup after startup, that focuses on a very narrow field to do some job very well. They participate in an evoluationary process.

For the rich institutions and individuals, such setup is very convenient, when it comes to thinking of engineering a society like writing a computer program. Having financial resources and many modular, interacting startups and institutions makes it convenient to combine them in various ways if you wish to achieve some objective.

Capitalist society is employing free market economy, which works based on evolutionary, Darwinian ideas. It is the modern jungle, with food chain hierarchy, but without a common goal. The jungle is not truly civilized. Society works rather like something based on natural evolution than something based on conscious genetic engineering.

However, time is approaching, when artificial intelligence is likely to surpass human intelligence. Once that happens, it is likely that not us, but the A.I. will decide for us, what to do.

In that case, it seems that it is timely for mankind to self-reflect and define own goals, rather than let A.I. define them for it.

If we, as a mankind consciously define our goals, and pursue them, then that would not be market economy anymore. That would be planed economy, with carefully designed flexible, open and reasonable capital flow management system, informed by contribution-based and open risk management system, upon levels of hierarchies of variables, based on our needs that define them.

But.. Modern humans are very specialized, too much so to be able to define mankind's goals without a clear system that classifies variables into manageable hierarchy.

To understand something, a human needs to keep that something in mind simultaneously.

Most people can keep 7+-2 things in mind simultaneously.

If one needs to keep more, then one has to study material, remember the definitions, then learn it again, taking the definitions from long-term memory.

If something can't be kept simultaneously in short-term memory, a person can't appreciate the full picture. They may understand bit-by-bit, but not the great whole, except, perhaps, while dreaming at night. Some people have well-developed episodic memory, not spoiled by painful childhood experiences. They do better, sometimes others think they are geniuses. Well, good memory helps immensely to connect the dots.

One way to enable the majority of people understand how society works as a whole, is to make the knowledge about how it makes everything, publicly accessible, and well documented.

It won't happen in capitalist society, as long as proprietary algorithms are a trade secret.

I think there is a way to resolve all the problems above, but the solution poses a problem:

- there is risk that making knowledge easily available to people,
it will be easily applied to automate replication of all things
that we created...not just by people, but soon, by machines.

And I'm wondering... is it good that I'm pursuing the understanding of how the whole world works as a whole, and a new financial system, that would enable the world to help itself much more efficiently, by enabling efficient learning without schools and getting money without a job, or is it not.

On one hand, it could help me, my friends, my family, and the whole mankind survive, and thrive. On the other hand, it may help to do the same for machines.

So, I'm still considering, how to assure the safety of it.

I think, by systematic development of monitoring systems.

Employing similar bug tracking systems, like we do in coding software systems, but based on machine learning, and pattern recognition.

Employing the best risk models, and coming up with the most rational hierarchies.

What else?
mindey: (Default)
set(= collection), asset(= resource), risk(= mean)
mindey: (Default)
Ok. Just testing. While writing an HTML journal, I'd like to share code and math without having to import any JS libraries. Here's what:

It is easy to share code because of tohtml.com tool.
For example:

import this

It is also easy to include math formulae with forkosh.com script.
For example:



So. I am looking forward to posting some more involved content.

Umm...A wiki would be nice, too... so, I'll use memories feature for that!

For media? Umm... /media!
mindey: (pic#9066382)
Dear friends, I'm planning to write a diary/journal here, because:

(1) We can have long structured discussions in LJ format.
(2) No ads!! (+for a small fee, can have on your domain name)
(3) DreamWidth has lots of commits on Github.
(4) Posts support HTML => freedom to express oneself.
(5) Not blocked in any countries (unlike G+, FB, Twitter, etc.).
(6) Not all of my friends prefer to have encrypted, vim/emacs-only diaries =)
(7) Custom friend circles mean you can post to specific friends ^__^.

DreamWidth is user-supported financially! Here is a short video introductions by me:



For all of you, how had LiveJournal before, the reading of friends' posts happens on the /read, not on /friends as it used to be there.

P.S. Neat facts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamwidth and this video.

I miss...

Apr. 5th, 2015 01:02 am
mindey: (Default)
Those times, when we used modems and Windows 3.11 terminal emulators to do what we do with screen or tmux today. Miss sending fax from my computer by directly interfacin with phone line. Miss my black-white laptop we had since 1993. Miss websites like this one. Miss ujournal.com, and LiveJournal without ads.

I accidentally purged my 3 journals: inyuki.livejournal.com, mindey.livejournal.com, mindaugas.livejournal.com,...they contained lots of stuff. Pitty!

I've also deleted too much mail from my mailboxes of the past. Miss the conversations with lots of people.

They say, our information will outlive us. Will it?
mindey: (Default)
Recently, I found a soulmate on-line. We started communicating over SSH and GNU Screen. Then we started writing PGP-encrypted diaries, with VIM editor's gnugpg plugin, and our common encrypted WIKI. We started keeping deadline list, our set of goals and our heuristics (Wisdom of Life). We exchange screencasts via RetroShare, which is P2P, public key cryptography based communication platform, with personal mail and chat, independent of any corporation. We share our encrypted to-do lists, both short-term, long-term, and project files. We've set up VIM to show it all nicely in conveniently placed windows, so we can see each other's thoughts while working during each day. We live on different, far-off time-zones. We just recently bought drawing tablets (digitizers), and we teach mathematics to each other, and learn. We read books on-line, while sharing screens. We write our respective diaries in each other's language, to make reading for each other faster, without the need to look at dictionaries. We plan events, such as the readings, or coding together, or watching movies. Furthermore, we both have spouses. We watch movies together on-line, using VLCIRC python script. We plan to watch movies together with the spouses too. We plan to teach our friends and families math, stats and computing, but if they are not interested in that, that's not a problem. Our life just got a lot more fun.
mindey: (Default)
I'm an 'infinitesimal' part of the observable universe, which wishes to understand: the Universe, and where and how does it originate; wishes that everything that anyone truly wishes could really exist; and, doesn't lose the hope to improve the whole Universe, because it believes in the butterfly effect.
mindey: (Default)
Where is the irrational flow of consciousness that used to fountain in 2001? I had purged my previous LJ username, so I had registered the one that should appear exactly the same as the previous one, except for one detail: instead of 'i', i used 'l', which looks like capital 'i', when viewed with LJ font. Anyways.

I wonder, where everyone's gone. Gone to Facebook, gone to G+, gone, except for the rare ones like [livejournal.com profile] mastermind_haz who kept going on.

Meilė

Apr. 19th, 2005 08:07 pm
mindey: (pic#9066468)

Kas yra meilė



Meilė - tai stiprus noras puoselėti tai, kas yra brangesnio tau už patį save.

Meilė - tai pirmiausia tam tikras noras. Meilei būdingi visi stipraus norėjimo požymiai (pvz., emocijos, priklausomai nuo žmogaus jausmingumo, veiksmai (netgi kova!) ir kt.). Antra - tai kad šiam norui yra būdingas stiprumas, t.y., būtent tai, kad norima (arba tikimasi) kokio nors objekto ar subjekto (kaip geresnio tavo idealų artinio) egzistencija labiau nei savo paties kaip fizinio organizmo egzistencija.

Paprastai to norima tada, kai tas objektas ar subjektas didele dalimi atitinka tave patį ar tavo idealus. Tokiu atveju jis iš esmės yra tas pats, kas ir tu (ar tavo atstovas, tavo idealų kopija), ir gali būti labiau pageidaujamas nei pats tu sau. Pavyzdžiui, motinos vaikas gali būti jai labiau pageidaujamas už ją pačią. Ji išlieka per savo vaiką. Panašiai gali būti su kai kuriais kūriniais kompozitoriams, gamtos dariniais gamtos mylėtojams ir kt.

Taigi, trumpiau, meilė - tai didelis noras ką nors puoselėti labiau nei save todėl, kad mes vienaip ar kitaip planuojame išlikti per tą objektą ar subjektą. Keista, bet atrodo, kad galima iš šio apibrėžimo netgi padaryti praktinių išvadų:

Kaip įsimylėti?



Įsimylėti - tai surasti ar sukurti kažką svarbesnio nei save.

Vadinasi, tam, kad mes ką nors įsimylėtume, mums turi egzistuoti tas kažkas, kuris ne tik savo išvaizda ir veiksmais, bet ir savo idealais atitiktų mūsų idealus. Kuo daugiau tokių idealo sutapimų su tikrove, tuo didesnė paskata išsaugoti tą objektą ar subjektą, ir kuomet tas objektas ar subjektas atrodo tobulesnis ir arčiau mūsų tikrųjų idealų nei esame mes patys kaip fizinis organizmas, tai atsiranda ir didesnis noras išsaugoti jį (taip geriau išsaugant savo idealus), nei išlikti pačiam. Taigi, norint tikrai įsimylėti, reikia susikurti arba atrasti šiuos žmones, daiktus, kt., kurie ne tik fiziškai, bet ir ideologiškai būtų artimi tau. Teoriškai, juos mes automatiškai turėtume pamilti, tikrąja to žodžio prasme. Jei neįmanoma rasti tokių objektų ar subjektų, vadinasi turite tai susikurti (žmones irgi galima keisti, pvz., koks nors meistras gali puoselėti savo mokinį, ir gali būti taip, kad jis vėliau taps jam vertingesnis jo esmės išlikimo požiūriu už patį save). Taip ir Jūs galite susikurti žmones, kuriuos mylėsite. Tačiau tam gali reikėti įdėti kažkokių pastangų.

Kaip tapti mylimu


arba kaip padaryt, kad tave įsimylėtų

Kita išvada: tam, kad taptum mylimas (ar kad tave įsimylėtų), reikia sugebėti tapti tobulesniu idealo artiniu kokiam nors konkrečiam žmogui, nei tas žmogus yra sau.

[ Galima siekti, kad įsimylėtų kuo didesnis skaičius žmonių (tam reikia nustatyti statistinį idealo modelį), kas gali būti naudinga norintiems populiarumo. Pavojinga čia yra tai, kad: taip įsigyjant daug tave mylinčių žmonių, tavo paties meilė jiems dažnai nebus nuoširdi ir tikra, nes daugelis jų nėra tavo idealai (tu esi jų idealas). O tapti mylimu ir kitų nemylėti nėra gerai, nes tampi savanaudžiu... Taigi, tu turi tapti toks, kad būdamas mylimu, vis didintum skaičių žmonių, kurių idealai tampa artimais tavo idealams, kad tu pradėtum juos mylėti. Taigi, būtinas gebėjimas keisti kitus žmones taip, kad tu juos įsimylėtum. O čia yra svarbus dar vienas dalykas - jau pati tavo ideologija.]

Aš žinau žmonių, kurių tikslas - sako - yra išmokti mylėti žmones. Ką jie turi daryti - tai keisti kitus žmones taip, kad jie jiems taptų jiems brangesni už juos pačius. Keisti žmones - tai nelengvas, tačiau sėkmės atveju džiuginančius rezultatus nešantis darbas...

Originalas: http://old.mindey.com/meile.htm
mindey: (Default)
Daugelis žmonių mano, kad žuvų taukai šlykštaus skonio. Kadangi neturėjau citrinų, tai šiandien pabandžiau vietoj alyvuogių aliejaus, įsipilti citrinų skonio žuvų taukų. Hmm... Šiaip, skonis visai geras!



Hmm.. Antraštė kiniška, turinys lietuviškas, tag'ai angliški. ^__^

Profile

mindey: (Default)
Mindey

October 2018

S M T W T F S
 123456
78 9 10111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Feb. 22nd, 2019 10:14 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios