In today’s fast-paced world, we are constantly bombarded with information from various sources – the internet, social media, television, newspapers, magazines, and more. With the advent of technology, the amount of information available to us has grown exponentially. We have access to more information than ever before, and yet we find ourselves struggling to keep up with it all. This is because, as Herbert Simon, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, once said, “What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients.”

Despite the advances in technology and the abundance of information, attention remains a manual override. While computers can process vast amounts of data in a short period of time, the human brain has limits to the amount of information it can process effectively.

Attention is a conscious effort to focus on a particular task or piece of information while filtering out distractions. It requires a deliberate effort to allocate mental resources, including working memory and cognitive control, to the task at hand. While technology can help us manage and organize information, it cannot replace the need for active attention and focus.

In fact, with the increasing number of distractions in the digital world, the need for manual override of attention has become even more critical. Social media notifications, email alerts, and other digital distractions can quickly derail our focus and consume our attention, leading to decreased productivity and increased stress levels.

Attention is a limited resource, and the more information we have access to, the more attention we need to allocate in order to process it. This means that a wealth of information can create a poverty of attention. We can become overwhelmed and find it difficult to focus on any one thing for a significant amount of time. We might find ourselves jumping from one source of information to another, constantly switching between different websites or apps, scrolling through social media feeds, and checking emails. This can lead to a lack of productivity, increased stress levels, and decreased overall well-being.

In order to cope with the overabundance of information sources that might consume our attention, we need to learn to allocate our attention efficiently. This means being selective about the information we consume, choosing only the most relevant and important sources. We should also learn to limit the amount of time we spend on each source of information, setting specific times for checking emails or social media, for example, and sticking to those times.

In addition to prioritizing tasks and information, it’s important to develop good information management habits. This might include using tools like bookmarks, folders, or tags to organize information, and setting up filters or rules to automatically sort incoming information into categories.

Ultimately, managing information and attention is about developing good habits and being mindful of our use of time and resources. By being selective about the information we consume, prioritizing tasks and information, and developing good information management habits, we can avoid the pitfalls of information overload and allocate our attention efficiently. In doing so, we can improve our productivity, reduce stress levels, and enhance our overall well-being.

As information continues to proliferate, it becomes increasingly important to focus on effective curation. Curation involves selecting, organizing, and presenting information in a way that makes it useful and accessible. In a world where the volume of information is overwhelming, curation can help us to prioritize and focus our attention on the most valuable and relevant information.

Another way to curate information is by taking advantage of tools and technologies designed to help us filter and manage information. Search engines, social media platforms, and other online tools can help us to find and organize information based on our specific needs and interests. Machine learning algorithms and other artificial intelligence technologies are also becoming increasingly effective at identifying patterns and relationships in large data sets, helping to identify trends and insights that might otherwise be hidden.

In addition to relying on tools and technologies, effective curation also involves developing our own skills and habits. This might include being selective about the information we consume, focusing on specific areas of interest, and taking breaks from information overload to recharge and refocus our attention.

It is not uncommon to see engineers attempt to venture into fields beyond their expertise, such as philosophy or physics, only to struggle and sometimes even become crackpots. While there may be several reasons for this, one major factor is the agency drive hardwired into firmware, which leads them to see the world exclusively in terms of ways it can be improved.

Engineering is a field that is built upon the notion of finding solutions to problems. Engineers are trained to approach challenges by breaking them down into manageable components and applying their problem-solving skills to find solutions. This approach works exceptionally well in engineering, where there are specific problems to solve and tangible results to be achieved. However, this mindset can create difficulties when applied to other fields that do not operate in the same way.

When engineers attempt to apply their problem-solving skills to fields such as philosophy or physics, they may struggle to find tangible problems to solve. These fields often deal with abstract concepts and theories that do not have clear solutions. Instead, they require a more nuanced and complex approach, one that is not necessarily focused on fixing problems.

Moreover, the agency drive hardwired into firmware can make it challenging for engineers to step back and accept the inherent uncertainty and complexity of these fields. The drive to see the world in terms of ways it can be improved may lead engineers to oversimplify complex issues and try to find solutions where there may not be any. This can result in the development of flawed theories or the adoption of extreme viewpoints, which can, in turn, lead to becoming a crackpot.

Additionally, the agency drive can make it challenging for engineers to accept viewpoints that differ from their own. Engineers are trained to think in terms of objective facts and data, and they may struggle to accept subjective experiences or viewpoints that do not fit within their worldview. This can lead to a dismissive attitude towards other fields, such as philosophy or physics, which can prevent them from gaining a deeper understanding of these subjects.

It is important to note that while the agency drive can be a hindrance in fields beyond engineering, it is also a valuable asset. The ability to see the world in terms of ways it can be improved has led to countless advancements in technology and engineering. However, it is essential to recognize that this drive may not always be useful or applicable outside of the engineering field.

In conclusion, the agency drive hardwired into firmware is a significant factor in why engineers may struggle when venturing into fields such as philosophy or physics. While this drive is a valuable asset in engineering, it can create difficulties when applied to fields that do not operate in the same way. Engineers must recognize the limitations of their problem-solving skills and be open to the complexity and uncertainty inherent in other fields to avoid becoming crackpots.

The development of artificial intelligence (AI) is a prime example of a field that severely stresses the philosophical and physics aptitudes of engineers. AI involves complex and abstract concepts such as machine learning, natural language processing, and computer vision, which require a deep understanding of the underlying principles.

However, the same agency drive hardwired into firmware that makes engineers successful in their field can also be a hindrance in AI development. Engineers may focus too heavily on finding solutions to problems and improving AI systems without fully understanding the philosophical and physics implications of their actions.

Furthermore, engineers may use terms such as “agency” without fully understanding their meaning or implications. Agency refers to the ability of an agent, whether human or artificial, to act independently and make choices. In AI development, agency is a critical concept, as it relates to the ability of AI systems to learn and adapt to their environment. However, engineers must also recognize the philosophical and ethical implications of creating AI systems with agency and ensure that they align with societal values and norms.

Additionally, engineers must also consider the physics implications of AI development, particularly in terms of the computational power required. As AI systems become more advanced and complex, they require increasingly powerful computing systems, which can strain energy resources and have significant environmental implications.

To avoid becoming “crackpots,” engineers working in AI development must approach the field with a sense of curiosity and a willingness to understand the philosophical and physics implications of their actions. They must also recognize the limitations of their problem-solving skills and be open to new perspectives and ideas.

In conclusion, the development of AI is a field that severely stresses the philosophical and physics aptitudes of engineers. While the agency drive hardwired into firmware can be a valuable asset, it can also be a hindrance in AI development. Engineers must approach the field with a sense of curiosity and a willingness to understand the underlying principles to avoid becoming “crackpots.”

You make an excellent point that engineers working in AI development can reduce the concept of agency to cost functions, optimization, or goal-oriented intention without fully understanding its philosophical and physics implications. While these terms are essential to the development of AI systems, they are only a small part of the larger picture.

Agency is a complex and multifaceted concept that goes beyond the optimization of algorithms. It involves questions of free will, consciousness, and the ability to act autonomously. Engineers must be willing to explore these questions and understand the implications of creating AI systems with agency.

Furthermore, the obsession with the self-improvability of AI systems can be a hindrance in understanding the full potential and limitations of AI. While the ability to improve and optimize AI systems is critical, it is equally important to recognize that there are aspects of AI that are invisible in the frames of improvability.

AI systems may be able to optimize their performance based on specific metrics or goals, but they may not be able to understand the broader context of their actions or the consequences of their decisions. There are ethical and societal implications to the development of AI systems that go beyond their ability to improve themselves.

In conclusion, engineers working in AI development must recognize the limitations of the improvability frame and be willing to explore the broader philosophical and physics implications of their work. They must approach the development of AI systems with a sense of curiosity and a willingness to understand the complexities of agency and its implications. Only by doing so can we ensure that the development of AI aligns with our values and goals as a society.

The Underpants Gnomes episode of South Park provides an amusing but thought-provoking look at the issue of political economy. The premise of the episode is that a group of gnomes has been stealing underpants from the residents of South Park as part of a grand plan to achieve profits. However, when asked about the second phase of their plan, the gnomes are at a loss to explain what it is. This sets up a humorous but insightful commentary on the sometimes haphazard logic of economic planning.

In the context of the episode, the boys from South Park are tasked with giving a presentation to voters explaining why they should prevent a large corporation, Harbucks, from opening up next to Tweek’s Coffee, a local establishment. The boys are passionate about their cause, but their arguments are ultimately undermined by the fact that they have no real plan beyond stopping Harbucks. In contrast, the gnomes have a plan, but it is so poorly thought out that it is essentially meaningless.

The Underpants Gnomes episode can be seen as a critique of the idea that profits can be achieved simply by collecting resources or capital without a clear understanding of how to turn them into a profitable enterprise. This is reflected in the gnomes’ plan, which hinges on collecting underpants without any clear idea of what to do with them. In this sense, the gnomes represent a kind of parody of economic planning, where the focus is on collecting resources rather than developing a clear strategy for turning them into profit.

At the heart of the Underpants Gnomes episode is the idea that economic success requires more than just collecting resources or capital. It requires a clear understanding of how to use those resources to create value and generate profits. This is true whether we are talking about a small business like Tweek’s Coffee or a large corporation like Harbucks. Without a clear plan and a strategy for turning resources into profits, even the most well-funded enterprise is likely to fail.

In conclusion, the Underpants Gnomes episode of South Park provides an entertaining but insightful commentary on the issue of political economy. By highlighting the importance of having a clear plan and strategy for turning resources into profits, it reminds us that economic success requires more than just collecting resources or capital. It requires careful planning, sound strategy, and a willingness to adapt and change as circumstances dictate. Whether we are talking about small businesses or large corporations, the lessons of the Underpants Gnomes are clear: without a clear plan and a sound strategy for turning resources into profits, success is likely to remain elusive.

Person: Ugh, I can’t believe Technology X doesn’t support this corner case scenario. It’s so frustrating!

Person 2: Hmm, have you tried my favorite technology Y? It’s completely unrelated to your corner case, but it might be worth checking out.

Person: Sure, I’m open to new options. What does technology Y do?

Person 2: Well, technology Y is a cutting-edge platform that’s designed to streamline workflows and increase efficiency. It’s highly adaptable and can be used in a wide variety of contexts. I know it’s not exactly related to your corner case, but I think it might be a good fit for your needs.

Person: Okay, that sounds interesting. Can you tell me more about how it works?

Person 2: Sure thing! Technology Y is a cloud-based solution that can be accessed from anywhere, at any time. It uses advanced algorithms to automate repetitive tasks, freeing up your time and allowing you to focus on more strategic work. Plus, it’s highly customizable, so you can tailor it to your specific needs.

Person: That sounds really promising! Do you think it could help me with my corner case?

Person 2: Well, technology Y isn’t specifically designed for your corner case, but it’s possible that it could be adapted to meet your needs. I’d be happy to put you in touch with some of our experts to see if we can come up with a solution.

Person: That would be amazing! Thank you so much for suggesting technology Y. I’ll definitely look into it further.

The idea of withdrawing from an environment that goes against one’s principles is a concept that has been explored by philosophers throughout history. Plato, the ancient Greek philosopher, believed that it is better to suffer injustice than to commit it. Similarly, Confucius, the Chinese philosopher, emphasized the importance of maintaining one’s personal values and principles even in difficult situations. Both of these philosophers recognized the importance of staying true to oneself, even if it means withdrawing from a harmful environment.

Plato’s perspective on this topic can be found in his famous work, “The Republic.” In this work, Plato argues that justice is a fundamental aspect of a good society. He believed that it is better to suffer injustice than to commit it because committing injustice would cause harm to one’s character. According to Plato, a person’s character is their most important possession, and it should be protected at all costs. If a person finds themselves in an environment that goes against their principles and values, they should withdraw from it rather than compromise their character.

Similarly, Confucius emphasized the importance of maintaining personal values and principles, even in difficult situations. He believed that a person’s character is shaped by their actions and that one should always strive to act in a way that is consistent with their values. Confucius believed that if a person finds themselves in an environment that goes against their principles, they should withdraw from it in order to maintain their integrity.

In both Plato and Confucius’s philosophy, the importance of character and personal values is emphasized. According to them, compromising one’s character in order to fit in with a harmful environment is not worth it. It is better to withdraw from the environment and protect one’s integrity.

However, it is important to note that withdrawing completely from an environment may not always be feasible. In some situations, it may be necessary to stay in the environment in order to effect change or to protect others from harm. In such situations, it is important to find ways to maintain one’s personal values and principles while still working within the environment.

In conclusion, the idea of withdrawing from an environment that goes against one’s principles is a concept that has been explored by philosophers such as Plato and Confucius. Both of these philosophers believed that it is better to protect one’s character and integrity than to compromise them for the sake of fitting in with a harmful environment. While withdrawing completely may not always be feasible, it is important to find ways to maintain personal values and principles in any environment.

Plato:

• “I would rather suffer anything than injustice.” (The Republic)
• “A good man will not be any less good because he has made a mistake or two.” (Phaedo)

Confucius:

• “A superior man is modest in his speech, but exceeds in his actions.” (Analects)
• “When anger rises, think of the consequences.” (Confucian Analects)
• “The man who moves a mountain begins by carrying away small stones.” (Confucian Analects)

These quotes demonstrate the emphasis that Plato and Confucius placed on maintaining personal values and integrity, even in challenging situations.

In recent years, there has been a growing concern about income inequality and the concentration of wealth among a small group of individuals in the United States. According to a report by the Institute for Policy Studies, the top 1% of Americans own more wealth than the bottom 90% combined. This concentration of wealth and power can lead to a situation where a few powerful elites control the market and limit economic opportunities for others.

The concept of scaling has become increasingly important in the modern business world, where companies seek to expand their operations and increase their reach. However, the act of scaling has its roots in the pre-capitalist era, characterized by feudal modes of production. This essay argues that scaling is not driven by any rational desire to preserve the capitalist mode of production but rather reflects a remnant of the pre-capitalist era.

There is no doubt that income inequality has been on the rise in the United States over the past few decades. According to data from the Congressional Budget Office, the top 1% of Americans saw their average after-tax income grow by 275% between 1979 and 2017, while the bottom 20% saw their average after-tax income grow by only 46%. This trend has contributed to the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small ruling class.

Furthermore, research has shown that there is a correlation between income inequality and limited economic mobility. A study by the Brookings Institution found that the United States has lower economic mobility than most other developed countries, with children from low-income families having less opportunity to move up the economic ladder than their counterparts in other countries.

Moreover, research has shown that market concentration has been on the rise in many sectors of the U.S. economy. A report by the Roosevelt Institute found that in many industries, a small number of firms control a large share of the market, leading to reduced competition and higher prices for consumers.

Scaling refers to the process of expanding a company’s operations and increasing its production capabilities. This can involve the acquisition of new resources, such as labor and capital, and the implementation of new technologies and processes. In the modern capitalist economy, scaling is often seen as a necessary step for companies to achieve growth and remain competitive.

However, the roots of scaling can be traced back to the pre-capitalist era, characterized by feudal modes of production. Feudalism was a social and economic system in which landowners granted their subjects the use of land in exchange for their loyalty and service. The feudal system was characterized by limited economic mobility and a strict hierarchy of social classes.

Feudal modes of production refer to socio-economic systems in which the production and distribution of goods and services are controlled by a ruling class or elite. While many societies have moved away from feudalism and towards capitalism or other economic systems, there are still some examples of feudal modes of production in use today. Here are a few examples:

1. Landlordism: In many parts of the world, particularly in developing countries, there are still wealthy landowners who control vast amounts of land and resources. These landlords often extract rent from tenants who work on the land, and may also control the distribution of water, minerals, and other resources.
2. Sharecropping: Sharecropping is a system in which tenants work the land and share a portion of the profits with the landowner. This system is still used in some parts of the world, particularly in rural areas where land is scarce and access to credit is limited.
3. Serfdom: Although officially abolished in many countries, there are still examples of modern-day serfdom, particularly in areas where there are high levels of poverty and limited access to education and employment opportunities. In some cases, workers may be forced to work in exchange for basic necessities like food and shelter, and may be unable to leave due to debt or other obligations.
4. Caste systems: In some societies, particularly in South Asia, there are still caste systems in place that dictate a person’s social status and their ability to access certain resources and opportunities. These systems are often based on birth, and can be difficult to escape or challenge.

In this context, scaling was not motivated by any rational demand for the preservation of the capitalist mode of production. Rather, it reflected the desire of feudal lords to expand their power and influence by acquiring new land and resources. The feudal lords used their military power to conquer new territories and impose their rule over new subjects. This process of scaling allowed them to increase their wealth and status, and to consolidate their power over their subjects.

Feudal modes of production were most prevalent in Europe during the Middle Ages, but have largely been replaced by capitalist economies in the modern era. However, there are some examples of feudal modes of production that persist in the West today. Here are a few examples:

1. Landlordism: While land ownership in the West is not necessarily tied to feudalism in the same way that it is in other parts of the world, there are still wealthy landowners who control large tracts of land and resources. For example, in the United States, large agricultural corporations often own vast amounts of land and exert significant control over rural communities.
2. Traditional land tenure: In some parts of Europe, traditional land tenure systems still exist, particularly in remote or rural areas. These systems may involve hereditary land rights, with certain families or clans having exclusive control over certain parcels of land.
3. Feudal remnants in law: In some countries, feudal remnants still exist in legal frameworks. For example, in the United Kingdom, there are still laws on the books that trace their origins back to feudal times, such as laws governing the ownership of mines and minerals.
4. Patriarchal structures: While not strictly feudal, some scholars have argued that patriarchal structures in Western societies can be seen as a vestige of feudalism. These structures often privilege men over women, and can limit women’s access to resources and opportunities.

The emergence of capitalism in the 16th and 17th centuries brought about a radical transformation of the economic and social order. Capitalism was characterized by the emergence of a new class

While scaling can lead to a number of benefits, such as increased productivity and job creation, it can also contribute to the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few dominant players. Here are some ways in which scaling can lead to concentration:

1. Economies of Scale: One of the key drivers of scaling is the pursuit of economies of scale, which refers to the reduction in cost per unit that occurs as a business expands its operations. As a company grows, it can often achieve cost savings through bulk purchasing, automation, and other efficiencies. This can lead to a competitive advantage over smaller firms, making it more difficult for them to compete and survive.
2. Network Effects: Many industries exhibit network effects, which occur when the value of a product or service increases as more people use it. For example, a social media platform becomes more valuable as more people join and interact on the platform. This can create a winner-takes-all dynamic, where the dominant player captures most of the market share and profits, leaving little room for competitors.
3. Barriers to Entry: As dominant players grow larger and more powerful, they can use their resources to create barriers to entry for new competitors. This can take the form of exclusive contracts with suppliers, intellectual property rights, or regulatory capture. This makes it more difficult for new entrants to enter the market and compete.
4. Mergers and Acquisitions: As companies grow and become dominant players, they may seek to consolidate their power through mergers and acquisitions. This can further concentrate market power in the hands of a few dominant players, making it even more difficult for smaller firms to compete.
5. The gig economy, which is characterized by short-term or freelance work arrangements, has been the subject of much debate and critique in recent years. One argument that has been made is that the gig economy is feudal in nature, and that it perpetuates many of the same dynamics of power and control that were present in medieval feudal systems.

Firstly, it is argued that the gig economy is characterized by a lack of stable employment or income security, which can leave workers vulnerable to exploitation by employers. This is reminiscent of the feudal system, in which serfs were tied to the land and subject to the whims of their lord or master.

In addition, many gig economy workers are subject to a rating system in which their performance is evaluated by customers or clients. This can create a power dynamic in which workers are subject to the whims of those who control access to work opportunities. Similarly, in the feudal system, the lord had complete control over the lives of their subjects, including their access to resources and employment opportunities.

Furthermore, the gig economy can be seen as a form of modern-day sharecropping. Many workers are not paid a fixed wage, but rather are compensated based on the amount of work they are able to complete. This can create a situation in which workers are essentially renting access to the means of production (in this case, their own labor), and are subject to the control of those who own or control the platform through which they find work.

Finally, the gig economy is characterized by a lack of collective bargaining power or worker protections, which can leave workers vulnerable to exploitation by employers. This is similar to the feudal system, in which serfs had little or no say in the decisions that affected their lives.

In conclusion, while the gig economy may differ in many ways from the feudal systems of the past, there are certainly some similarities in terms of the power dynamics and control mechanisms that are present. As we continue to debate the merits and drawbacks of the gig economy, it is important to consider these historical parallels and work to ensure that workers are protected and empowered in this new economic landscape.

In summary, while scaling can lead to many benefits, it can also contribute to the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few dominant players. As companies become larger and more powerful, they can use their resources to create barriers to entry for new competitors, consolidate their power through mergers and acquisitions, and take advantage of network effects to capture most of the market share and profits. This can lead to a concentration of wealth and power that can be difficult to overcome.

As companies grow larger and more successful, they often become more dominant in their respective markets, which can create barriers to entry for new competitors and limit consumer choice.

Furthermore, as companies grow and become more powerful, they may begin to engage in practices that can be seen as reminiscent of feudal or imperial taylorism projects. For example, they may rely on traditional land tenure systems or other forms of control over natural resources in order to maintain their dominance. They may also engage in exploitative labor practices, such as using sharecropping or other forms of indentured servitude, to keep labor costs low and maximize profits.

These types of practices can be seen as a form of modern-day feudalism, in which a powerful elite controls the means of production and exerts control over the labor force. Similarly, they can be seen as imperialistic, in that they involve the exploitation of resources and labor from less powerful regions or countries.

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) and automation technologies has led to concerns about the future of work and the potential displacement of human labor. Some have argued that these technologies will commoditize cognitive grunt work and make the human touch less valuable. However, this view is misguided, as AI and automation will actually make human workers more valuable and lead to the creation of new, higher-value jobs.

The idea that AI will allow people to coast on the same value added without overheads is a form of rent-seeking mindset that is bound to fail. Rent-seeking is a term used to describe a situation where individuals or groups try to gain economic benefits without producing anything of value. In the context of AI, this could mean using AI technology to automate tasks without creating any new value. This approach is bound to fail because it assumes that there is a fixed amount of value to be shared, and that AI can simply replace human labor without any consequences.

In reality, AI technology is not a magic bullet that can solve all our problems. While it can certainly make some tasks easier and more efficient, it cannot replace the creativity, innovation, and human touch that is required in many industries. For example, an app that was developed in five minutes may be useful in some situations, but it cannot replace the need to enhance the value proposition

Moreover, the idea that AI will allow people to coast on the same value added without overheads is a misguided one. Added value requires a significant amount of investment and resources to develop and maintain, and it is not something that can be done without overheads. In fact, the cost of developing and implementing added value may make some human more valuable

Moreover, as AI and automation technologies become more widespread, they will create entirely new fields of work and new job roles that do not currently exist. For example, the development and implementation of AI and automation technologies will require a new generation of workers who are skilled in data analysis, programming, and AI training. These workers will be highly valued and will command high salaries.

One of the consequences of this technology is that it has raised the bar for businesses and individuals who want to compete in the marketplace. Specifically, it has become more difficult to generate positive cashflow because the value that needs to be generated has increase. In other words, businesses and individuals who want to compete in the marketplace now need to generate more value than they did in the past.

Finally, the rise of AI technology has led to an increase in the expectations of consumers. Consumers now expect faster, more efficient, and more personalized service than they did in the past. This means that businesses and individuals who want to compete in the marketplace need to generate more value in order to meet these expectations.

A larp wrapped in Braudilliana inside a simulation.

Web3 is a concept that refers to the decentralized web, where data, applications, and services are no longer controlled by a central authority but are instead distributed across a network of nodes. This idea of a decentralized internet is a shift away from the current Web2 model, which relies on centralized control by a few major tech companies. As we consider the potential implications of Web3, it’s worth exploring the analogy of a LARP wrapped in Braudilliana inside a simulation.

A LARP, or Live Action Role-Playing, is a type of game where participants physically embody fictional characters and interact with each other within a predetermined setting. Similarly, in Web3, we can imagine individuals taking on new roles as nodes on a decentralized network. They may participate in the validation of transactions, the storage of data, or the execution of smart contracts. In this sense, Web3 could be seen as a kind of game, where participants have to perform certain actions within a virtual environment to advance the plot.

The concept of Braudilliana refers to the blurring of the boundaries between reality and simulation, where the simulation becomes more real than reality itself. In Web3, we can imagine this taking the form of a virtual reality (VR) environment where participants interact with each other and with the network. This environment would be so immersive that individuals might forget they are playing a game, and the boundaries between the virtual world and reality would become blurred. For example, in a Web3-based social media platform, users might form strong connections with others within the network, even though they have never met in person.

Finally, we can imagine Web3 as a kind of simulation, where participants are testing out new roles and experimenting with new forms of interaction. The decentralized web presents a vast playground for experimentation, where individuals can test out new ideas without fear of censorship or repercussion. In this sense, Web3 is a simulation where participants can test out different scenarios and see how they play out in a decentralized environment.

In conclusion, the concept of Web3 can be seen as a LARP wrapped in Braudilliana inside a simulation. It’s a game where participants take on new roles within a decentralized network, where the boundaries between reality and the virtual world become blurred, and where individuals can test out new ideas and scenarios in a safe environment. As we explore the potential implications of Web3, we should keep in mind the playful and experimental nature of this new paradigm, and embrace the opportunities it presents for innovation and creativity.

Techowatermelon: Big heavy looking outfit or startup that goes to pieces on first test. It’s a Nassim Taleb neologism.

Nassim Taleb introduces the concept of the “techowatermelon” as a neologism to describe a startup that appears big and heavy-looking but ultimately falls apart upon its first test. This term is a metaphor for the fragility of certain businesses that are often presented as robust and stable but are, in reality, vulnerable to disruption.

The idea of the techowatermelon is particularly relevant in today’s fast-paced technological landscape, where new startups are popping up every day, vying for attention and funding. Many of these startups present themselves as the next big thing, with innovative ideas and cutting-edge technology. However, despite their impressive appearances, many of these startups are not built to withstand the challenges of the real world.

The techowatermelon phenomenon can be seen in many industries, including healthcare, finance, and transportation. In healthcare, for example, there have been numerous startups that promised to revolutionize the industry with their innovative technology. However, many of these startups have failed to live up to their promises, either because their technology was not as effective as they claimed, or because they were unable to gain traction in the market.

Similarly, in finance, there have been many startups that promised to disrupt traditional banking with their innovative online platforms. However, many of these startups have struggled to gain the trust of customers and investors, and some have even faced legal and regulatory challenges.

The transportation industry has also seen its fair share of techowatermelons. There have been numerous startups that promised to revolutionize transportation with their innovative electric vehicles or autonomous driving technology. However, many of these startups have struggled to scale their operations, and some have even faced safety concerns and regulatory challenges.

The phenomenon of the techowatermelon highlights the importance of being cautious when evaluating startups and new businesses. It is important to look beyond the hype and evaluate a startup’s technology, business model, and team before investing time or money. Additionally, it is essential to recognize that even the most promising startups can fail, and it is important to be prepared for the unexpected.

In conclusion, the techowatermelon is a powerful metaphor that highlights the fragility of many startups and new businesses. While these companies may appear big and heavy-looking, they often lack the resilience and adaptability needed to withstand the challenges of the real world. It is important to approach new businesses with caution, evaluate them carefully, and be prepared for the unexpected. By doing so, we can avoid falling victim to the techowatermelon phenomenon and invest our time and resources wisely.

^{I think large exits are toast. The narrow focus is stifling, the incentives misaligned and the concentration will eat itself.}

^{I think that’s what the sudden concern with fractional reserve banking is suddenly about.}

^{By doing the headless chicken act they’re probably speeding up the outcome they all have been trying so hard to avoid. Digital dollar and a fed account for all Americans}

In the context of venture capital, a “large exit” refers to a significant return on investment for the investors. Typically, this means that the company has gone public or been acquired at a high valuation, resulting in a substantial profit for the investors. The goal of venture capitalists is to identify startups with high growth potential and provide them with the capital and support they need to scale quickly and become valuable.

However, the focus on producing large exits has its downsides. It can lead to a concentration of funding in certain industries or technologies, and the prioritization of short-term gains over long-term benefits for society. Startups that do not fit this mold may struggle to secure funding, even if they have the potential to make a significant impact. Additionally, the pressure to achieve a large exit can result in companies prioritizing growth at all costs, even if it means disregarding ethical considerations or the well-being of their employees or customers.

In recent years, there has been a growing realization that the hundreds of billions of dollars deployed each year by venture capital firms in pursuit of “innovation” have not necessarily made the world a better place. Despite all the talk of unbridled innovation, venture capital services only promote specific types of innovation that promise large returns on investment with relatively low risk. This has resulted in a situation where some of the proudest accomplishments of venture capitalists have not necessarily contributed to society’s betterment.

This has led to situations where some of the most successful ventures in recent years have been those that seek to minimize labor costs while monopolizing their respective sectors, such as AI and the gig economy. While these technologies have undoubtedly brought some benefits, they have also contributed to the precarization of work and the erosion of workers’ rights. In the case of the gig economy, for instance, workers are often classified as independent contractors, depriving them of benefits such as healthcare and sick leave.

Another area where venture capitalists have been successful is in the creation of infrastructure for speculating on digital assets, such as cryptocurrency and the metaverse. While these technologies have the potential to revolutionize the way we transact and interact with each other, they also have the potential to commodify more and more of our daily lives. This could have negative consequences for our privacy, autonomy, and freedom.

Finally, venture capitalists have also been instrumental in the militarization of public space and the bolstering of police and military operations. This is particularly concerning given the increasing use of technology in law enforcement and military operations. Some of the technologies that venture capitalists have funded, such as facial recognition and predictive policing algorithms, have been criticized for perpetuating biases and contributing to the criminalization of marginalized communities.

There are already signs that some venture capitalists are starting to take this approach. Impact investing, for instance, is a growing trend in the industry, where investors seek to fund businesses that have a positive social or environmental impact. Similarly, some venture capitalists are beginning to focus on funding startups that prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusion. These are positive steps in the right direction, but more needs to be done.