What I expect from 2018 (to be updated at the end of 2018)

In the About section I wrote: “This blog contains ideas from the future”. Well let me look into my crystal ball. Then, at the end of 2018 I shall update this post and compare.

This is about stuff I expect to do in 2018, and stuff I expect to happen in 2018, or even things I hope to happen in 2018.

Before that a short review of what I think is significant to remember at the end of 2017.

  • all soft and hard is wrecked beyond any paranoid dream. There is nothing we can trust. Trust does not exist any more, as an effect.
  • in particular there is no trust in deterministic randomness 😉 so boy, how safe are your bitcoins…
  • all corporate Net is dead for the few intelligent people, but in the same time many discover the Net today and they love it! It is the new TV, don’t tell me that you expect from TV to be interactive. You hold the remote, but otherwise you “Got thirteen channels of shit on the T.V. to choose from“.
  • corporate Net is hands in in hands with the legacy publishers, because of a simple reason: science brings authority, so you don’t mess with science dissemination. If you mess with it then you question authority, or in this human world there is nothing else than authority which keeps things going as expected.

Now, what I expect to do in 2018:

  • write articles in the classic arXiv style, short if possible, with programs repositories if possible (projected: NN, space, thermodynamics, engineering, computing)
  • if these articles (on new subjects! or on older subjects but with new techniques) make wou want to change the world to gether then I exist in the meatspace, 3d version and I welcome you to visit me or me to visit you, all else is futile
  • shall do mostly mathematics, but you know the thing about mathematics…

What I expect to happen in 2018:

  • the Net will turn in TV completely
  • “content creators”, i.e. those morons who produce the lowest possible quality (lack of) content for TV and cinema, will be fucked by big data. It is enough to get all the raw cinema footage and some NN magic in order to deliver, on individual demand, content better than anything those media professional morons can deliver. And of course much cheaper, therefore…
  • I expect a big fat nice money bubble to burst, because money laundering is a fundamental part of the actual economy

What I hope to happen in 2018:

  •  new hardware
  • real meatspace randomness devices
  • more distributed automata (like bitcoin) to suck up the economy
  • diversification, because not anybody can be among the handful of deep state corporate beings.

OK, what do you think? Lay here your forecast, if you wish… or dare.

Advertisements

Open Science: “a complete institution for the use of learners”

The quote is from 1736. You can see it on the front page of the book “The method of fluxions and infinite series” by Newton, “translated from the author’s Latin original not yet made publick” (nobody is perfect, we know now where this secrecy led in the dispute with Leibniz over the invention of the differential calculus).

newton

That should be the goal of any open science research output.

What we have at the end of 2017?

  • Sci-hub. Pros: not corporate. It does not matter where you output your article, as long as it becomes available to any learner. Cons:  only old style articles, not more. So not a full solution.
  • ArXiv. Pros: simple, proved to be reliable long term. Cons: only articles.
  • Zenodo. Pros: not corporate, lots of space for present needs. Cons: not playable.
  • Github. Pros: good for publicly and visibly share and discuss over articles and programs. Cons: corporate, not reliable in the long term.
  • Git in general. Pros: excellent tool.
  • Blockchain. Pros: excellent tool.

I have not added anything about BOAI inspired Open Access because it is something from the past. It was just a trick to delay the demise of legacy publishing style, it was done over the heads of researchers, basically a deal between publishers and academic managers, for them to be able to siphon research $  and stiffle the true open access movement.

Conclusion: at the moment there are only timid and partial proposals for open science as “a complete institution for the use of learners”. Open science is not a new idea. Open science is the natural way to do science.

There is only one way to do it: share. Let’s do it!