One of the more important things I did recently was stop original research. Which to me is, as best I can, as I actually tried stopping for years but seems to have really worked this time, so am cautiously optimistic. (Should have known better. Have figured out a few more things since this post.) Problem with my process there is I'd publicly talk out ideas, to help evaluate them which is a lot of work, and can literally take YEARS till am satisfied.
And one thing have addressed here and there is idea acceptance, and turns out the bigger the ideas as to how many total humans maybe impacted the larger the resistance not surprisingly. Though also have talked about web authority, and of course kind of take it for granted that ideas zip rapidly around the globe now.
Turns out if you put all of that together you can reach some rather obvious conclusions, which I say, to point out I will not explain much in this area, any more.
What I will say is that if you have a useful idea, in my experience, it gets picked up so rapidly it defies explanation. And have been able to literally watch ideas zip around the planet as best I could using various tools available, like web analytics.
Which is also satisfying will admit. Does tend to quiet those doubtful voices within my mind.
And almost done but then comes the alternate thing of what is reported, and I realized something fascinating about people reported on, which is usually you do something that gets a TON of attention or just get famous and then reporters track you down, and bug you with questions, and not the other way around.
Actually demonstrated for myself once with a test case with karaoke, which is one of two times that I remember having been interviewed where was with several other people so I was NOT the focus even there. (Interview is from 2009. Wow time does fly. And editing post just a bit with some additional information now September 19, 2017. Debating if should remove post and for now, it stays. Kind of think is funny actually. Which helps post stay.) And correction as I did NOT mean looked like Lionel Richie as I do not, but that I tended to sing most like him I thought as liked to sing several of his songs. Otherwise interview is rather accurate though truncated a bit, like they took out all the cursing.
The first was WAY back when a teenager when I had the highest SAT of my graduating high school class. Was in the local paper before couple of times, but not interviewed I don't think.
Oh, so the good news is, to the extent I have good ideas put up on my blogs, as near as I can tell, they're not only being used, but have been used rather heavily almost as soon as I put them up! Like grabbed up immediately and put to work kind of thing.
Which is cool.
James Harris
Sunday, October 09, 2016
Thursday, October 06, 2016
Functional pressure on information flow
Information flows with such volume that I tend to think of it as massive streams surging around our planet where the volume gets bigger all the time. Not surprisingly to me what can be an overwhelming concept becomes manageable in my opinion from a functional perspective.
And functionally I suggest that information flows because some person needs it, in general, though also computer systems pull information, so maybe more generally should say that information flows because some intelligent entity needs it. I paused while typing as debated, is a computer system an intelligent entity? I decided, yes.
Need for information as a basis for flow is interesting to me, as of course there is information generated which does not then flow, as it may not be needed or known, so it may simply pool in some location. Or the person generating it may not give access to it to others, like recently a famous photographer was discovered after she died. And I added a link, after doing a search, which not surprisingly to me brought up Vivian Maier at the top of the list.
That pull reality to information flow was about need, and for a given individual, or computer system greatly simplifies what is conceivably a complex system, but one cares about what one gets, rather than what was necessary to deliver that flow of information.
As esoteric as all may sound it shifts perspective for someone like me, from pushing information to considering pulls. Then functionally can see pulls of information as indicative of need.
That information flow then gives me information about my planet, and what information intelligent entities on it, are flowing related to me. It's a lot that does flow in that way too.
These streams of information are informative then for me, not about me, but about the intelligent entities who need that information.
And I write something like this post and ask myself why, and the answer here is to consider a needed shift. I think it's easy to think, hey need to convince when functional information flow theory as presented here says otherwise.
Maybe it is worth noting that prior to the web especially if you wanted to go global, you would have to convince gatekeepers to have information injected into some accepted stream.
James Harris
And functionally I suggest that information flows because some person needs it, in general, though also computer systems pull information, so maybe more generally should say that information flows because some intelligent entity needs it. I paused while typing as debated, is a computer system an intelligent entity? I decided, yes.
Need for information as a basis for flow is interesting to me, as of course there is information generated which does not then flow, as it may not be needed or known, so it may simply pool in some location. Or the person generating it may not give access to it to others, like recently a famous photographer was discovered after she died. And I added a link, after doing a search, which not surprisingly to me brought up Vivian Maier at the top of the list.
That pull reality to information flow was about need, and for a given individual, or computer system greatly simplifies what is conceivably a complex system, but one cares about what one gets, rather than what was necessary to deliver that flow of information.
As esoteric as all may sound it shifts perspective for someone like me, from pushing information to considering pulls. Then functionally can see pulls of information as indicative of need.
That information flow then gives me information about my planet, and what information intelligent entities on it, are flowing related to me. It's a lot that does flow in that way too.
These streams of information are informative then for me, not about me, but about the intelligent entities who need that information.
And I write something like this post and ask myself why, and the answer here is to consider a needed shift. I think it's easy to think, hey need to convince when functional information flow theory as presented here says otherwise.
Maybe it is worth noting that prior to the web especially if you wanted to go global, you would have to convince gatekeepers to have information injected into some accepted stream.
James Harris
Sunday, October 02, 2016
Comfort of meta and my innovative ideas
In our times it is mundane to say, why not brainstorm ideas and put them up on the web? But to me that was obvious over 20 years ago, which is really cool, and I reflect on my experience which is meta, because it is safer, and comforting.
Getting this blog name was where things weren't as easy as with other blogs as could call it "Beyond Mundane" as can call it what I want, but beyondmund was what was available, which actually I like, as kind of a nickname.
Am much into naming things, including trying to describe what I think I do, where finally settled on meta innovator. Am still trotting it out, to keep checking. Does it really work? Should I switch to something else? Time will tell. So much is about feel. Right now still feels like best way to describe for me, to describe me, which yup, is very meta.
My ideas I think are innovative are all over the map though, which is why it's useful to collect into a blog, where I have blogs, so have worked at that more lately. And I talk less about the specifics of the ideas themselves in posts like this one as am done for the most part critiquing them.
So what makes me think ANY of my ideas were innovative? Good question I ask for those who may wonder. Got blogs that explain LOTS.
To me one of the best things WAS to take it for granted for a long time would put up public all the ideas I wanted to work on, or figure out. Now I don't do that any more. Is work! Putting up ideas public puts pressure on me to make sure they're correct.
Did for some time with abandon so I have ideas scattered all over the web.
But if you realize I've been doing that for over 20 years? That's not surprising at all. The sheer volume exceeds my ability to have a grasp of it. I don't even try any more.
James Harris
Getting this blog name was where things weren't as easy as with other blogs as could call it "Beyond Mundane" as can call it what I want, but beyondmund was what was available, which actually I like, as kind of a nickname.
Am much into naming things, including trying to describe what I think I do, where finally settled on meta innovator. Am still trotting it out, to keep checking. Does it really work? Should I switch to something else? Time will tell. So much is about feel. Right now still feels like best way to describe for me, to describe me, which yup, is very meta.
My ideas I think are innovative are all over the map though, which is why it's useful to collect into a blog, where I have blogs, so have worked at that more lately. And I talk less about the specifics of the ideas themselves in posts like this one as am done for the most part critiquing them.
So what makes me think ANY of my ideas were innovative? Good question I ask for those who may wonder. Got blogs that explain LOTS.
To me one of the best things WAS to take it for granted for a long time would put up public all the ideas I wanted to work on, or figure out. Now I don't do that any more. Is work! Putting up ideas public puts pressure on me to make sure they're correct.
Did for some time with abandon so I have ideas scattered all over the web.
But if you realize I've been doing that for over 20 years? That's not surprising at all. The sheer volume exceeds my ability to have a grasp of it. I don't even try any more.
James Harris
How handled a Wikipedia article about me
YEARS ago a hater wrote a Wikipedia article about me, which when I noticed was a weird feeling that someone would think I deserved a Wikipedia article! And it had some facts but also was really pushing notion of me as a crackpot, without saying it...or did it? I don't remember clearly. But I'm like, I'll roll with this thing, so I corrected as best I could while being honest, like I HAVE had TONS of bogus math ideas.
So I correct Wikipedia article about me, and hater comes back and changes back. I correct, and person changes back. So I put somewhere that would fix it ONE MORE TIME and if messed with would put up for permanent deletion of the article.
And the hater I guess didn't realize I was serious, so changed it back that one last time, and I put the article up for permanent deletion and watched the Wikipedia community debate with fascination.
The Wikipedia community decided, appropriately in my opinion, that being known as someone with bogus math ideas wasn't justification for an article, so they permanently deleted it. And for me? Problem solved.
There are these strange to me people out there, who don't like facts. I admitted I had some way wrong math ideas, as I used to like to brainstorm math and discuss it. And a few times, ok maybe more than a few, got behind some that were completely wrong, but admitted it when figured it out.
To me? Not a big deal.
Luckily I know lots about the Wikipedia and am a big fan of it, so yeah, not a place to try to get at me, with some hater page, if you know anything.
That person learned the hard way. Who was it? No clue. I didn't study the person much and now is just some vague. How long ago? I don't remember, but was probably well over a decade?
Now to me? Is just a fun story.
James Harris
So I correct Wikipedia article about me, and hater comes back and changes back. I correct, and person changes back. So I put somewhere that would fix it ONE MORE TIME and if messed with would put up for permanent deletion of the article.
And the hater I guess didn't realize I was serious, so changed it back that one last time, and I put the article up for permanent deletion and watched the Wikipedia community debate with fascination.
The Wikipedia community decided, appropriately in my opinion, that being known as someone with bogus math ideas wasn't justification for an article, so they permanently deleted it. And for me? Problem solved.
There are these strange to me people out there, who don't like facts. I admitted I had some way wrong math ideas, as I used to like to brainstorm math and discuss it. And a few times, ok maybe more than a few, got behind some that were completely wrong, but admitted it when figured it out.
To me? Not a big deal.
Luckily I know lots about the Wikipedia and am a big fan of it, so yeah, not a place to try to get at me, with some hater page, if you know anything.
That person learned the hard way. Who was it? No clue. I didn't study the person much and now is just some vague. How long ago? I don't remember, but was probably well over a decade?
Now to me? Is just a fun story.
James Harris
Saturday, October 01, 2016
Brilliance of web authority
Readily admit was brought up under authoritarian systems, which always leaves me wondering what authority holds sway over me lately. And having escaped a puritanical religion, did a few years but not too many in the US Army leaving with an honorable discharge, and chased recognition from mainstream authorities in various fields, am now gratified with what I call web authority.
And thankfully I do NOT think that web authority is an authoritarian system. I think it can free people instead. Yet will still strike a somewhat cautionary tone with an easy example.
Like for this post wanted a cool example, which is just basic search which to me is STILL so unbelievably AMAZING and am a fan of a show. Here's a search to an episode I think is kind of scary, but cool--web search: stargate people disappear
As I can't know what happens when others do that search will note I get the episode I wanted, where will link to what I get here, and that boggles my mind.
If you don't get episode "Revisions" of Stargate Atlantis, then for whatever reason the web decided to show you something different, where who knows why. I will note I used Google to search, but you still may get something different.
But for me? That works so well with just about any television show, or movie, where, oh, so that episode is about a world where people are hooked into a web, and the computer systems starts doing terrible things to maintain the balance of their world which they think is a utopia, when it's not.
Our world though? We have no delusions about its utopic qualities.
What we do have are powerful systems that are very good at getting people the information they want, when they want it, where web search can seem mystical to me, even though I know it's not. It's based on very solid principles, is not mystical, and is so much better than what was before.
It also removes my interest in lots of other authority. It's like when the Wikipedia arrived, and old establishment went after the Wikipedia, only to discover the Wikipedia is the best encyclopedia on the planet, which was determined by rigorous testing. Best source for info? I just searched: wikipedia accuracy
And an article, yup, on the Wikipedia, where link to it here tells you all kinds of things about its accuracy, which you may or may not know as to how good it is. Including links to external sources if you really need that to be sure.
Web authority is driven by the interest of people all over the world.
I like web authority. With my own ideas it tells me when something I have interests others, without that meaning it is correct, but at least I know it's interesting to others, somehow, where the details? Do I really need to know the details?
I DO wonder. Don't lose sleep over it though.
Used to hang out at the public library a LOT, so have done my share of research for information there, and it was ok, for the time. What we have today though truly is as good as anything in science fiction that I like. It can feel at times like the web can read your mind.
Which I find comforting. To me? The web is like the best friend I never knew could exist. And now it does! But um, web? Please always just be my good friend, and never the take over the world and um, but I digress.
Public libraries are still great places to visit! Please support your local public library. Of course these days usually you can, yup, get on the web there, if needed. But lots of other reasons to go.
Web authority will I think be the final say eventually, as other types of authority of course are ON the web, so it is the meta authority as I get to use one of my favorite words. The web is not only a great authority on lots of things, it is even an authority on web authority itself.
Like with this post. You saw that coming, right? You ARE on the web here.
James Harris
And thankfully I do NOT think that web authority is an authoritarian system. I think it can free people instead. Yet will still strike a somewhat cautionary tone with an easy example.
Like for this post wanted a cool example, which is just basic search which to me is STILL so unbelievably AMAZING and am a fan of a show. Here's a search to an episode I think is kind of scary, but cool--web search: stargate people disappear
As I can't know what happens when others do that search will note I get the episode I wanted, where will link to what I get here, and that boggles my mind.
If you don't get episode "Revisions" of Stargate Atlantis, then for whatever reason the web decided to show you something different, where who knows why. I will note I used Google to search, but you still may get something different.
But for me? That works so well with just about any television show, or movie, where, oh, so that episode is about a world where people are hooked into a web, and the computer systems starts doing terrible things to maintain the balance of their world which they think is a utopia, when it's not.
Our world though? We have no delusions about its utopic qualities.
What we do have are powerful systems that are very good at getting people the information they want, when they want it, where web search can seem mystical to me, even though I know it's not. It's based on very solid principles, is not mystical, and is so much better than what was before.
It also removes my interest in lots of other authority. It's like when the Wikipedia arrived, and old establishment went after the Wikipedia, only to discover the Wikipedia is the best encyclopedia on the planet, which was determined by rigorous testing. Best source for info? I just searched: wikipedia accuracy
And an article, yup, on the Wikipedia, where link to it here tells you all kinds of things about its accuracy, which you may or may not know as to how good it is. Including links to external sources if you really need that to be sure.
Web authority is driven by the interest of people all over the world.
I like web authority. With my own ideas it tells me when something I have interests others, without that meaning it is correct, but at least I know it's interesting to others, somehow, where the details? Do I really need to know the details?
I DO wonder. Don't lose sleep over it though.
Used to hang out at the public library a LOT, so have done my share of research for information there, and it was ok, for the time. What we have today though truly is as good as anything in science fiction that I like. It can feel at times like the web can read your mind.
Which I find comforting. To me? The web is like the best friend I never knew could exist. And now it does! But um, web? Please always just be my good friend, and never the take over the world and um, but I digress.
Public libraries are still great places to visit! Please support your local public library. Of course these days usually you can, yup, get on the web there, if needed. But lots of other reasons to go.
Web authority will I think be the final say eventually, as other types of authority of course are ON the web, so it is the meta authority as I get to use one of my favorite words. The web is not only a great authority on lots of things, it is even an authority on web authority itself.
Like with this post. You saw that coming, right? You ARE on the web here.
James Harris
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)