Improving People or only Tech? @freeschool@qoto.org

#Quote from Intentional Community Living 16 Years in a Tiny Earth House

https://invidious.fdn.fr/watch?v=CaUB1qR2m30&t=09m30s

#IntentionalCommunity #Living #Community #Trauma #Work on #Yourself #Together

Quote 1 "LIVING TOGETHER is a lost archetype that we have to rediscover." 09m30s

Quote 2 "Sometimes you think that living in Community that you all become the same, actually exactly the opposite" 07m57s

#Freedom A multi faceted construct which extends beyond political ideology.

1. the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints

2. immunity from an obligation or duty

https://invidious.fdn.fr/channel/UCbVG3vMalDeRkXkwrs4HTtQ

freedom never ends as a fight

fighting means many types of fighting (from extreme and much lower level fights)

and if you're not fighting (conversing, emotionally helping or handling thing for others etc) then you're not maintaining freedom

fight for freedom (maintenance against big #wars happening) never ends...

Move out of the city and I will support you in many ways (also to find others).

Conflict resolution

Two people try to resolve - if they're not able to resolve it or it's not good enough

THEN

- they can take help from the community as a group chat to have MODERATED chat and review after

THEN

Do the same again if not enough -

Games to Switch-sides - I've heard to play games that swap places and discuss from the other persons point of view helps you the person to see it or be corrected from people what really happened or what it really means from the other's point of view....

Moderation and small games / role play are very powerful but need help from community and bit of planning (often not enough time is given by all which actually contributes as a #society or #individual)

#ConflictResolution #POV
#IntentionalCommunity

And even worse goes backwards a lot / feeds the negative spectrum because they only do the same with the free stuff - like add adverted links in Mastodon 🔗 posts - yeah millions of youtube ( ) links per day like an ad-farm!

Everyone needs someone retraining them for #betterpractices weekly and more personally!

#Mastodon users could use links like this for example that filter adverts:

https://invidious.fdn.fr/watch?v=P7NHABs76mg

Like #Nitter filters #Twitter -

and main page shows many filters from different countries

https://redirect.invidious.io/

So... Without people upgraded (in their mind or practices) all technology is rendered useless and sometimes worse!.... 👫 🔁 👫

#Training via those who know #admins / leaders are needed!!

#Question Do you think what money brings together or what is even free is #togetherness ?

In both cases of paid product or free... NOBODY REALLY CARES SOMETIMES !

Or they care up to a certain amount (doing the whole program and killing themselves) but really shallow level on the people side of things (walking through with users, explaining personally and emotionally, helping others understand the whole ethos).

#Mastodon included... can just disappear and people move on to the next free thing if NOBODY REALLY TRAINING LIKE LIVE / INSTANTLY - Not saying it's all bad but without people upgrade all tech is render useless.

So we have to do create ad-hoc ourselves... from scratch or what we have - money / job etc by design is flawed deliberately - PLEASE ACCEPT THOSE ROADS FOR MONEY ARE BAD AND MONEY (BANKS SELLING DEBT) IS ACTIVELY AGAINST ALL LIFE / DOMINATING IT / GIVING DEBT

Are you a dreamer... YES!

Knows it helps to create? YES!

OK ! Get in contact with me!

Not many are able to dream AT ALL so I'm asking...

And therefore they don't create much out of the boxes aid for them (and don't communicate for a start !)

So, it is about "Dreaming of a new world" as cliche as it is because people are really dry now and dying or it's corporate machine-related which is no user either...

Dream with me! Like this video about real community...

https://invidious.fdn.fr/watch?v=Jb4XNRN8qyc&t=7m07s

=========================
#Quote below from video (7m07s)
=========================

"Sometimes I feel like living in a community with other dreamers, there's always something to celebrate - at least the idea of creating something beautiful in the world together."

================================
EXTRA NOTES FROM ME THAT I WOULD LEAVE OUT
================================

(NO NEED READ)

That's the point of #together - if you think what money brings together or what is even free is #togetherness YOU'RE WRONG - in both cases NOBODY CARES SOMETIMES

so we have to do create ad-hoc ourselves... from scratch or what we have - money / job etc by design is flawed deliberately - PLEASE ACCEPT THOSE ROADS FOR MONEY ARE BAD AND MONEY (BANKS SELLING DEBT) IS ACTIVELY AGAINST ALL LIFE / DOMINATING IT / GIVING DEBT

Need to dream and create out of this one, my good people.

Together as individuals and less the real #colonial #pirates of old 🚢 who are still #stealing from #everyone...

#Fediverse people drying out -

Anyone got some water 🐃 - give me a wave 🌊 and recommend someone!

(anyone recommend but not just another one-way poster! please say)

JAOWP - Just Another One Way Poster

#Jitsi is like #Zoom calls but in browser and for freedoms - Try it!

https://jitsi.riot.im/

No software / No Acc login! Instant!
= No hassle!!

Jitsi chat! = #Free #Alternatives

#Audio #Video #Privacy
#OpenSource #WebRTC

New #Terminology in #Language

for #Invention,
for #Dreaming
for #Communication
for #Emotional #Intelligence etc

" What did we call “clickbait” before that word came into being?
Or “binge-watching,” or “humblebragging"... "

" Diogenes also needed to coin new terms to describe the way he
wanted to relate to the world. When people asked him where he was from, he replied that he was “a citizen of the world” – a kosmopolitês or “cosmopolitan.”

No one had ever said this before, so no one knew what it meant.

The term certainly didn’t have the connotation it has today."

===================
WHY I LIKE THIS #QUOTE :
===================

The above quote feels like the same for emotional communication between people -
because today you might as well say "nobody cares" or that "language doesn't care" by it's more authoritarian Germanic style (English included).

===================
Anyway if you know what I mean
get in contact - message me.
===================

Interesting title right?

Does Humanity Really Face a 1 in 6 Chance of Dying This Century?

in ... I hope so!

Pasted below article for speed and by-passing annoying cookie warning...

====================
Does Humanity Really Face a 1 in 6 Chance of Dying This Century?
====================

09 October 2023 By Steven Stern, The Conversation
Human Skulls (Picture by Lucas van Oort/Unsplash)

In 2020, Oxford-based philosopher Toby Ord published a book called The Precipice about the risk of human extinction. He put the chances of "existential catastrophe" for our species during the next century at one in six.

It's quite a specific number, and an alarming one. The claim drew headlines at the time, and has been influential since – most recently brought up by Australian politician Andrew Leigh in a speech in Melbourne.

It's hard to disagree with the idea we face troubling prospects over the coming decades, from climate change, nuclear weapons and bio-engineered pathogens (all big issues in my view), to rogue AI and large asteroids (which I would see as less concerning).

But what about that number? Where does it come from? And what does it really mean?
Coin flips and weather forecasts

To answer those questions, we have to answer another first: what is probability?

The most traditional view of probability is called frequentism, and derives its name from its heritage in games of dice and cards. On this view, we know there is a one in six chance a fair die will come up with a three (for example) by observing the frequency of threes in a large number of rolls.

Or consider the more complicated case of weather forecasts. What does it mean when a weatherperson tells us there is a one in six (or 17%) chance of rain tomorrow?

It's hard to believe the weatherperson means us to imagine a large collection of "tomorrows", of which some proportion will experience precipitation. Instead, we need to look at a large number of such predictions and see what happened after them.

If the forecaster is good at their job, we should see that when they said "one in six chance of rain tomorrow", it did in fact rain on the following day one time in every six.

So, traditional probability depends on observations and procedure. To calculate it, we need to have a collection of repeated events on which to base our estimate.
Can we learn from the Moon?

So what does this mean for the probability of human extinction? Well, such an event would be a one-off: after it happened, there would be no room for repeats.

Instead, we might find some parallel events to learn from. Indeed, in Ord's book, he discusses a number of potential extinction events, some of which can potentially be examined in light of a history.
A photo of the Moon with craters highlighted.
Counting craters on the Moon can gives us clues about the risk of asteroid impacts on Earth. (NASA)

For example, we can estimate the chances of an extinction-sized asteroid hitting Earth by examining how many such space rocks have hit the Moon over its history. A French scientist named Jean-Marc Salotti did this in 2022, calculating the odds of an extinction-level hit in the next century at around one in 300 million.

Of course, such an estimate is fraught with uncertainty, but it is backed by something approaching an appropriate frequency calculation. Ord, by contrast, estimates the risk of extinction by asteroid at one in a million, though he does note a considerable degree of uncertainty.
A ranking system for outcomes

There is another way to think about probability, called Bayesianism after the English statistician Thomas Bayes. It focuses less on events themselves and more on what we know, expect and believe about them.

In very simple terms, we can say Bayesians see probabilities as a kind of ranking system. In this view, the specific number attached to a probability shouldn't be taken directly, but rather compared to other probabilities to understand which outcomes are more and less likely.

Ord's book, for example, contains a table of potential extinction events and his personal estimates of their probability. From a Bayesian perspective, we can view these values as relative ranks.

Ord thinks extinction from an asteroid strike (one in a million) is much less likely than extinction from climate change (one in a thousand), and both are far less likely than extinction from what he calls "unaligned artificial intelligence" (one in ten).

The difficulty here is that initial estimates of Bayesian probabilities (often called "priors") are rather subjective (for instance, I would rank the chance of AI-based extinction much lower). Traditional Bayesian reasoning moves from "priors" to "posteriors" by again incorporating observational evidence of relevant outcomes to "update" probability values.

And once again, outcomes relevant to the probability of human extinction are thin on the ground.
Subjective estimates

There are two ways to think about the accuracy and usefulness of probability calculations: calibration and discrimination.

Calibration is the correctness of the actual values of the probabilities. We can't determine this without appropriate observational information. Discrimination, on the other hand, simply refers to the relative rankings.

We don't have a basis to think Ord's values are properly calibrated. Of course, this is not likely to be his intent. He himself indicates they are mostly designed to give "order of magnitude" indications.

Even so, without any related observational confirmation, most of these estimates simply remain in the subjective domain of prior probabilities.
Not well calibrated – but perhaps still useful

So what are we to make of "one in six"? Experience suggests most people have a less than perfect understanding of probability (as evidenced by, among other things, the ongoing volume of lottery ticket sales).

In this environment, if you're making an argument in public, an estimate of "probability" doesn't necessarily need to be well calibrated – it just needs to have the right sort of psychological impact.

From this perspective, I'd say "one in six" fits the bill nicely. "One in 100" might feel small enough to ignore, while "one in three" might drive panic or be dismissed as apocalyptic raving.

As a person concerned about the future, I hope risks like climate change and nuclear proliferation get the attention they deserve. But as a data scientist, I hope the careless use of probability gets left by the wayside and is replaced by widespread education on its true meaning and appropriate usage.The Conversation

Steven Stern, Professor of Data Science, Bond University

#CreativeCommons #Science #Website #ScienceAlert

https://www.sciencealert.com/does-humanity-really-face-a-1-in-6-chance-of-dying-this-century

#Algorithms #Privacy #InvisibleHands #InvisibleSystems

Algorithms that analyze user behavior and data are completely not encouraging #privacy friendly behaviour.

We can't see or know the half of it in any Algorithms - so it's flawed anywhere it exists. Perhaps open source stuff (if you can read it) but I'm realising nothing made simple and as a tick box of consent is going to be bad.

With true consent (people read and choose which tick boxes and feature they want) I might accept a basic hand-written algorithm from more trusted admin who is also a user we can see as daily life

- for example
a link to similar people who agree together they might get requests from this group to chat randomly
(as a wanted human-engineering thing it which seems humans need a bit of a prod and push to mingle).

Not AI though as anything more advanced than scripts perhaps, I would not tick that box as OK "Algorithms".

https://invidious.fdn.fr/watch?v=10Yqy0TKRPU&t=7m11s

"Coming from the city I never really put my hands into the dirt so to say...".

- 7 years of living in an eco village

...earlier was said ...

"We really put high value on action and really being able to realise the dreams that you have and make them something that you can touch" #quote #video

Because if you only dream about something or only have ideas and don't really incarnate them then you can't really see that another way is possible... that you're really serious about something..."

" #Growing your own food... a theme for many people around the world who really want to break out of the #system ..." #quote #video

- 7 years of living in an eco village

https://invidious.fdn.fr/watch?v=10Yqy0TKRPU&t=2m46s

It's true it's not all #community does but it should be more and more incremented... own current as " social " itself so at least you know someone else you can #HELP #grow...

More values, SHARED!

...continued...

"Because if you only dream about something or only have ideas and don't really incarnate them then you can't really see that another way is possible... that you're really serious about something..."

"Coming from the city I never really put my hands into the dirt".

Richard Stallman @rms is posting things right now!!....

copying the Guardian newspaper links... WOW it's "amazing" mainstream news again from RMS AND nothing personal from him related how we can help him or anyone else about anything!

Where's the personal stuff RMS Sunshine! 🌅

Is it just regurgitated #mainstream media like a 1:1 #copy - Richard come on! 🤭

Have a look yourself dear reader,
just one after the other newspaper or common links !

Seriously though... So sad and nothing revolutionary or pioneer in just link-machining those things that's like everywhere and actually totally impersonal as you can see he hand types this but doesn't really reply to anyone.

⌚ Waste of his and your time in terms of any goal I can think of....

UNLESS... I turn off The Guardian newspaper and leave on his feed !!!
#RMS #Feedback

Banks are working in the negative spectrum of math and numbers.
Debt.

[door to the shop (called "Bank") opens]

🏦 "hello Sir!" 🏦 Can we sell you some debt today? Ah, no money anywhere in system right, I know, I know!... Well, right this way then!"

Banks basically ask people to sign for loans with what the bank doesn't always have in the Bank.

Banks just create debt based on your promise (and signing they can take your house if you can't pay) and give you debt which it can in turn give / re-loan as more digits (called money) over and over in time
- making this a kind of #ponzi #scheme or loan shark thing with them letting you borrow from someone else who paid them high interest from loans.

🚨 We never know how much money our Bank(s) have so that's a bad thing - If we knew they don't have money we might trick ourselves less that this "infinite" source is actually all a big con.

Usually until they need bailing out (paying off) using Public money(!) people don't even realise their whole life and think numbers are true (positive) but Banks are working in the negative spectrum of math.