The model I present in that presentation I now call the tapestry model and I conjecture 1) we need to employ it if we’re ever going to build a decentralized web (ie a functioning WoT) and 2) the brain already implements the model.

And the brain of any social organism has got to have an internal representation of the external WoT — one could consider that to be part of the definition of “social.” If a cortical column (or some other patch of neurons) represents an individual in one’s WoT, and contextual trust ratings are calculated for that individual, then would that qualify as neurons having reputation? Perhaps so!

You and I have two (at least) things in common: interest in WoT and interest in Hawkins’ 1000 brains hypothesis. You might find the half hour presentation in my profile of interest, where I propose a connection between the decentralized web and the cortex, which I argue is also decentralized, in the sense that there is no single neuron, cortical column, or brain region that is in charge of the entire CNS (as evidenced for example by corpus callosotomy patients). Can’t remember if I mention thousand brains in that talk but longer versions of the talk definitely make mention of it. Fits in very well.

This is the type of development I like to see! 🔥 🔥 🔥

Check out my article in habla where I make the case that lists will play an important role in building the decentralized web.

https://habla.news/a/naddr1qqxnzd3e8yurjd35xuurwvfnqgs98k45ww24g26dl8yatvefx3qrkaglp2yzu6dm3hv2vcxl822lqtgrqsqqqa28tg539d nostr:note1ujjmvxy3py7g5rrppg0dyvh3vg4uh4snfdygn25h7s4h7akvjrpquetv4y

NIP-51 uses parameterized replaceable events for lists, which allows you to add/remove items on the list by replacing the old event with a new event. It’s the “same list” by virtue of the fact that the author, list name, and event kind are unchanged.

This is precisely why the notion of using web of trust to generate loose consensus is important.

Most people don’t want to select NIPs themselves and don’t even want to select the people who select the NIPs. WoT allows Alice to select the people who select the people who select the people (ad infinitum) who select the NIPs. For most non controversial topics, Alice and Bob’s WoT will end up converging onto the same small handful of people with both expertise and interest. They’ll end up getting identical answers for most questions.

For the small number of topics that are controversial, they may get different answers. Which is what makes it “loose.”

perfection nostr:note1dgwgughk05dvg54d44czrzjrjscd8ha75sy470ggulgaf3tdzjyq4ewp9y

I recently started using habla for long form. Not very polished yet but it works, which is the main thing. I like it.

Which means if you and others want to see it, devs gonna have to hear you ask for it. And I hope you do. Very loudly!

Right now this feature (a-tag support for NIP-51 lists) is not implemented anywhere in the wild with the exception of my own rickety personal playground nostr desktop client. I’d love to see that change! 🙏🏼

The protocol can do this with NIP-51 and the “a” tag but it’s not easy to implement so the question is whether users want it or not. No reason for devs to build something that users don’t want.

Like I want a list of nostr devs, but I don’t want to manage the list myself, so I pick 3 or 4 other people who already have lists on listr called “nostr devs” (there’s actually like 10 or 15 I think with that exact list name) and merge them all together.

If you could create a list that imports items from lists managed by other people and gets updated automatically whenever those lists get updated, would you have a use for that?

In honor of last week's failed Treasuries auction, I just ordered Mandibles on Amazon.

do I grok this correctly?

vote for Trudeau! he may be bad, but, umm, well, he’s not as bad as a Russian invasion! 😂

👍🏻

I have my own client, so I can tinker.

General relativity: I am NOT at the center of THE universe. (I = my frame of reference, and there is no preferred frame of reference.)

Quantum mechanics: I AM at the center of MY universe. (Who is the observer who triggers collapse of the wavefunction? It is me!)

Each of the above statements is tautologically true. They are basically the basis of how we define me and universe.

I may be at the center of MY universe. But not THE universe.

Absolutely. Many of science’s greatest revolutions can be understood as the difficult process of unlearning the incorrect notion that we are at the center of the universe.

The essential characteristics of a decentralized community are:

A single shared set of tools for mutual interaction, where “interaction” could mean transaction (btc), communication (nostr), etc.

No one is necessarily in charge of those tools.

No one necessarily has a bird’s eye view of the entire community.

Who curates the tools? Everyone (consensus is reached). No one (no leaders).

Consensus on some given set of tools therefore becomes the *definition* of that decentralized community. The act of consent to the community’s tools for interaction equals membership in the community.

It’s important to note that communities can be of any size and can overlap. Community A = people who use standard basic English, community B = the people who prefer to-MAY-to, community C = the people who prefer to-MAH-to. Communities B and C overlap community A. The union of B and C equals community A, more or less.

Web of trust means that I get to choose the people who choose the people who choose the people (ad infinitum) who provide whatever info I’m looking for.