Comment on Featured Annotator: Jon Udell by Mark Szpakowski

I posted this comment on YouTube:

@18:20 Udell: “How do we align our tools and systems with our own agendas? That’s not a technical question – it’s a key question.” This seems to be the crux. I’d suggest three parts to it. 1) How do we, both as individuals and as groups, and in both cases as complex adaptive anticipatory systems, recognize our own intentionalities, and then, as necessary, re-frame those? It seems in our anthropocene epoch we cannot afford lack of such emote-cognitive self-awareness. 2) How do we then align those intentionalities with those of our tool systems (and how do we express, articulate, and encode those in software)? 3) Looking to the onrushing autonomous agency of software, how does software itself internalize and develop/adapt intentionality? And in all those parts, what is the cross-cutting aspect of care (to complement that of intelligence/knowing)?

Comment on Engelbart Framework Project podcast 1 by skreutzer

Wait, so in the podcast, you’re reading the paper? I’m just confused how this stuff works legally (which is a very broken human system that can’t be fixed and few use the alternatives, or not properly). It might well be that the Hypothes.is annotations are rendered on top of the version the Douglas Engelbart Institute uses with non-transferable permission, which is a way to pretend that no legal problem exists, but it means that if the underlying source goes away, the annotations remain orphaned as you’re not allowed to redistribute the underlying material together with your annotations independently. Furthermore, what’s the copyright license of the annotations? I guess you can’t use the annotations of the other authors, and for them it’s the same with yours, right? Are you able to identify and contact each author, ask if they’re fine with libre-free licensing their contributions, and get their consent? And then, reading the original text and redistributing it requires permission from the copyright holder, do you have that, probably non-transferable? Or is or can your reading be libre-freely licensed, in which case audio (in contrast to the text) would be an option for me to annotate the paper, be it with text or audio annotations?

Comment on Week 1 of the Framework Annotation event begins today by skreutzer

If this is a C level activity, what are your A and B level activities?

Together with your interpretation of Engelbart, I tend to agree that he developed and then used/applied a system theory approach (but not necessarily the canonical, orthodox one, potentially a separate of his own). There’s of course a long tradition of systemic thinking and cybernetics, but a major, exceptional difference is that he applied it practically, it didn’t remain just the framework, but also an implementation. And in this regard, how could the 1962 report even attempt to reasonably describe any of the complex, urgent problems, and to what end? The report isn’t proposing to solve them as individual issues, but a meta-approach that’s supposed to help with all of them. Just for example, the 1962 terrors are certainly very different from the 2019 terrors and both very different from the many different WW2 terrors. Whatever the 1962 report would have suggested to address these issues, it would be obsolete by now 10 times.

There would be more to say, but I’m quite convinced that it’s all very well known already and hardly surprising.

Comment on Annotate and Augment: The Engelbart Framework Project by skreutzer

If it’s not libre-freely licensed or in the Public Domain, I don’t see why one would want to annotate a source if the source can go away or be restricted. I would want to save my annotations together with the source, share/distribute/publish the combination myself, print it, sell it, have others sell it, intermix both parts, etc. Merely reading it to load it into individual brains is slow, doesn’t scale, and isn’t augmented at all, so there’s little effect of it other than the modified thinking resulting in other separate, new expressions that are not the original source artifact.

Comment on Annotate and Augment: The Engelbart Framework Project by skreutzer

If it’s not libre-freely licensed or in the Public Domain, I don’t see why one would want to annotate a source if the source can go away or be restricted. I would want to save my annotations together with the source, share/distribute/publish the combination myself, print it, sell it, have others sell it, intermix both parts, etc. Merely reading it to load it into individual brains is slow, doesn’t scale, and isn’t augmented at all, so there’s little effect of it other than the modified thinking resulting in other separate, new expressions that are not the original source artifact.