Joey DeBruin

Much of this knowledge is highly specific, and isn't captured in the literature. We can call this 'tacit' knowledge. To this end, science isn't really the literature - the literature is a partial representation of what we know. The full range of what we know lives inside the minds of researchers.

The divide between those who do and don’t own capital is an important driver of widening wealth inequality [50]. Forms of accessible co-ownership could be an antidote to chronic wage stagnation and anxieties about job-replacing automation.

Consider vacuum tubes. It was obvious to nobody that they would enable the first computers. This only became clear after vacuum tubes and associated computing discoveries had been made, so that someone could make the connection. If you had set out to build a computer in the 1800s (as Charles Babbage did), it’s unlikely that you would have drawn... See more

real scientific understanding arises from synthesising a wide range of literature, because synthesis is the mechanism that provides the context which makes a paper understandable...Given this fact, the interface should be primarily responsible for enabling efficient synthesis

public goods are not public goods if the public cannot understand them

The modern Idea Machine better reflects how people self-organize today. They are decentralized, more closely intertwined with public dialogue, and work symbiotically with a community that anyone can join: many individual nodes operating in a loosely-organized network, instead of a monolithic organization.

if you come from a culture where the ‘argument is war’ metaphor pervades thought and language, then you’ll defend your position at all costs and attack your opponent with the hopes of total victory. But if you come from a culture where argument is seen as a dance, perhaps your behavior and expectations would radically change.