Richard Northover
@richard.northover.info
Adjective verber of nouns.
Thoughts here are my own.
Thoughts here are my own.
As a <subject>
I want to <predicate>
So that I can <predicate> <object>
🙌🏻
I want to <predicate>
So that I can <predicate> <object>
🙌🏻
June 26, 2025 at 7:02 AM
As a <subject>
I want to <predicate>
So that I can <predicate> <object>
🙌🏻
I want to <predicate>
So that I can <predicate> <object>
🙌🏻
Party like it’s 1999 🎉
June 26, 2025 at 6:51 AM
Party like it’s 1999 🎉
Are you in a timewarp?
June 26, 2025 at 6:43 AM
Are you in a timewarp?
Story this morning about one part of the data bill being blocked, and this meaning that other parts are *also* blocked, chimes with this idea. Make small commits, not massive releases…
June 5, 2025 at 8:12 AM
Story this morning about one part of the data bill being blocked, and this meaning that other parts are *also* blocked, chimes with this idea. Make small commits, not massive releases…
Well, I try not to “inhabit” it. I’m listening to you because I’m interested and open to learning. Don’t assume I agree with all the things you disagree with. As I say, thanks for the exchange, it’s been really interesting and powerful.
June 4, 2025 at 5:57 PM
Well, I try not to “inhabit” it. I’m listening to you because I’m interested and open to learning. Don’t assume I agree with all the things you disagree with. As I say, thanks for the exchange, it’s been really interesting and powerful.
Good point. I like the idea of moving away from “papers” and towards “units of information” that can be examined and replicated. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It’s an evolutionary process.
June 4, 2025 at 5:35 PM
Good point. I like the idea of moving away from “papers” and towards “units of information” that can be examined and replicated. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It’s an evolutionary process.
Not *just* identity though… I’m not saying that you can trust something because of who said it… but it’s harder to trust something when you don’t have a way to connect the dots and filter out deliberate deception.
June 4, 2025 at 4:19 PM
Not *just* identity though… I’m not saying that you can trust something because of who said it… but it’s harder to trust something when you don’t have a way to connect the dots and filter out deliberate deception.
I get it, really. I think we’re talking about slightly different things here, hard to tease out in a thread. I think you should be judged on your ideas not your label… but I think there’s probably something about the *reputation over time* of your pseudonym. What if you had dozens of impersonators?
June 4, 2025 at 3:56 PM
I get it, really. I think we’re talking about slightly different things here, hard to tease out in a thread. I think you should be judged on your ideas not your label… but I think there’s probably something about the *reputation over time* of your pseudonym. What if you had dozens of impersonators?
We agree. Nullius in verba. I’m *not* talking about believing someone’s claims because of their authority. I’m talking about honest signalling, and how to maintain trust in a world where people try to deliberately manipulate, which is a problem (and an even more serious one, arguably, with AI etc.)
June 4, 2025 at 3:49 PM
We agree. Nullius in verba. I’m *not* talking about believing someone’s claims because of their authority. I’m talking about honest signalling, and how to maintain trust in a world where people try to deliberately manipulate, which is a problem (and an even more serious one, arguably, with AI etc.)
I was thinking "institution", yes. But it's far from simple, I agree. Humans haven't worked this out yet, which is why I think it's interesting. Genuine question: what's your solution, if you have one? What should I read to understand your thinking?
June 4, 2025 at 1:01 PM
I was thinking "institution", yes. But it's far from simple, I agree. Humans haven't worked this out yet, which is why I think it's interesting. Genuine question: what's your solution, if you have one? What should I read to understand your thinking?
They’re not ALL unreliable, no. Some of them could be. That’s a difficult thing to balance. I’m not arguing against properly blind peer review, or anything like that… I’m thinking about trustable signals where they’re helpful to everyone involved (and not where they’re not). Good to debate this…
June 4, 2025 at 12:35 PM
They’re not ALL unreliable, no. Some of them could be. That’s a difficult thing to balance. I’m not arguing against properly blind peer review, or anything like that… I’m thinking about trustable signals where they’re helpful to everyone involved (and not where they’re not). Good to debate this…
I’m thinking more about “accountability to other things that themselves can be held accountable” - *not* “authority”. That would go against the whole idea of science…
June 4, 2025 at 12:25 PM
I’m thinking more about “accountability to other things that themselves can be held accountable” - *not* “authority”. That would go against the whole idea of science…
Meanwhile, mandatory sign in if you want to watch or listen. Progress.
June 4, 2025 at 11:27 AM
Meanwhile, mandatory sign in if you want to watch or listen. Progress.
Trust and accountability feedback loops help make science more robust against fraud, and more practical. With unlimited time and resources, yes, it makes sense to judge *everything* on the content alone. Do you know anyone with unlimited time and resources? I see where you’re coming from, though.
June 3, 2025 at 11:05 PM
Trust and accountability feedback loops help make science more robust against fraud, and more practical. With unlimited time and resources, yes, it makes sense to judge *everything* on the content alone. Do you know anyone with unlimited time and resources? I see where you’re coming from, though.
OK: point taken. But what would happen if you randomised your pseudonym every time, and if everyone everywhere did the same? Not just at peer review but always? I agree it would be philosophically right to check *all* aspects of everything from first principles every time, but it has its drawbacks.
June 3, 2025 at 10:48 PM
OK: point taken. But what would happen if you randomised your pseudonym every time, and if everyone everywhere did the same? Not just at peer review but always? I agree it would be philosophically right to check *all* aspects of everything from first principles every time, but it has its drawbacks.
…how do we get “good” and “bad” stuff defined? Is this just that there are different “idealised end states”? I mean, is this less about leaders and more about… disagreement? (Speaking as someone who tends to agree with you…)
June 3, 2025 at 10:24 PM
…how do we get “good” and “bad” stuff defined? Is this just that there are different “idealised end states”? I mean, is this less about leaders and more about… disagreement? (Speaking as someone who tends to agree with you…)
Yep. The fact that you *have* to sign in to use it or Sounds reveals that it’s about user data collection, not information education or entertainment.
April 1, 2025 at 11:43 AM
Yep. The fact that you *have* to sign in to use it or Sounds reveals that it’s about user data collection, not information education or entertainment.