Meta Innovator

Should mean self-referential innovator directly as meta means self-reference.

Referencing my own experience has helped me figure out things where there was no other way, and share with less fear of error.

How else can I talk about someone with a global product downloaded from over 100 countries over space of a decade? I only really know one person well enough to discuss that person, and that is me. It's just a fact.

Am not close enough to anyone else to whom that applies to talk from such person's experience so if tried, would be relying on other sources, guessing or making things up.

It's easier talking from your own experience and safer, usually.

So that self reference with regard to experience I think is practical, and maybe also more useful to others as then it can be a lot about sharing knowledge earned.

For example trying to understand my own experience I found it necessary to innovate and figure out a functional definition of entertainment. I needed it to explain follower counts on social media, which I concluded were about being entertaining.

Necessity pushing innovation? To me? That's how it should be. But to explain best I need my own experiences which explain how I know, so I need to self-reference.

And I found some math worth mentioning I think. To find it? Remarkably, just search: some math

Most should see my math blog, which is somemath.blogspot.com come up highly in the list.

Which is NOT about what I think, but about how others link, if explanations for how its web search works given by Google are accurate.

This blog at date shown for this posting, only manages around #3 for search: beyond mundane

That global search level may disappoint me in ways as I prefer #1 but shows a competitive reality which is NOT static. It's a constant competition for attention. How should I talk it?

Objectively is best I believe. It IS an objective measure which is about actions by others.

So much of what I do focuses on talking about things where think my perspectives can have value for others, so yeah, still meta. And am also innovative in that I think simple explanations can be best. Like I claim money is just a social IOU backed by society, which facilitates modern civilization by making it worth people's while to do favors for strangers, or receive them, and do so easily and safely.

Go to a grocery store? You can buy things without having to form a lifelong bond with the store clerk. Past humans might look at us in utter amazement.

So yeah meta innovator to me seems like a useful descriptor that can encompass lots about how I see myself, and like to talk about, myself not as a selfish self-involved thing, but as a known perspective.

Besides feel have a duty to innovative ideas where for now at least world is still learning in certain areas as change continues. And in our times people sharing from their own experience is helping to spread knowledge more effectively to the globe am sure.

Real world of humanity moves as a constant as so many doing so much. Our world of people never really sleeps. Waves of activity simply pulse around the globe on the daily.

All kinds of human beings can do all kinds of things and being meta is just one of those ways to help people who want to know, understand your ideas. Explaining as best you can, yourself can be a tool I firmly believe to understanding better, also by what interests others.


James Harris

Reasons to look for different perspective

It is remarkable to me to now talk about growing up in the Deep South, as grew up in rural South Georgia, USA, as just kind of a cool thing, which is still scary to say. And I tend to not bring up topic of race much but that deliberate avoidance can run into needing to explain something and here explaining need for different perspective.

Like one of the things I mentioned is my understanding of political correctness which lots of folks get wrong as really in the US is code for race politics and the view that the notion that all people are equal is politically correct, but in the opinions of some in this country goes against what they see as historical evidence of superiority of one race in particular.

So yeah reason it's "politically correct" is that all men are created equal thing in the US Constitution, which today is more like all people as we shift even from male bias, and there are people who just don't believe it.

So yeah it's not even hard to understand but explained like that it should be obvious. People using the phrase tend to be fighting some of the most famous words in history with code. Not like they can just come out and call it crap, eh?

Obviously for someone like myself who grew up with people also saying was really smart was that question of, how could I make a difference, and hey, what was the truth?

It is a harsh thing to face and I think hard for those to imagine who haven't faced it, when otherwise nice and polite people just take it for granted you are innately inferior to them. Not like they're angry or anything about it, just matter of fact. For them? It's a settled reality, and they operate accordingly.

So LOTS of motivation to look for other answers. And I found them.

Today can seem odd I'm sure to some that there are people confident of their inborn superiority based on race, and others confident that there are some people with such, which actually can be all over the map.

Science says otherwise, and I think the reality that one human species is endlessly obsessed with differentiating itself, without that changing it being one species is gaining ground. And yeah the ability of science to cut through is another reason to me to love science! Which is one of my favorite subjects, and yeah, was huge for me to get a degree in physics.

Much of my life I spent fighting against certain perspectives, only to reach an age where they were crushed, and today people get to grow up different.

But too few appreciate all the systems that were in place, like how many code phrases are meant to announce where you stand. Am sure plenty of people use the phrase politically correct without knowing it is meant to disparage the US Constitution and a very contentious notion about humanity being equal. And how can such things get fixed if not discussed openly?

If you thought it was something else, why? Like maybe it's politically correct to not use religion as a litmus test in a country touting religious freedom if you're afraid of some people? Is that better?

Code phrases are to hide. The web can help illuminate, and help give different perspective. Am sure there are people who trot things out routinely who think they are loyal Americans, even if the phrases they use tell, in code, otherwise.

But yeah not so much into just accepting authority! Grew up a Black kid in the rural South with all kinds of perspectives floating around which I didn't particularly find appealing. Today am glad for a world which has moved so far, and to feel like I should be glad to try to find some things of my own.

Why not? So much can be about perspective.


James Harris

Power of functional perspective

Years ago I found myself making what I decided to call a functional definition, and last year my latest was for entertainment. I conclude that entertainment is a safe way people use to control mood.

Which may seems so obvious, but means if I'm right can explain when something is not entertaining, as then it did NOT give a person the mood that person wanted.

Which means I can check a movie that is a box office failure, and theoretically, say why it failed.

And that rapid movement to something that seems like more of a big deal is the simple power of a functional perspective. Years ago I came up with a functional definition for science, which I noted can tell you when someone is doing science or not, without you needing to understand their research.

These are not the kind of things that just go idly by in a world efficient with information.

So for instance, television networks if they believed me, could shift to checking mood, on a television show both on desired and after watched, whether it delivered or not.

In science, scientists could face more stringent checks from policymakers verifying that their research is actually science or not.

And that's just with two of my functional definitions.

What was the first one? It was for something in math. I found I needed a definition of mathematical proof, and descriptive ones were insufficient, so I figured out my first functional one.

And that was back July 2005.

So I've been using the concept of a functional definition for over a decade.

What I call functional definitions seem to be extremely effective and powerful with certain types of abstractions, which seem to resist what I call descriptive definitions.

So yeah a descriptive definition works great say for an automobile, but struggles with something like entertainment. While a functional one can be really short, and much more effective I think as gets to the essence.

And it's easy enough to just go look up definitions to see what I mean.


James Harris

Thoughts on past global

One thing have thought more about doing is giving information that could be comforting to people who maybe worry about what's going on with various public things I do, like this blog.

Since the motivation is to be comforting to others is easier to talk past things where global can help to understand a bit about how I do things and why. Like for instance, I realized that from about 2006 or 2007 for sure, from various things started trying to understand web stats showing visitors from over 100 countries and as the years have gone by began pondering as remarkably constant.

For example easiest to check, so I use it a lot, was with my open source project for Java developers, but also my blogs, where my math one got most attention, and this one kind of limped along steady with visits from only about 60 countries annually.

And just checked as typing about made me decide to give it, and last year according to Google Analytics was only 49 countries to this blog for the year. Always feel a little odd checking for some reason. And then there is a part of me that realizes, um, that's not bad.

Realized should check math blog and was only 68 countries all of last year, which I guess is ok. Used to clock at 125.

It's the comparison that can get a person lost on the details.

Oh, quit looking at the city counts though as that would just freak me out.

But since mentioned for this post just checked and was 423 cities last year according to Google Analytics for my math blog. Won't bother for this one as didn't check earlier. Am editing this post now, getting ready to put it up.

Reality is that some or other of mine gets interest that I can check and see from web stats of some kind from around 100 countries every single year and it's been that way for a while. Last year my open source project though only had downloads from 95 countries, which kind of got me wondering.

But again, hey, just last year plenty of evidence somehow I have attention from some people all over most of the planet for things I created. Which is cool. So don't worry about me. That attention is more for use, than anything like celebrity, which suits me just fine.

How do you stay global constantly though? Put up things people from all over, regardless of things like language or national boundaries can use.

So yeah Java is very international so Java code that is useful works, and mathematics is universal, so math things do too. And concepts that resonate well, can jump language barriers as people work to get over the one, or others translate for you. Also Google Translate is on some of my blogs but haven't been able to measure how much it helps, and I don't assume.

That's the rational. But I think also you have to tap into something basic to core humanity.

You need to feel like you're speaking to a world too. Even if going through the motions until it's true. Then it's just more of the same.

Will also say though that not much looks the same to you when you realize that it's not just some quick thing, like one year, and you're global. But is year after year after year, which can lead to self-reference as I will admit asking myself, how?

How can one human being have anything that can grab interest from people around the planet in any way for over a decade, like clockwork? Consistently?

So I study it. And so don't worry about me. Not much fits into nice boxes with my story, which is how I like it.


James Harris

When beyond promotion

A lot of the web to me is clearly promotional, like if I talk about my open source project here, even though it's free, people could assume am promoting it. And now it's clear that promotion is extremely valuable, as for instance on YouTube artists can go from millions or views at a billion or more, to huge actual sales.

However, often I think can hear a tone that seems to think any view or listen or consuming of information should be a purchase of some kind, which is contrary to basic human behavior. Like, can you imagine if the radio forced you to pay for each song you heard?

The problem I think can be about greed and distrust. There ARE apparently artists for instance who were looking to get paid for every single listen, even where people are just checking out their music. And I'm sure there are executives willing to try and force people to pay for anything and everything as well, even if something were just being promoted. And such people have generated a LOT of hostility.

The problem though is, when should you go from promotion to purchase? And thousands of years of human commerce tells us--when the potential buyer decides.

People typically will try to determine quality and buy something. Like you test drive a car. Or try on clothes.

Trying to force the buy, by the seller tends to make people angry, or generate other hostile emotions or maybe at best, simply run away behavior.

On the web, some have pushed against normal human buying behavior, in my opinion, from simple greed and distrust. They either don't want people checking for quality first, or they don't trust people to buy quality after. And they try to make it seem like any human interest should give them the option to force a buy. Or they talk as if just checking something out, is stealing from them. Such behavior is clearly stalling things, as actually limits business opportunity, generates distrust and anger, and in my opinion is just wrong.

MOST people I suggest to you are NOT thieves. While the modern web, and much of the early rhetoric that came out when people had limited options to buy, where things still are way too limited, were lots about various executives whining about what they saw as relentless thievery by people it sounded to me like they clearly hated.

I will admit I want ALL of those executives out of business. In my opinion they don't belong in business as they hate humanity.

There is a better way. Trust people to buy quality. Then you have to show them quality first, then give them the option to buy. Not complicated.


James Harris