Add some diffusion models that take over the creative part, and knowledge management systems become a tool to act. Of course, the risk of getting lost in knowledge not only remains but increases.

Does this aggressive mindset help when the hustling targets the very core of human nature? Instead of bringing back the old, why not start looking for something new that thrives in that environment?

If everything is wholesome, it's meaningless. All that hustling gives value to 'the other' internet. Now, people who participate have chosen to do so.

What is holding back Java developers from using their Java language to adapt the IDE written in Java that they daily use? If their boss told them to implement a feature, they would do that. But they don't implement the feature when they need it.

The front page could be an example of good behavior, but people don't have to adapt instantly. They can be snarky, are flagged, and get the signal that the expectations are higher. With some resources for personal development, depending on the flagged transgressions, there could be a form of assimilation that scales.

People cannot imagine her withdrawn self and thus cannot adjust their criticism and she cannot imagine a self or bring back her self for now and thus doesn't understand most people.

>which is: they cannot hear me, and i cannot hear them. and funnily enough i’m trying to hear them and i’m trying to listen but no one’s trying to listen to me, so why should i keep trying?

Question remains: How can a withdrawn self be brought back?

My armchair answer is that this is creating the boundary. There is no 'merely'. People want to interact with a self.

>within your sense of self, as it’s building, you are being told to take apart, to dismantle, as it is being inappropriately build to their standards.

That's how society works. People have adjusted their self to fit in, they expect the same from everybody else.

E.g. hn: 𓉔 𓈖.

[1] https://www.omniglot.com/writing/egyptian_hieratic.htm

I can understand that established services like Steam oppose the transfer of licenses. But why don't the less established services remove the fear of losing access by making the licenses transferable among themselves? This must be prevented by the publishers. What's their benefit?

What is missing is a beacon of light in the desert of choice. There is no lack of knowledge anymore but a lack of orientation. The author's father knew that he could buy knowledge in a bookstore. Where do we go to find orientation on the web?

People don't know. That's why they are stuck in the social net with its memes.

You need a trustworthy core by which you can judge the vote of new users. You can incorporate them until somebody complains about a result that is out of place.

This doesn't have to fully scale. There are many pages without monetary value that won't be manipulated. The tags are an additional signal that can be used where they work. If they don't work, they can be ignored.

But it will scale because there are far more consumers than producers.

Why is it not enough to punish sites that abuse the keywords?

kagi.com bets on becoming a business with revenue. In the same way, Google could start asking money for searches without ads.

In the long run, Google should make more money because a society that runs on the best available information will be more valuable. The information market will be bigger and thus Google's income should be bigger.

The problem is that it's too easy to pitch advertisers against each other and force them to pay a huge fraction of their profits. On the other hand, profit margins in a transparent market are small.

Google could become something like Bloomberg and sell their good information to companies for high margins.

I tend to think that networks are not excluding on principle. If somebody can demonstrate value, people will be eager to include that person into the network. On the other hand, Quibi shows that networks alone cannot rescue startups.

The interesting group are all the average people who could create something successful (of the Figma type) together. As a group, they have access to all resources, but they don't coordinate them. $20B means that 20.000 people could come together and make $1M each. Maybe they need a tool (of the Figma type) to coordinate themselves and that's another startup opportunity.