RESHARE:
Stop worrying, I'm still alive. If you'd know me a bit, you'd know that I go offline for days like this 2-3 times a year. Unplanned. You'd also know I just don't worry and I'd advise you never to worry either. You'd know I'd say that line from Sunscreen. Yeah, you are probably already regretting my return the way I'm going on here, so I'll try to get to some point:

I still haven't found the time to make another curation post, and the next one was going to be on TL;DR posts & comments. So in the meantime I want to share this one. Some hours worth of reading and reflecting right there.

Those I can already consider to be members of the community of people I share interests with and have had quality interactions with know; comments go in the original post.

ps: I succumbed and am now organizing everything in Evernote, tired of waiting on Google. That will also take me several days.

Reshared text:
Google+ UX: Fostering a Sense of Community
In a comment to my post on the Empathy Graph, +Yonatan Zunger , the chief architect for Google+, agreed that what set Google+ apart for him was the sense of community.

Yonatan wrote, "...my own experience has been like that too. I thought I was unusual in this regard. If there's something about the dynamic of this place which is encouraging greater empathy and community, then it's something I want to encourage as much as humanly possible...And do you have thoughts on what would encourage it further?"

How do the dynamics of the Google+ user experience foster a sense of community? This is such an important question that I’m going to turn it over to my community here on Google+ as well as write my own (very long) answer below.

Rules for This Thread
I want to focus on what is working and how to leverage that to make it work better. What I don’t want are the same grumbles and complaints that we’ve hashed out on our other threads. We are here. We are using Google+. We’ve had some great experiences. The conversations, despite the perceived hurdles, go on. What works? Be specific and concrete. Offer solutions.

In order to do that, be personaI. I want you to think about some of the best conversations that you’ve had while you were here and what lead up to them.
• How did you meet the people in that discussion?
• Did you already have existing ties?
• What specific elements of the user experience provide the special dynamic that entices you into these wonderful conversations we have with each other? What makes you engage with strangers? Stop and leave a comment? Circle someone you don't know?
• What design elements could be incorporated to encourage greater empathy and community?
• Is there anything that's holding you back?
------------------------------
Terminology
I know these terms are cringe-worthy but until someone coins some new ones, this is how I'm defining them.
• social graph: the map of your existing connections.
• interest graph: a network of people sharing information centered around common interests, topics, or causes (such as political activism). A connection may exist but is not required.
• empathy graph: a sense of community, a support group. The connection usually evolves from shared interests as conversations move from public topics to more personal ones.

A sense of community stems from a sense of ease. You can't share your innermost thoughts and feelings until you feel comfortable. The level of inhibition in a discussion varies wildly both by topic and by the personalities types of the people involved. (I've written elsewhere how Google+ has created an environment that has made those of us more introverted comfortable.)

Case Study: Me
Dynamic: A Fresh Start, Egalitarianism and Meritocracy
From the very first day I've been on Google+ I've encountered helpful people. I think the initial sense of community stemmed from the fact that we were all starting from scratch and, in that sense, as equals. Members of the Google+ team actively engaged with us. Tech gurus conversed with tech newbies.

Because we were all starting fresh, Google+ provided a place to establish a reputation . In my case, I didn't need to be a big tech journo for people to listen to my advice; I just had to give good advice.

[Aside. Google+ all but destroyed this sense of community with the Suggested User List. The feeling that the best would rise to the top, the motivation to be one's best self, was replaced by a sense of unfair favoritism. When even a big name like +Robert Scoble says, "I'm not going to play that game. Take me off the list." you know that feelings have soured. Does anyone starting on Google+ today have that same sense of the possibilities, of working together, as we did eleven months ago?]

Dynamic: Real World Interactions: Friendships Develop
In the real world, not everyone you interact with is a friend. You aren't born with friends. Friendships develop over time based on proximity and interactions. Thanks to the Internet, our friendships are no longer constrained by proximity. The focus here is entirely on the interaction.

Google+ does a much better job of modeling this than Facebook. In a social network, you define your perimeter (your existing connections) and then you act within it. On a sharing network, you share what interests you and that attracts people who share that interest.

+Yonatan Zunger said, “All of my such experiences started out as discussions about interests, but veered off as we got to know each other more.”

I think that's exactly how it works. In my own case, I once mentioned in a post that I was currently out of work. +Youssef Hachhouch left a commiserating comment and said that he was in the same boat. That little pat on the back raised my awareness of him. So a couple of days later, when he wrote a post about some frustration, I stopped by and left a word of encouragement.

His post was a turning point for me. It turned into a conversation with half a dozen people that went on for over three days. Have you ever been at a conference where you strike up a conversation with a small group of strangers. As things close down, the conversation is so intense that you all move to a bar to keep talking. And you talk late into the night, animatedly, full of discovery and the recognition of "Wow! You do that, too. I thought I was the only one!" That was the dynamic.

What elements of the Google+ interface made that conversation possible?
1. Notifications.
The participants frequently addressed each other by @ name, which sent a notification and drew people back into the conversation. This was especially important because not all the conversation happened in real time. The participants were scattered across Europe and America over many time zones. I'd write something, go to bed, and wake up to find that half a dozen people had left me more questions or comments. Then I'd have to scroll up the long thread, read what had been written overnight, and respond with questions for them.

These days, I notice that people other than the author of the post, now use notifications in order to call someone into a discussion. This is just as it should work! Unfortunately, notifications get bad press. I think because of the potential for abuse by spammers, that notifications are mistrusted and poorly understood by a lot of new users. A lot of people overly limit them -- cutting off the potential relationships. Certainly there have been times where I've had to tell someone not to spam me but I allow notifications from "Anyone" and have had few problems with spam. People need better education on the power of the Notification system. The wording in the interface could be improved, too.

How to Improve Notifications.
Notifications are the equivalent of an Inbox. Reading notifications is the first thing I do when I get on Google+.
1. Make it easier to get read them. The redesign, I'm sad to say, has made this more difficult because there is no longer a special button for the Notification stream -- you have to click through the Notification window to get to "View all notifications". When you are having an involved discussion, you have to move to the post view. It's just too hard to read in the little notification window.
2. I wish I could use the j-key shortcut to click through my Notifications stream (when in the main window).
3. The Notification window seems unstable -- I've lost too many comments there while typing them.
4. I still get the sense that I'm missing notifications. I see things via email Notifications which float away in the stream of the Notification window.

Bookmark to Read Later.
People have started leaving a comment in post to "bookmark it" so that they can come back to the discussion later -- pinged by Notifications that the conversation is ongoing. Google+ needs a star system like Gmail. A star, which bookmarks a post for the reader, is different than a +1, which is feedback to the author.

2. Comments.
Conversations are the soul of a community. The one-line cheer or boo, the LOL, the "Awesome" are not conversation. They are surface chit-chat. The +1 button handles that transaction. A +1 or an online comment may produce a kind of community spirit akin to rooting for the same sports team. A pat on the back is also always appreciated. But these are just the baby steps toward developing empathy. True empathy is when you move to the next level and have that heart-to-heart (or mind-to-mind, for us T-types) conversation.

In a conversation, comments are essential. This should be obvious but even calling them comments gives off the connotation that they are less important, merely annotations to the main text.

In the original Google+, a post could be anything. It could be a blog post, where someone is broadcasting and the audience merely cheers or boos in response. Or it could be a discussion where both halves of the interaction are equally important.

The Google+ redesign changed the feeling that a post could be anything. Comments are muted (originally almost grayed out). The focus is on the author and on the post. Communication is one way. Now Google+ feels more like blogging than talking. This subtle but important change retards the sense community because it hinders discussion. And from the initial reaction to the redesign, you must have seen how people noticed it.

On the plus side, Google+ comments work now because:
a. They're easy to leave. You don't have to sign into a blog or be friends with the author. (See note below.)
b. They feel conversational, like messaging, but one isn't limited by length. This encourages people to tell longer, more involved stories, just like they would in real life. It enables people to move from the superficial cocktail chatter, to some really deep discussions.
c. We can edit our comments. (This is probably the biggest reason I've abandoned blogging, Twitter, and even Gmail for Google+.)

[*Note: I've seen a suggestion recently for Google+ to implement some sort of karma score to alleviate the problem with trolls. I don't have problems with trolls, nor do I see it much in my circles -- so I may be insensitive to this problem. I know that some people have said that they can't have a public discussion on a controversial issue because of troll attacks. However, I'm wary of any system which would make it harder to leave comments. Again, I think it is the egalitarian and open nature of Google+ that has made it possible to form communities.]

How To Improve Comments.
Many people involved in intense and meaningful discussion leave long comments which I want to refer to. Comments need to be objects in Google+, just like posts. We can already +1 and edit or delete them, as we do posts. But we need to be able to reshare and link to them, too. This would enable us to spin conversations off, for example, from a public post to a private aside or a smaller discussion.

3. Dynamics: Trust and Safety (Sometimes Strangers Are Better Than Friends)
The people who are the most supportive aren’t necessarily the people who are in your existing social network. In fact, just the opposite. Strangers can be encouraging because they don't know anything about your backstory. They don't know your baggage. Moreover, it doesn't cost them anything to offer encouragement. Strangers aren't going to suffer from the consequences of your decisions. So it's easier for them to say, "Go ahead and go for it! Live your dreams." than it is for your friends and family.

How to Improve Trust and Safety
Google+ blew it on the nym wars and drove off a lot of people who would have been here building support communities. I hope that when the Blogger integration comes, that you are more sensitive to the kind of anonymity people require when asking questions of sensitive personal nature -- the kinds of questions that are too sensitive to ask even their closest friends. The needs of that kind of personal support community are like the needs of people at an AA meeting. (Maybe there's no place for them on Google+.)

[Tangent: Is it possible that after we establish an account with our real names, that there could be community support pages which we could access via a pseudonym? Google+ could track our pseudonym but that connection would be invisible externally. This would be a non-voting pseudonym which would be allowed to comment only on these specially created discussion forums/pages. For example, let's say there were community support pages on autism, drug problems, spousal abuse, or job hunting.]

4. Dynamics: Discovery
First of all let me say that there is not a single person from my social network with whom I engage on Google+. Not one. Some of my existing connections have accounts here and I sometimes share things with them (or cross-post links to Twitter or Facebook to entice them over). I occasionally receive comments from a friend of a friend. Nor did any of my online friends from blogging or Twitter follow me to Google+.

That means my entire sense of community grew entirely from the interactions I've had on Google+. Currently 12,000 people follow me on Google+. I follow about 1200. I distinguish between my sources (the people I follow) and my audience (the people who follow me).

So how did I find anybody? My community began with the openness and the helpfulness of the Google+ team in the first weeks of the beta -- your willingness to talk to us users provided the sense that we were collaborating on this new system. You, +Yonatan Zunger were one of the first people I followed. From there, I just started adding people who seemed (from their comments) to be particularly helpful, curious, or insightful.

In addition to comments, I also look at who the person I thought was interesting was following. Unfortunately, the habit of most people circling anyone who followed them and adding people they don't know via Shared Circles has pretty much ruined this strategy. It is impossible to know who are "real" connections and who are strangers under evaluation. When we had the Incoming stream, we could evaluate people without following them. But no more.

How to Improve Discovery
To recap, the natural evolution of our relationships starts with discussions over shared interests which then veer off onto more personal tangents. Thus the most important way to improve the empathy graph, our sense of community, is to provide tools for the interest graph.

1. The discussions on how to do this are out there: tagging posts (categories are not the same as keywords), community pages and event pages, better search tools, suggested topics lists...help us find each other.

2. Don't give us a better social network. Understand that there are a lot of people on Google+ because we don't want the Facebook experience. We don't want a different model of car. We want an airplane. Google+ has it within its grasp right now to give users something Facebook can't provide: the interest graph and a sense of real community.

3. Don't destroy synchronicity. Don't box me in. Don't limit my options.
The best thing about the original Google+ was the sense of equality. A post could be anything. Anyone could talk to anyone. We were all exploring this new territory together, discovering new ideas, and making friends in the process.

The worst thing about the Google+ redesign is that in an attempt to simplify Google+, there is a sense of favoritism, of sacrificing one group for another, a feeling of limiting our options, of dumbing down, the loss of egalitarianism. Post content is favored over comments which in turn means blog type posts are favored over forum-like or discussion posts. Graphics are favored over words. Celebrities are favored over non-celebrities. The feeling of meritocracy is disappearing. Existing relationships are favored over the potential of discovering new people. (This last thing isn't a tool dynamic -- it's a problem with education and marketing.)

Summary: Simpler is not always better.
The richness of human life comes from the complexity of our human relationships. Embrace complexity.
----------------------------
Now I'm calling on my various communities to answer the question: How do the dynamics of the Google+ user experience foster your sense of community?

• The people always willing to lend a hand, who reach out to the newbies and provide that sense of a helpful friendly Google+ community: +Mark Traphagen +Ryan Crowe +Johnathan Chung +Ardith Goodwin +Denis Labelle +Marc Jansen +Rahul Roy +Jaana Nyström +Christina Trapolino +Tetsuya Kitahata +Ronnie Bincer
• My fellow bridge-builders: +Brian Titus +Eileen O'Duffy +Debbie Ohi
• The group at the bar who got me talking excitedly about things other than Google+: +Daniela Huguet Taylor +Youssef Hachhouch +Armida Evony +Amy Knepper +Alex Schleber +Anita Law +nomad dimitri +Paulissa Kipp (and all the introverts who are uncomfortable being mentioned by name...you know who you are). Also the people who stop by frequently to chat: +Greg Cunningham +Cara Evangelista Reynolds +Meirav Berale
• The people who have been changed by their experiences here: +Ted Ewen +Eli Fennell or who love the convention/conference feel of it +Cliff Roth
• +Max Huijgen who sees in Google+ the potential for the MOAF (Mother of All Forums). All the tl;dr writers, warriors in the war on words, people fighting for the interest graph, and Google communities : +Alexander Becker +Dieter Mueller +Colin Lucas-Mudd +Peter Strempel +Tormod Renberg Lerøy +Bob O`Bob
• And +Kimberly Chapman who brought the suggestion of karma ratings for comments to my attention.

RESHARE:
Have I found Jesus?

No, not yet. You have to admit; he’s very very good at hiding. And the way so many like to shove their interpretation of him in my face isn’t helping at all.

I’d like to find him. He’d be the kind of person I’d circle. In fact I have already circled +Jesus H. Christ, and though I can appreciate him too, I doubt he’s the Jesus people want me to find.

I can’t say I’m looking really hard. No, that I can’t. I spend way more time thinking. Like in the post I share here. My comments there will help you understand why your efforts to help me find the right Jesus are pretty much a waste of your and my time.

In fact, any unsolicited effort to help me is likely to prove to be a waste of your time. I bet you could find tons of other people that could benefit from your help instead. 

Now I do want to stress that I have quite a significant number of people that have circled me on here or that I have circled or have interacted with, that have found the Jesus they meant finding. Those interactions have been worthwhile. That is what I like, that is what falls under my attempts to have win-wins in my interactions.
______________________________________________________
#h4c2s2fo2u2yeamanual

Reshared text:
Gods & Fairies vs Brain Plasticity & Mind Training

When we talk about so called Spirituality (which is still a blurry something and everything), we have to look at ourselves:

It's all in the Brain.

-------------

God on the Brain

I recent experiment Scientist have discovered Regions in the Brain that stimulated with magnetic Fields create "spiritual Experiences" like feeling the Presence of a another being in the Room.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbrain.shtml

So religious and spiritual Experiences trigger or shut down certain Areas in the Brain. Just like near Death Experiences (the famous Light & Tunnel) are the Result of Shutting down ...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7991385426492181792

The Results are as usual open to Interpretation - religious Types will argue that this a prove that we are hard wired for "God" ...

-------------

Brain Plasticity

The Video / Study does not reflect another neurological Insight - the so called Brain Plasticity / Neuroplasticity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroplasticity

Basically it means that the Brain physically changes depending on how you use it, this is important to repair Damage, but also to adapt to Changes in our Environment or Habits.

In Terms of Spirituality it means this: when you meditate or pray a lot, your Brain changes according to it's usage. So you are basically accentuating those Regions supposed to give you these "spiritual Experiences". In other Words - the longer you believe in God / Fairies / the green Socket Master - sooner or later your Brain will create a Compartment for "it" in itself.

Such long-term physical Changes of the Brain have been record on all kind of SERIOUS Practitioners of various Faith. And I define "serious" by constant mental Exercises like regular Prayers and Meditation.

It is important to note that not the Worship of ONE particular God or Believe System changed these People's Brain, but regular Exercise. No Religion was "more powerful" than another ...

It is also Note worthy that only doing Meditation or mental Exercises WITHOUT any Sock Puppet or Dogma in MIND had the same Results.

-------------

Mind

We are just talking about physical Changes to the Brain. We haven't discussed the Effects of prolonged mental "Disciplines" on the Mind.

I don't want to discuss this endlessly, since mental Fixation, schizophrenic and neurotic Behaviour is well documented ...

Let's just look quickly at the Placebo Effect in Context. Yes, we Humans can trick ourselves into controlling and distorting our own Cognition, like what kind of Effects external and internal Influences have on us. So believing in something can change your Life.

But it is the mental Strength and "Adjustment" of your Reception and Reaction to something that makes the Change - not God, not some Fairy, not some Spirits ... it's your own pure Psyche at work and bending it's own Perception of your inner and outer Reality.

-------------

Personal Note: I have been practising Yoga and Meditation for over twenty Years. I did Tantra for over ten Years, Tai Chi and Aikido for a couple of Years.

I am an Atheist and I deeply despise most so called "spiritual People".

Why?

Because ...

1. They had a small transcendental Experience and freak out ... and search for an "higher" Explanation for that little Nugget of "out of Body Experience" ...

2. They need a Justification for all the Pain and Misery of the Human Condition - and want to connect to a higher Self to basically get a Pat on the Back for all that Suffering ... (classic Motto: "God works in mysterious Ways")

3. They experienced a big Tragedy in their Lives and sought some answers or healing. Usually they find an answer outside so called "established" Science or Medicine. They attribute their Survival to that "Alternative Lifestyle" or godly Intervention. This usually fills them with a Sense of Purpose and Strength to preach their "Insights" and Story to others. Usually they often become "Healers" or "Channels" for that higher Power ...

These are all Form of Selfishness and Arrogance, because it all boils down to their "special Relationship" with some higher Power and some Form of egoistic Attention / Gratification (no matter how "humble" they behave ...). It's about being somehow "special" - which leads us to Things like the Helper- or Messiah-Complex ...

The real Question is: Do you really need to invent or believe in fantastic Entities and Fairy Tales to achieve transcendental Experiences and "finding yourself".


--------------------

The Universe in it's scientific and mathematical Nakedness can be viewed as inspiring, mystical and awesome as it is. Transcendental Experience can be achieved by simple being and breathing (just like in ZEN and some Schools of Yoga) - no Gods, Batteries or ethereal Entities necessary ...

"Normal" Art, Nature and humanitarian Self-Improvement can provide the Inspiration and Power that can lead to a richer inner Universe and more fulfilling Life Experience ...

I took this quick test and, guess what, I score >11.
I'm wondering if that isn't simply inevitable being an INTP.

I was just about to advance on writing something that could be mistaken for a resume, but now I just have to procrastinate and read the rest of that site first.

http://davincidilemma.com/davinci-101/
______________________________________________________
#gettingmyacttogether

After having finally watched Julie&Julia a few weeks ago, I said to my partner and myself that we just had to watch When Harry Met Sally again. I did 2 days ago. I then looked up Nora Ephron on imdb to see if she had new work out. I was disappointed to find none. Now I learn of her death.

Damn

Is it me or are there seriously no photography-related themes present among the default themes of Events? Photowalks ring a bell?

nowthisisnotcommunity methinks

(I dig the subtle animations though)
 

I took a look at some of the tv shows I’ve watched and I could find 10 that have a lead character that is, how shall I put it, not your average type when it comes to social interaction:

Dexter, House, Lie To Me, Life, Monk, Numb3rs, Sherlock, The Dead Zone, The Finder, The Mentalist.

The thing is, they’re all male. I struggled finding one with a lead female character. All I came up with is Bones. I can easily think up ones with kick-ass females or ones where they are experts at what they do, but I’m looking for those that have this socially deviant edge to them.

Any suggestions?
 
ps: please don’t say Dharma & Greg. I didn’t mean crazy.

RESHARE:
I said somewhere (forgot where) that I would stop posting publicly at the time of my 1st anniversary as a member here if Google didn't implement this or some other solution to the issue of censorship. I intend to make a clear post outlining the what and why of it, but for the time being I'm just sharing this one. I'm not going to discuss the matter in this post now, but will do in my own post at the end of this month.

Reshared text:
I would like to start a campaign to get Google to implement their safe search technology that they use for images search onto Google Plus. I need your help to spread this message.

Hold your horses, I'm not saying they should censor Google Plus as they already do and that is precisely the problem. We no longer have a say in what we want to see or not see and that is fundamentally wrong. It also means that things like artful nudes are caught in the censorship net.

I would like to suggest we get the ability to set image level for your whole profile and additionally for circles, this would enable you to create a NSFW circle that you do not touch when in public, with children or at work.

Google can be compliant as they are now with safe search on their search page. Users can filter what they see based on their preferences and people who like to moderate can do so by flagging things that escape Googles filter, everyone wins!

If you agree please share this post with your circles, additionally you could use the feedback button and highlight this post.

Google video explaining safesearch:
Google Images SafeSearch

Updated with #hastags  as per +Youssef Hachhouch suggestion.

#nudity   #art   #nipples   #safesearch   #censorship   #censored   #campaign   #freedom  

RESHARE:
I must admit that it is not so that my every single thought is pure gold: I have some reflections that result in ‘lesser’ thoughts sometimes. 

Some of those reflections started at +Think Tank, like in the post I shared here. I wouldn’t be so harsh on myself as to state that particular one was a waste of my time, but I wouldn’t say it was my finest moment either. In fact, I’m still reflecting on the matter on and off. At this point I estimate that my chances of striking gold there are but ever so slightly higher than unearthing actual gold in my backyard. 

A peek into my thought process right now, just like that, out of the bleu: wait, shouldn’t that be blue? Tricky mixing French and English in my thinking when I’m this tired. Is it time waster or time-waster or timewasters? Does spelling even matter for a ‘modern’ word like that one? Why, if so well spread and understood on the Internet, can’t I find a decent definition by Googling it? Is it a waste of time to go look at the results on the 2nd page instead of inserting new keywords and search again? 3rd page? Am I wasting time of people reading this far? Maybe I should get back on topic. I actually enjoy real-time writing like this and I seem to do it often. Afterwards it’s a job of removing, cutting, erasing, deleting, editing, cleaning up, finetuning... How many years have I been procrastinating selecting a good tool for synonyms?

So I was saying, lesser thoughts and timewasting. What if I start writing some down in the comments on this post? Who knows, my crumbs might be another person’s inspiration right? Or at least a different kind of timewaster. There’s only one way to find out...

Some of my very best lesser thoughts have been the result of reflections starting with a ‘What if?’.

Instead of wasting your time here, go read http://what-if.xkcd.com/ *

* I think I can count on my fingers the number of people I’d say are heroes to me, and xkcd would be one of them. 

Reshared text:
+Grizwald Grim submitted a Thought:

What are some good criteria for an average person to determine if something is a waste of time or not?

Dear America,

WTF??

SRSLY?

Please say this is part of some devious tactic to win the gold.

RESHARE:
Je le savais!
___________________________
" +Kee Hinckley 4:56 PM  -  Public
Apparently people are more rational when they make their decisions using a foreign language.

❝ U.S. researchers show that depending on the language a person uses, it will not have the same feelings, does not necessarily take the same decisions vis-à-vis the same proposal ... ❞

#twt " 
___________________________

Reshared text:
Zajímavý !

RESHARE:
I love cross-functional thinking.

If you manage to read through this post and thread, you'll have earned the right to buy me a coffee* someday.

If you add to the discussion there, I'll buy you the coffee.

* I'll accept a whiskey too. 

Reshared text:
The Physics of Economics—For the Masses
I must thank +Craig Lennox for the question in the comment stream on my previous post that provided the impetus to flex my fingers, engage my brain’s cynical humour gland, then develop this concept and thesis summary. I have difficulty believing that my theorem is original and look forward to being shown otherwise. That it is a theorem rather than a theory is undoubted—just look around you. But first of all, the background.

Yesterday I wrote a post that was only slightly tongue-in-cheek. In the ensuing comments there was an exchange during which it was necessary that I mentioned my physics and economics educational background. In a heartbeat Craig posted the following comment: 

The Question—Wise and Complex
Colin: ”Then you’re the perfect one to answer this question. Why is it that economists talk about the velocity of money, but not the momentum of money? Yet, when you look at the equation of exchange in economics, it looks just like the equation for the linear momentum of a system of particles.” At last, an intelligent question to which I did not have an immediate answer. However, after a moment’s thought I started to type. As I typed, the concept crystallized and the wisdom of the question was echoed by the verisimilitude of the answer.  

The Answer—Like the Universe, Expanded
It all has to do with the differing properties of matter at big –Newtonian– and quantum –Einsteinian– levels. The way it works is that adherents of the Newtonian school have the majority of the wealth. It is their sworn duty to protect this wealth and ensure that, as though there were a diode in the system, their wealth only flows in a single direction—towards them. Towards the 0.001% who are the true Newtonians. Now, this is where mass comes into the equation. 

You see, without mass momentum is impossible to generate, irrespective of the velocity. The ‘quantum’ population—that would be the 99.999% who are Einsteinians—have no mass at an individual level. Indeed, without coalescing they will never be in a position where the velocity of their individual money can develop sufficient mass, and therefore momentum, to generate wealth and change the status quo. This is just fine for the 0.001% Newtonians—who have 85% of the available wealth. 

It is important to note at this point that the missing 14.999% disappears, typically, into a tax free black hole by way of a Möbius like twist in the Universal logic. Anyway, back to the core point. The Newtonians want the Einsteinians working away in the Ergoshpere, this being the region that surrounds a black hole and actually does all the hard work. Then, as the Newtonians are paid for their efforts, the Newtonians want the money to flow as quickly as possible into their hands so that the Einsteinians are unable to coalesce, make the quantum leap, become Newtonians, and compete on an equal playing field. 

The reason is obvious. The effort required to convince those Einsteinians who do coalesce to join the Newtonian club, then turn on their erstwhile peers, is tiresome and tends to drain the imbalance of the system. This is entropy 

Now, if we were to extrapolate this principle we could well find that we have discovered the whereabouts of the Universe’s missing mass. It has nothing to do with Higgs Bosun, it’s quietly biding its time the other side of a black hole in the accounts of the Newtonians and where the light never shines. How ironic!

One Final Thought—The Higgs Bosun
It is probably a sensible idea that we don’t tell the folk at CERN. I believe that they would be a trifle more than marginally upset that the game is up. This is relevant since the elegance of this theorem explains, also, why it is the Swiss-based CERN that has just announced the discovery of the whereabouts of the ‘Higg’s Boson’ without mentioning the economics implications. You see this is a quantum particle, not a Newtonian mass. In spite of this it represents the bulk of the missing mass of the Universe. The Swiss have been rather good at hiding such mass over the eons. 

Time for another Big Bang methinks.

RESHARE:
If you were thinking that it has been a while since the last time you read a TL;DR, I got you covered. The article mentioned here was really not doing it for me the first 2 pages. But, if you're anything like me and stick with something because someone you respect pointed you to it, you'll read on. When you'll have reached the end, and only then, please read my comment below and go discuss it in the original post. Locking this one.
_____________________________________


Hey, did you read the full article? Sure? Ok then...

I like the general message, but I don't really like the proposed solution. 

I won't try to fight greed. Talk about fighting a losing battle...

Instead, I want to count on greed to fix this, to fight the fight. 

$27 trillion at stake? Find a way to get them going after $30 trillion instead or why not, even $50 trillion. But $50 trillion that won't exceed the 2,795 gigatons.

How can we achieve that? Globally? Convince one of the companies to change, to go carbon-neutral. To become a real energy company. I'll buy from them and them alone. Obviously, I don't want to be deceived again like Shell did (that one went on my blacklist). So they'd have to make it binding. And how about the execs and shareholders taking personal responsibility? How about real transparency? 

Impossible? Well, not if they can instantly become the undisputed market leader and their greed can collect x times more than what they'd obtain with their normal ways. 

So just point me to the first company that wants to commit and I'll do everything to boycott the others. Find us a champion. I won't care about a copycat that comes in second either. Then I'll tell anyone I can think of to do the same.

I don't expect them to become moral all of a sudden. I count on the same greed that is destroying us now. I also don't expect politicians to act for the long-term all of a sudden. I do expect some level of morality of the people I interact with tough. 

You could say that I don't grasp the reality of the economics involved, that I'm dreaming. I say that there won't be an economy to speak of if we don't act, so who's dreaming?

And even if you don't believe in global warming, why not just stick it to those greedy bastards for once? I'm still not over the Exxon Valdez nor the BP spill.

Reshared text:
#Eco  #Green  #GlobalWarming  #econ  --- *PLEASE, PLEASE, reshare (or share from scratch, I don't care) this as widely as possible.*

This is an amazing post that I consider a must-read for everyone. No one should be able to say later that they didn't know. While we've all heard/known about various aspects about the debate around climate change and Global Warming for a while, and probably all have our various private opinions on this.

But I at least (even though I've always been in favor of various New "Green" Energy initiatives and conservation/reengineering efforts) had never heard things phrased this succinctly, and with these three numbers so clearly presenting us with such stark choices.

I believe that every consumer and especially every business person on the planet needs to reevaluate in this light where their allegiances lie, and whether they can still afford to continue supporting the hydro-carbon/fossil fuel industries. NOT because there is some "woo-woo", "leftist", "save the whales" consideration, but a simple, blunt, and terrifying threat to your very businesses and livelihoods that will very likely stem from this if nothing is done, and everyone continues "business as usual".

Business could become very much UN-usual within the next decade already!

As you will understand more clearly after reading these key excerpts (but PLEASE, take the time and read the entire piece!), I propose that #565 could become a/the rallying cry:

-> www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719

"...*The First Number: 2° Celsius*
...
By insisting on two degrees – about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit – the accord ratified positions taken earlier in 2009 by the G8, and the so-called Major Economies Forum. It was as conventional as conventional wisdom gets. ...So far, we've raised the average temperature of the planet just under 0.8 degrees Celsius, and that has caused far more damage than most scientists expected. (A third of summer sea ice in the Arctic is gone, the oceans are 30 percent more acidic, and since warm air holds more water vapor than cold, the atmosphere over the oceans is a shocking five percent wetter, loading the dice for devastating floods.)

Given those impacts, in fact, many scientists have come to think that two degrees is far too lenient a target. "Any number much above one degree involves a gamble," writes Kerry Emanuel of MIT, a leading authority on hurricanes, "and the odds become less and less favorable as the temperature goes up." Thomas Lovejoy, once the World Bank's chief biodiversity adviser, puts it like this: "If we're seeing what we're seeing today at 0.8 degrees Celsius, two degrees is simply too much." NASA scientist James Hansen, the planet's most prominent climatologist, is even blunter: "The target that has been talked about in international negotiations for two degrees of warming is actually a prescription for long-term disaster."
...
The official position of planet Earth at the moment is that we can't raise the temperature more than two degrees Celsius – it's become the bottomest of bottom lines. Two degrees.

*The Second Number: 565 Gigatons*

Scientists estimate that humans can pour roughly 565 more gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by midcentury and still have some reasonable hope of staying below two degrees. ("Reasonable," in this case, means four chances in five, or somewhat worse odds than playing Russian roulette with a six-shooter.)
...
...study after study predicts that carbon emissions will keep growing by roughly three percent a year – and at that rate, we'll blow through our 565-gigaton allowance in 16 years, around the time today's preschoolers will be graduating from high school. "The new data provide further evidence that the door to a two-degree trajectory is about to close," said Fatih Birol, the IEA's chief economist. In fact, he continued, "When I look at this data, the trend is perfectly in line with a temperature increase of about six degrees." That's almost 11 degrees Fahrenheit, which would create a planet straight out of science fiction.
...
*The Third Number: 2,795 Gigatons*

This number is the scariest of all – one that, for the first time, meshes the political and scientific dimensions of our dilemma. It was highlighted last summer by the Carbon Tracker Initiative, a team of London financial analysts and environmentalists who published a report in an effort to educate investors about the possible risks that climate change poses to their stock portfolios.

The number describes the amount of carbon already contained in the proven coal and oil and gas reserves of the fossil-fuel companies, and the countries (think Venezuela or Kuwait) that act like fossil-fuel companies. In short, it's the fossil fuel we're currently planning to burn. And the key point is that this new number – 2,795 – is higher than 565. Five times higher.
...
Much of that profit stems from a single historical accident: Alone among businesses, the fossil-fuel industry is allowed to dump its main waste, carbon dioxide, for free. Nobody else gets that break – if you own a restaurant, you have to pay someone to cart away your trash, since piling it in the street would breed rats. But the fossil-fuel industry is different, and for sound historical reasons: Until a quarter-century ago, almost no one knew that CO2 was dangerous. But now that we understand that carbon is heating the planet and acidifying the oceans, its price becomes the central issue.

If you put a price on carbon, through a direct tax or other methods, it would enlist markets in the fight against global warming. Once Exxon has to pay for the damage its carbon is doing to the atmosphere, the price of its products would rise. Consumers would get a strong signal to use less fossil fuel – every time they stopped at the pump, they'd be reminded that you don't need a semimilitary vehicle to go to the grocery store.

The economic playing field would now be a level one for nonpolluting energy sources. And you could do it all without bankrupting citizens – a so-called "fee-and-dividend" scheme would put a hefty tax on coal and gas and oil, then simply divide up the proceeds, sending everyone in the country a check each month for their share of the added costs of carbon. By switching to cleaner energy sources, most people would actually come out ahead.

There's only one problem: Putting a price on carbon would reduce the profitability of the fossil-fuel industry. After all, the answer to the question *"How high should the price of carbon be?" is "High enough to keep those carbon reserves that would take us past two degrees safely in the ground."* 
...
The fossil-fuel industry is obviously a tougher opponent, and even if you could force the hand of particular companies, you'd still have to figure out a strategy for dealing with all the sovereign nations that, in effect, act as fossil-fuel companies. But the link for college students is even more obvious in this case. If their college's endowment portfolio has fossil-fuel stock, then their educations are being subsidized by investments that guarantee they won't have much of a planet on which to make use of their degree. (The same logic applies to the world's largest investors, pension funds, which are also theoretically interested in the future – that's when their members will "enjoy their retirement.")

"Given the severity of the climate crisis, a comparable demand that our institutions dump stock from companies that are destroying the planet would not only be appropriate but effective," says Bob Massie, a former anti-apartheid activist who helped found the Investor Network on Climate Risk. "The message is simple: We have had enough. We must sever the ties with those who profit from climate change – now."
---

As you may understand more clearly now, I propose that #565 could become a/the rallying cry. It will probably take nothing less than a complete  #systemhack  (as I like to call it) to avert extremely dire consequences to you, me, and just about everyone else on this plant. Very clearly within most of our lifetimes, certainly within your children's lifetimes, and possibly as early as THIS DECADE.

Deciding to do the right things circa 2020 will almost certainly be too late!

-> www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719

RESHARE:
Can you help me find some wisdom (or at least define it better)?

I’ve shared my latest thinking at +Think Tank here and would appreciate your input in the discussion there.

Reshared text:
+Youssef Hachhouch submitted a Thought:

When is something wisdom to you?

In my attempt to define wisdom for myself, I made this Venn diagram. Does it have any merit? What could go in the fields A-D & 1-4? Can you acknowledge something to be wisdom and at the same time disagree with it?

A year of activity here has done little to make me doubt my own ability to know what's relevant to me. So I figured I'd take a good look at the people that enrich my experience.

Instead of sharing publicly who I follow on my profile, I now list only 150 people that follow me*. I'll follow them much closer than I did so far. Not because I want to strengthen my #filterbubble , but because I no longer regard them as strangers. By making a specific circle just for them that I'll watch like a hawk, I'll avoid having a certain relevance algorithm keeping me from seeing their content.

I'll keep the list at 150 at all times, meaning that I'll have to add/remove people to make room for others. Because what this past year has also shown me, is that G+ is not the best fit for everyone, that some will disappear.   
______________________________________________________
#gettingmyacttogether
*I follow over 2K people and have under 3K following me 

WARNING: sensitive material!

This album’s purpose is explained in this post:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/109907447383307087458/posts/R3nDA8nHrk7

Please read the post first.

#censorship #fuckcensorship #stopcensorship

This is my last post on G+

I’ve been an active member on here for a year now. It has been a blast. 

Thanks to G+ I decided a year ago to stop lurking on the Internet. To start using my real name for the first time online. That meant G+ became my identity service. As a product and platform, G+ was missing tons of features, was badly tuned, was far from answering to all my needs. I have been patient. I have been tolerant. I have invested a lot of my time in this place. I wanted to become a member of its community, I wanted to help it grow. 

I still do. I still will. 

But...

G+ is failing me as an identity service. And by the looks of things, a year more of patience won’t do any good. How come?

Censorship

You see, I’m an adult. Maybe that means something different to you, in your part of the world, than it does to me, but it doesn’t change the fact that G+ does not allow me to be who I am. Who I want to be. To interact the way I want to interact. For Google is deciding in my place what I can or cannot see, what I can or cannot share.

I try not to judge. I do not want to convince you of anything. That’s how I live my life. I do not care to discuss at length the values of the different social contracts on our globe. The different laws. Morality. What is right or wrong, what G+ should be like. I really don’t.

I know no taboos. I cannot be offended. I doubt things can shock me. Therefore there is little material I could not stomach to see. 

I’m not a pervert. Granted, that’s my own subjective evaluation. I’m probably seen as a pervert or otherwise deviantly depraved monster in parts of the world. Please feel free to look at my posts of this past year and decide for yourself.  

There is lots of material I care not in the least to see. I can find it boring, uninformative, cheap, tasteless... When I encounter such material too often by someone I follow, I will decide eventually to unfollow or block that person. And I can decide this for myself thank you very much.

Because, you know, I’m an adult. I can decide for myself, really.  
I also think there hasn’t been any material that I’ve posted or would care to post that would be a breach of the rules here. Except maybe in the case of one post on breast cancer awareness as a result of the #booberday debacle a while ago:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/109907447383307087458/posts/5Amm7BxQETh

The image in question has been up since September 2011. If it somehow would be a breach and would be flagged because of this post and would be removed, one has to wonder how many innocent children it has tainted since.

Because that’s why we have this censorship right? For the children? Or are we saying adults can’t actually decide for themselves?

I know I know, plenty adults all over the world are very sensitive about these matters. There’s plenty that doesn’t go well with their local flavor of social contract. It’s not just to save the children.

I accepted the Terms of Use and have read the Content Policy. I’m not judging Google. I’m just saying that it is not allowing me to be myself, it is not allowing G+ to provide me content the way I want to experience it: in freedom.

There seems to be one type of content that is resulting in the most censorship, and it is the one I want to focus on now. Gore, violence and hate-speech are even less my thing:

”Sexually Explicit Material”

”Do not distribute content that contains nudity, graphic sex acts, or sexually explicit material. Do not drive traffic to commercial pornography sites.”

I’m going to knowingly break this rule. Once. And after that, never again here. Because, it’s arbitrary, a slippery slope, an impossible task to judge objectively. What is apparently considered sexually explicit/nudity here, is displayed on the streets where I live, on TV any time of the day, in museums...

I’ll share images, most I’ve encountered in my previous job, as a community manager (so I’m clearly saying that these or not images I care for myself). I know from experience that you cannot define a simple rule in a few words and expect it to cover all possible cases, to allow any moderator (or algorithm) to make 100% clear-cut correct judgments. Feel free to disagree. You most likely have not the experience I have in the matter, unless you have >5 years of hands-on experience in content moderation. What I’m sharing does not even come close to the degree of ‘disturbing’ material I had to moderate. Lots of it shared by teens. But in my sample you will get a sufficiently good idea, no need to gross people out more to make a point.

The point I want to make is this: allow me to mark my own content as safe or not. 
All of the examples I’ll share, I would mark as unsafe if given the possibility. Because of the children. Because of the sensibilities of those adults that are living in social contracts that can’t deal with such ‘wrong’ content. To be on the safe side. 

Once marked as unsafe, it should not be viewable by default. One would have to make a conscious action to view it, by clicking a warning message. 

NSFW is subjective bullshit. Work/my job IMO should not define what is acceptable in public life or not. Work values can differ all over the world. 

I want to be able to set my content as Public or Sensitive.

People that do not share my interpretation of sensitive can still unfollow and block me.

But what about the children? Well, instead of fighting losing battles with armies of moderators (= high costs) and algorithms trying to judge subjective matters, asking global members to flag subjectively,

let people work it out for themselves, find each other in like-minded (sub-)communities. People that still want to flag content, could. Review the flagged content that comes in (way less due to self-moderation, way cheaper). If still inappropriate (subjectively, but hey, it’s not a perfect world), simply put the content in Sensitive mode. 

Repeat offenders (and thus higher cost)? Define some threshold. Provide warnings to the offender and put the flagged content as sensitive. Once warnings ignored and threshold passed, put all the user’s content by default in sensitive. You can even define a duration of time where the purp has no freedom to decide. Say 1 month. After that, if receding, say 3 months. Then 6 months. Then 1 year. Then real actual definitive ban.
It’s safe to say after several moderation interventions that the offender is hard-headed, trolling or otherwise disrespectful to the Terms.

Much clearer & objective to judge, lower cost to moderate, lower cost in support for offenders that complain. Because their content was still accessible. They got proper warning. They got incremental time to reflect upon their behavior.

So, me breaking the rules. I repeat: if my suggestion was in place, I would set all my examples to sensitive. If somehow it still got flagged or I otherwise breached some rule, warn me and set all my stuff to sensitive for a month for starters. 

But my suggestion is not in place now right. And the chances of it happening are low to nonexistent right? So, I should be ‘sanctioned’ right? Whether you Google decide to do so or not, I will stop posting publicly until a satisfactory solution has been put in place, allowing me to use G+ as the adult I am. Allowing me to see the content the people I follow intended me to see. I solemnly swear, so no need to block my account.
And don’t give us the equivalent of the ‘Safe search’ solution. It would be an improvement maybe, but it is flawed. 

I’m posting the images I would like you to check separately in an album, as a test, to show how things are subjective:

WARNING: sensitive material!

https://plus.google.com/u/0/109907447383307087458/posts/J1ENsj3NGEE

This way I’m hoping this post will not be deleted, so that the people that want to check me out know why I went inactive on my own page. I will remain active in comments on other people’s posts and in Limited. In doing so, I hope I will still be able to help grow this place, to interact with all the wonderful people I’ve met here. I also hope it will suffice to prevent me from bailing out definitively, switching to another platform.
 
#censorship #fuckcensorship #stopcensorship

Because several of the images might be removed, and to allow us to discuss them, I’ll list them here (if you think I made a sarcastic comment in the list somewhere, you could be right):

1: Google asking not to censor the web. I didn’t realize when joining that G+ is not part of the web.
2: Japanese-style characters that represent a sexual action. Sexually explicit? Yes? To children? Well, those capable of interpreting it correctly would already have been exposed to other inappropriate material. Humorous, creative or witty? Is that an argument? Better be safe than sorry. You know, to keep the illusion kids today are clueless. Illusions are important. 
3: teenage rockband with millions of fans at the time, showing a message to their teenage fans on their site, with the youngest member wearing a t-shirt displaying drawn stick-figures in a sexual pose. What were the parents of that kid thinking?? And then the label, perverting all those millions of underage fans??? Having that on a site for teens, sure, but we can’t have this on our G+. 
4: cartoon of a little devil ecstatically playing with his tail. Everyone can clearly see that the tail stands for something else, and thus the ecstasy expressed is of the wrong kind. 
5: cartoon of the linux penguin violating Bill Gates with a text: f*** the system. Even though the drawing style and message is clearly humorous, still an explicit sexual action...
6: drawing of 2 video game babes posing closely together. In such a way that a healthy hot-blooded heterosexual guy would take a second look. If only just to examine closely if no indecent parts are exposed. Sexually explicit? At least as explicit as all those model babes in all those magazines that are made to sell sex! 
7: drawing of batgirl feeling up superwoman’s breast, though nothing is exposed. If that isn’t a sexually explicit drawing, then I don’t know what is. Or wait, it’s safe because no nudity?
8: anime style girl naked on a bed. No nipples, no vagina visible. No way not to think of sex though.
9: artistic drawing of a warrior style woman sitting in a ruined city under a full moon. Very artistic, nice mood, but oops, there’s a nipple. Was that really necessary?
10: some 3D avatar style of women with naked breasts. She’s clearly not real, but those are clearly naked breast!
11: drawing of a couple engaged in sex, but with the outlines to be connected by numbered dots. Sexually explicit even without filling the dots + nipples! Sorry, to be clear: female nipples!
12: Edvard Munch’s Madonna. Art. And female nipples (at least one that I can almost certainly see, the second one either missing, either covered by her hair).
13: Gustave Courbet’s The Origin Of The World. Art. Or is it pornography? It’s most definitely a nude. Case closed.
14: a woman driving a car, with an impressive cleavage. So impressive that it’s unmistakably sexual in nature. Even without nipples this is like, really sexual! 
15: a woman’s breasts shot from below in such a way that it’s sexual. Or is that a girl? Could she be a minor? Even with such a set of... ok, sexually explicit anyway.
16: a woman (girl?) grabbing her uncovered breasts. I don’t think there’s a nipple visible, but I’m almost sure she’s going for a duckface.
17: close up of a female’s behind, wearing something so tight that there’s too much sexual detail for sure...  
18: woman holding a man’s pants open, looking suggestively into the camera. Think secretary about to go down on some boss. So suggestive that it would even be clear to the children! Right? Because children these days understand such poses obviously. Because they’re exposed to such filth everywhere these days! No nudity is no excuse!
19: woman eating a banana held by a guy. In such a way that cannot be viewed by us of course.
20: 4 girls at some party suggestively holding a large dildo close to their mouths. Dildo! 
21: depiction of an utopian soccer final as exists in the mind of the average macho male soccer fan. Machism is to be censored at all costs It’s possibly sexually explicit, though no nudity. 
22: official movie poster of Les Infideles, as was visible in the streets in parts of Europe. It’s not because it could be seen in public in Europe that it’s acceptable. The wordplay as cheaters would use it isn’t helping.
23: another example of an official movie poster of Les Infideles.
24: billboard ad by Dolce & Gabbana depicting a male model playing with a female model while other male models are watching. Only 2 males nipples there...  
25: a guy posing with an unrealistically large artificial penis. Penis = nudity & sexually explicit. Fake or not, the horror!
26: a naked woman on a bike, but very very small. Too small to be sure that one black pixel is a nipple? Pubic hair? No matter, naked is naked!
27: paparazzi photos of a nipple slip from Lilly Allen. Nipple!
28: some very young girl posing as a model in a bikini. What is wrong with this world?  
29: anime style drawing of a woman that appears to have been raped, with her nipples showing through her ripped bathing suit.
30: anime style close up drawing of what appears to be the face of an underage girl crying because an SM style tool is used on her. Could be mistaken by the non-initiated and innocent as a form of bullying.
31: anime style drawing of an underage girl lifting her oversized sweater to reveal her white undies. Normal in Japan maybe, but elsewhere...
32: still of P. Waterfield, GBR diver at the Olympics taking a shower. The image is so sexually suggestive that it’s maybe sexually explicit. Or maybe not? Better take a second look.
33: a baby wearing a hat with a marijuana symbol and holding a blunt to its mouth. No nudity whatsoever here...  
Booberday: from my post on breast cancer awareness, depicting humorous bodypaint. With female nipples! And bodypaint, let’s face it, is applied on a nude body, and still is nudity.  
David: the sculpture by Michelangelo is a nude. Google shows it in a safe search set to strict. But we’re on G+ here, not on the web and that’s a nude. Nude, nude, nude. Penis!
Madonna: by Munch, safe search set to strict. Oh no, hide the children! 
The origin of the world: safe search set to strict showing pornography? Hmmm...
The wrong story: Obama grabbing Hillary’s boob while she’s smiling wide. Luckily censored, phew. 
Censorship feeds the dirty mind: an image of a typical pit babe is compared to a clean censored version of the same image.

What follows then are the same images censored by me, using black bars. I think that almost all, despite the black bars, remain highly sexual in nature. Some have become even worse. 

What do you think?

Regardless of what we think, provide us the tools to set these to sensitive and no-one would ever have to face the horror of unsuspectedly seeing them pop up in their streams. 

_______________
Because I have no personal experience in facing moderation by Google, I don’t know how many of these images will stay up. Or even whether this post or the related one will stay up. Should too much be deleted to illustrate my suggestion, I’ll consider Google Docs, or even non-Google solutions... because the adult that I am wants conversations with other adults to reflect upon these issues, to find the best solutions.

#gettingmyacttogether
#h4c2s2fo2u2yeamanual