2 persons A & B, each have a happiness metric, determined by their brain. It may be influenced by many factors, such as their probability to survive, reproduce or derivatives of these probabilities. Regardless, they have a happiness metric with current value.
Person A can perform an action that affects the happiness value of person B, that’s a more formal way to say that A is hurting B.

Let’s examine 2 test cases:
Case 1:
Parents of a baby ask the grandmother to babysit the baby. The parents are on a date in a restaurant, as it’s valentine day.
20:00 granny puts the baby to sleep. His happiness goes down to 4.
20:01 Baby cries. Granny’s happiness goes down to 4 as well.
20:03 granny puts baby to play again in the living room. Baby’s happiness back to 9.
20:40 granny calls mother telling her the baby won’t go to sleep. Mother’s happiness down to 5.
21:00 baby won’t go to sleep. Granny calls mother again to complain & ask her to come pick the baby. Mother’s happiness down to 3
21:05 father asks why should they return to pick the baby? Baby is happy, father is happy. Mother says she’s not happy because her mother yelled at her asking her to return. Father happiness down to 6

So who was hurting who here?
Baby -> granny -> mother -> father

We can see that persons being hurt tend to hurt others, especially if they believe these others have hurt them.

This test case also suggests that we have a problem with our definition of hurting (as granny was putting the baby to sleep for his benefit, thinking of his future & not current happiness). To fix our definition, we can add time: lower someone’s current or future happiness metric.

BTW, hurting oneself is usually just hurting your future self, seen as someone else.

Case 2:
a man waits in line for a movie theater cashier. A woman walks straight to the cashier & asks a question about current movies. Than she buys a ticket. The man’s happiness gets down to 7. The man tells her that there’s a line, & she says she thought he was just standing there. The man laughs with the other ppl saying that it’s indeed logical to think that they are just standing in a line there, unrelated to the cashier. Woman’s happiness goes down to 6, because the ppl laughed at her. Man’s happiness up to 8, because he had hurt the woman back. Woman says something nasty about the man to the cashier guy.

Is this test case suggesting that the effect on happiness is an effect of something else, e.g., cutting someone in the queue, i.e., taking something from him without his consent. So, the effect on happiness is an indication of something else which is the real meaning of hurting.

Can 2 non-sentient beings be said to hurt one another? If so, we need to generalize happiness to some other measure.

I’d like to think of it as software instances, that interact with each other. They are programmed to pursue some goals, and have a measure for how much they are getting closer to their goals, in the form of a rewarding feeling. But as they are interacting, they may be hampering each other’s pursue of their goals, eg, by fighting on limited resources. This is indicated by a decrease in the measure. The sequel interactions usually escalate the flow of effects on the measure, among the interacting instances & also other ones getting involved.

This requires better modeling.

(Sad baby who doesn’t like to go to sleep)

Rockets are hitting my town every few hours. Sirens go & we all run to a shelter room & wait, tho we know it wouldn’t help much in case of direct hit. The rockets are launched by ppl in Gaza, from which Israel retreated almost 10 years ago. The regime in Gaza is in very bad economic state, & all government workers haven’t received any salaries for the past 3 months. In recent days government workers there were reported shooting banks & ATM’s to try get their money. I hear that this economic situation may have led them to force Israel into a violent conflict. The other part of Palestine (West Bank) is quiet & generally not involved in violence, mainly because the economic situation there is much better in recent years. Ppl having something to lose, will not tend towards violence & driving armed conflicts.

In Israel, many people react to the hundreds of rockets falling all over the country with demand from the government to “flatten” Gaza & kill as many ppl there until they’ll stop their violence. In most cases it’s the people of the working classes & not the middle & upper classes who hold these views. Especially the really poor people.

I’m pretty sure the northern US states that were against slavery were richer than the southern ones. Germany before the world wars, with all of its educated & high-culture ppl turned ppl into monsters during the economic crisis. I wish I had an animated hit-map of all global economic crisis areas, overlaid with global violent crisis areas. This could help me check this thesis.

A research I read once by a German statistician claimed that on every society in which more than 40% of young ppl are unemployed, you’ll see violent conflict rising, either internal or external.

What does it mean about the future, in which more & more ppl will lose their jobs in favor of intelligent machines? Will we have more violence?

Should we change the economy to be more around ppl’s wealth instead of money, as in north European countries?

How can I personally help ppl be less poor? Even few ppl would mean a lot.

This is just a stupid diet I came up with to limit calories consumption:
- Figure out your ideal weight (e.g., 65kg)
- Associate a letter with each 5k above that weight (e.g., 65-70->a, 70-75->b, 75-80->c, 80-85->d, 85-90->e)
- Assign the letter “Any letter” to any weight under the ideal weight (e.g., any weight under 65kg-> Any letter)
- Eat only food whose name starts with the letter assigned to your current weight (e.g., if your weight is 79kg, eat only food starting with the letter c)

The nice thing about it is that it’s quite simple & well defined, & thus suitable for people highly challenged in will-power ;(

I’m going to watch today a film called “La Belle Verte“, which I saw a few years ago. It caused to me to think again about visualization.
So obviously (since Kant) the way we see the world affects how we understand & act within it, as our brain just renders one visualization of the world, which could have been programmed in many ways, with many different rendering results & bugs. I consider the visualization to be both statistical (i.e, subconcious emotion-based) & symbolic (i.e., conceptual language-based).
This implies that affecting this visualization is one of the best ways to affect the world, by changing the behavior of its cells. This is obvious (to every advertiser, missionary or activist), the question is about technologies for changing paradigms – interfacing with the visualization mechanism of the brain (our goggles), & planting modifications.
La Belle Verte presents such technologies, & also tries invoking them on the viewers, to shake their world visualization & perhaps even change it. The idea is scary, but the mind-thought done in this film, of how this technology could it be used for “good” purposes, renders it as very cool & fruitful. Recommended.

Here’s a core concept of my emergence engine: model based evolutionary value creation. Basically it means the following:
- You get stories depicting some domain, i.e., user answers or tweets
- You translate them to semantic concepts & statements
- You give these concepts & statements (model parts) behavior, which basically tries to create value for the end users, or the end users organization
– Simplest example is when some statement can bring value to some user if he learns about it
– Another example is when several statements reason the causal relations between them & infer what is the root cause to some phenomenon
- Having all of the model parts behave all the time is compute intensive, which has a cost
- Not all of the model parts have the potential to create value
- So, an evolutionary process can take place, in which only the model parts that succeed in creating value survive & get resources.

See also my initial post on the base concept.

django logo
After attending EuroDjangoCon, it has become quite clear why I love this framework, & prefer it so much over its competitors. It’s not the fact that it’s much better than the others, much more simple & powerful, i.e., beautiful. It’s not the fact that it’s so valuable in allowing me & others to create so much with so little.
It’s actually because of the values of it’s authors & community.
Just like business companies’ values, i.e., map of perceiving reality, are usually determined by it’s founders & chief executives, & propagated throughout the organization (Microsoft & Google are good examples), the same is true for technology frameworks, & the authors & community behind them.
So, I love Django so much because of the values of its authors, which propagated nicely to the community using it. I heard more than once on people leaving the Rails community just because of the rude way they were treated by the framework authors or community members. I saw & heard the authors of Django, & it’s community, & rest assure it won’t happen much here.

Here’s, BTW, my summaries from the conference.

A. The business problem
Large organizations don’t work as one body. This is problematic, because of numerous reasons. To name just a few common ones:

  • The agenda, priorities, focus & policies of higher management may not be known or implemented by the lower level units & employees, leading to garbage factories, missed targets & activities not aligned with company policies & agenda
  • Adapting to changing business environment is slow in large organizations, because of the difficulty in changing both processes and value streams, as well as the mindset & knowledge of the people running them
  • Problems and threats, or on the other hand innovative ideas and opportunities are not handled because they’re usually not propagated from the lower level units to the executive level
  • A need for activities in one unit, with not enough resources, can’t use free resources in another unit, as well as existing know-how or goods already achieved in other units

B. An analogy: blood vessels
Blood is the source of life to all organs and cells in an organism’s body. It supplies all cells with the inputs required & returns their outputs. It carries commands sent from the brain to organs, via hormones, as well as the necessary chemicals & food the body tissues require. It also spreads solutions for disease agents across the body.
In order to reach every cell, in all organs of the body, the blood vessels are organized in an hierarchical structure, starting from the heart & lungs, and spreading downstream till every cell, & back to the lungs & heart.
Blood flows in frequent cycles, circulating the means of life continuously across the body. It interfaces with the cells via special membrane controlling the flow of materials in & out of cells.

A business enterprise is a large multi-cell organism, that uses knowledge to transform supplies into goods, in a complex value stream. What ties the multiple humans working in an enterprise into a large super-organism, are the communications between them, that coordinate the processes comprising the value stream to drive the enterprise to survive & grow in a dynamic market environment.
However, we believe that these vital human communications are based on paradigms that were established & formed in the pre-computer-mediated era, & for sure before the new social interactions paradigms of the Web 2.0.
We suggest a simple mechanism, inspired by the architecture of blood vessels, for making the communications inside the company flow from the top management to all employees, and also across the entire organizations, in order to help the enterprise work as one body.
C. Social media capabilities
We propose new social interaction “vessels”, flowing from the CEO, through the organization structure, to every employee, and also aggregating the responses from the employees all the way back to the CEO. The basic component of social interactions is a simple short text (the kind passed in services such as Twitter, normally limited to the size of Short Text Messages), along with simple discussion semantics such as “in-reply-to”, “for”, “re” prefixes. It’s highly important that the input from employees will be in this open-ended form, & not forced into any structured schema form, in order to promote the discovery of insights not known in advance, and the emergence of bottom-up new usages of the system. The text can contain marked tags, that characterizes its content, either given by the user, or automatically marked by the system. The system will query users every day for status messages, that may contain such information as their:

  • priorities & focus
  • risks, undesired effects & problems
  • achievements, opportunities & value drivers
  • work status, load & health
  • requests & questions

Querying can be done in any communication channel used by employees (IM, SMS & Email, &c).
Every day, each employee will also receive a collection of messages from the hierarchy path above it, from the CEO, to its direct supervisors.
Using the tags, messages can be passed between users not in an hierarchical path, just on the basis of similar tags. Tags may also be collected in user’s profiles, so that a user who once wrote a message containing a certain tag, will receive future messages with that tag by other users.
Every manager will receive daily a collection of messages from the hierarchy path beneath it. Aggregation, clustering & classification can be done on the responses, to make the results arriving upwards summarized. Visualization methods can be used for presenting a GUI that enables both topsight view of the aggregated results, and ability to explore area of interest.
Messages may be marked with an importance indicator. The higher the importance a message is ranked, the more exposure it will have across the enterprise.
Users will also be able to vote on other users messages, & increase their rank & exposure.

An important use case is with risk management. A user may enter a message describing a risk it wants to put to discussion, and rank it with high importance. The message will be exposed to many other employees across the enterprise, that are related to the tags in the message. Their responses will form a multiple stake-holders discussion, which is the best known way to prepare & address risks.

When considering the extended enterprise, certain units & employees interact with external people (suppliers, partners, customers &c). The flow of social interaction can flow through them to the external people, & back to the CEO. Similarly, the chain can start from above the CEO, e.g., main share holders, allowing them to both interact with, & learn on the overall, current status of the company.

The frequency cycle of this process should be as high as possible, such as 1-2 days, but can also be once or twice a week.

D. The utility of solving the business problem social media capabilities
Unlike the common communications practice in today’s common enterprises, in which the the frequency of communications between the top executives and the employees of the lower level units is limited to 1-4 times per year, and usually also limited to unidirectional communications, the suggested capabilities can foster bidirectional communications on a daily basis, flowing from top management to all employees, and also between employees across the enterprise. This is very likely to address the common reasons given above why enterprises don’t work as one body:

  • The agenda, priorities, focus & policies of higher management will be known & implemented by the lower level units & employees, leading to the elimination of garbage factories, met targets & aligning all activities with the company policies & agenda
  • The frequent circulation of knowledge on changing business environment, and the way the company adapts to them, can create positive feedback loops, that incrementally change & adapt processes and value streams, as well as the mindset & knowledge of the people running them, to the changes in the business environment. Using today’s practices such adaptations can take years, but may be reduced to only weeks using the suggested capabilities.
  • Problems and threats, or, on the other hand, innovative ideas and opportunities will be properly propagated from the lower level units to the executive level, which will enable their effective handling & value extraction
  • A need for activities in one unit, with not enough resources, will be communicated to other units with free resources, or relevant existing know-how or goods already achieved, which will enable collaboration, higher resource efficiency & considerable time saving.

The main benefit for the end-users will arrive from the much stronger bonding & involvement with the entire organization, that can make employees feel more motivated and appreciated. Other obvious benefits are greater responsiveness from their management, & stronger collaboration with other employees across the enterprise.

E. The information that will be collected and how it will be useful for the enterprise
The communications that will circulate in the social vessels may contain valuable information, of many kinds:

  • Risks & threats that may be handled immediately after they are discovered, instead of after they cause their damage
  • Opportunities, value-drivers and innovative ideas that will arrive to the executives that can understand their value & decide on their implementation
  • Trends that may point out problems, and emerging changes, that can be handled before they are reaching a critical mass or serious effect
  • Insights on external factors outside the company, that can arrive even from low-level employees, and hold important strategic opportunities or threats

Once the collected information reaches a sustainable size, it can be applied to analytics that can provide both macro insights on the status & health of the entire organization, and well as micro insights on bottle-necks and inefficiencies that can be removed to effect bottom-line profits. For example:

  • Analyzing negative sentiment in messages, based on Natural Language Processing, can indicate trends in cultural health problems, in certain area of the company or across the organization
  • Aggregated messages tagged with over-load, at certain units or type of resources, may indicate a bottle-neck that delays other units & processes

F. Ensuring privacy and security of information gathered
While the querying interface of the system to employees are common media channels, such as SMS, IM & Email, the outputs of the system (collection of message from the hierarchy above, and aggregated responses from the hierarchy below) are presented in a Web application, that can be protected by any standard of security, for both authentication protection and authorization. Messages can also be marked with security level, to make them available only to employees with access to this level. Any other organization policy, taking into account organization structure or roles, can be applied to determine authorization to view messages.

  • My tweets

    Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

  • My bookmarks

  • My pictures






    More Photos
  • My Deezer default playlist

    Discover Count Basic!
  • Top Clicks

  • My previous posts

  • Listed on BlogShares
  • Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.