n stark opposition to Otlet’s insistence that an ideal KOS be impersonaland universal, Kaiser firmly held to the view that, ideally, KOSs should beconstructed to meet the needs of the particular organizations for which they arebeing created. For example, with regard to the use of card indexes in businessenterprises, he asserted that “[e]ach business, each office has its individualcharacter and individual requirements, and its individual organization. Itssystem must do justice to this individual character [11, § 76].

Otlet, by contrast, was strongly opposed to organizing information unitsby the alphabetical order of their index terms. In his view, such a mode oforganization “scatters the [subject] matter under rubrics that have beenclassed arbitrarily in the order of letters and not at all in the order of ideas”and so obscures the conceptual relationships between them [6, p. 380]

Whereas Otlet and Kaiser were in substantial agreement on both thedesirability of information analysis and its technological implementation inthe form of the card system, they parted company on the question of howindex files were to be organized. Both men favored organizing informationunits by subject, but differed as to the type of KO framework that shouldgovern file sequence: Otlet favored filing according to the classificatory orderof the UDC, whereas Kaiser favored filing according to the alphabeticalorder of the terms used to denote subjects

Your application code should not be dealing with PID files, log redirection or other low-level concerns.

Flexible view control

upport cross-divisional thinking and that the best ideas are already in a company and it's just a matter of sort of um getting people together

these are the seven main thrusts of the series

most of what we do when we look at power is we say, "This person is bad, let's get them out." And then we end up with another bad person a few minutes later or a few months later. And as a result of that, we end up replicating the exact same problems over and over and over.

And so when we have this simplistic view of power, we're missing the story. What you really need is a system that attracts the right kind of people 01:18:20 so that the diplomats who are clean and nice and rule-following end up in power. Then you need a system that gives them all the right incentives to follow the rules once they get there. And then if you do have people who break the rules, there needs to be consequences. So the study from UN diplomats and their parking behavior actually, I think, illuminates a huge amount of very interesting dynamics around power,

the reason I focus on the system so much is not just because it's something that's so important, it is, but also because it's the most straightforward thing to change. Trying to change a psychopath or trying to change a bad leader is hard.

systems make an enormous difference. Systems make a difference on a few levels. The first is that rotten systems attract rotten people.

if we want to end up with a world that is shaped by the best of us, rather than very often the worst of us, we have to think carefully, we have to engineer a system.

How do you maintain the interdisciplinarity of your zettlekasten? .t3_10f9tnk._2FCtq-QzlfuN-SwVMUZMM3 { --postTitle-VisitedLinkColor: #9b9b9b; --postTitleLink-VisitedLinkColor: #9b9b9b; --postBodyLink-VisitedLinkColor: #989898; }

The paradox of information systems[edit] Drummond suggests in her paper in 2008 that computer-based information systems can undermine or even destroy the organisation that they were meant to support, and it is precisely what makes them useful that makes them destructive – a phenomenon encapsulated by the Icarus Paradox.[9] For examples, a defence communication system is designed to improve efficiency by eliminating the need for meetings between military commanders who can now simply use the system to brief one another or answer to a higher authority. However, this new system becomes destructive precisely because the commanders no longer need to meet face-to-face, which consequently weakened mutual trust, thus undermining the organisation.[10] Ultimately, computer-based systems are reliable and efficient only to a point. For more complex tasks, it is recommended for organisations to focus on developing their workforce. A reason for the paradox is that rationality assumes that more is better, but intensification may be counter-productive.[11]

A short interaction with any bureaucratic system wouldbe overwhelmingly convincing in this respect. Symbol-mediated systems that excel at objectifyingsome preselected outcomes, isolating and de-contextualising them, harnessing everything else for theircontinuous self-promotion, putting the production loop on a perpetual repeat and failing to makesense of the fact that the results are not what people originally had in mind—are they not ubiquitous?

the two questions that we hopefully would uh try to answer with with this r d program is and and one of this i already 00:56:53 mentioned but out of all conceivable designs for societal systems so so so this isn't about capitalism versus socialism or something like that there's like i would think there's an unlimited 00:57:05 potential we're creative we're creative people there would be a million varieties of of societal systems and integrated societal systems that we might come up with 00:57:17 and some of those probably would work very well and some of them probably would work very poorly um so among those what what might be among the best and not the the single best that's not the purpose either it's not just to find one thing that works is 00:57:30 to find like a you know more of a a variety a process of things a mix mishmash of things that community the communities can choose to implement that you know 00:57:43 works well for them and that suits them and that works well for their neighbors and works well forever it works well for the whole really

Drum or bag – a mechanism that requires replacement of the drum or bag that collects the matter.

The air to cloth ratio is the amount of air that passes through a square foot of the filter. The lower the ratio, the higher quality of the filtration system's efficiency.

Though a fan or blower may have a simple design, when installed in a dust collection system, several factors have to be considered. First of those factors is the volume of air that needs to be moved. This is measured in cubic feet per minute (CFM). The next consideration is the static pressure throughout the whole system. Other variables are the temperature, substances in the air, and the level of moisture.

+----------------------- | RESOURCE EXISTS ? (if private it is often checked AFTER auth check) +----------------------- | | NO | v YES v +----------------------- 404 | IS LOGGED-IN ? (authenticated, aka user session) or +----------------------- 401 | | 403 NO | | YES 3xx v v 401 +----------------------- (404 no reveal) | CAN ACCESS RESOURCE ? (permission, authorized, ...) or +----------------------- redirect | | to login NO | | YES | | v v 403 OK 200, redirect, ... (or 404: no reveal) (or 404: resource does not exist if private) (or 3xx: redirection)

To better understand what is actually possible have a look at the full example

Here's the four case: foo.js Load/Require dependencies Concatenate dependencies foo.js.map Load foo.js Currently grabs metadata[:map] from asset to build an asset, need to move that generation somewhere else to accomplish de-coupling map generation foo.debug.js Load foo.js Load foo.js.map Add comment to end of foo.js with path to foo.js.map foo.source.js The raw file on disk, the map file will need to point to source files.

A leaked snippet of the endpoint architectural design draft document, highly confidential.

Diagram of interactions

Top level architecture

If you want to implement a form with a superb User Experience, you have to take care of many variables:

Good instructional design is based on the industry-standard Instructional System Design (ISD) model. The ISD model comprises five stages—analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation—and is a systems approach to instructional design in that it views “human organizations and activities as systems in which inputs, outputs, processes (throughputs), and feedback and control elements are the salient features.”

Instmctional systen1S design (IS D ) is the process for creating instructional sys­tems. It is both systematic and scientific in that it is d ocume ntable , replicable in its general application, and leads to predictable outcomes

A React implementation of Spectrum, Adobe’s design system.

Designing with constraints. Using inline styles, every value is a magic number. With utilities, you're choosing styles from a predefined design system, which makes it much easier to build visually consistent UIs.

Indexes are a cornerstone of information retrieval, and the basis for today's modern search engines.

This is known as collapsed forwarding.

four of the more important ones are caches, proxies, indexes and load balancers.

benchmark different alternatives, understand how the system will fail, and have a solid plan for when failure happens.

with the Flickr architecture each shard would need to be updated or searched (or a search service would need to be created to collate that metadata—which is in fact what they do).

Finally, this separates future concerns, which would make it easier to troubleshoot and scale a problem like slow reads.

Deconstructing a system into a set of complementary services decouples the operation of those pieces from one another. This abstraction helps establish clear relationships between the service, its underlying environment, and the consumers of that service. Creating these clear delineations can help isolate problems, but also allows each piece to scale independently of one another. This sort of service-oriented design for systems is very similar to object-oriented design for programming.

Early alignment is everything

For large-scale software systems, Van Roy believes we need to embrace a self-sufficient style of system design in which systems become self-configuring, healing, adapting, etc.. The system has components as first class entities (specified by closures), that can be manipulated through higher-order programming. Components communicate through message-passing. Named state and transactions support system configuration and maintenance. On top of this, the system itself should be designed as a set of interlocking feedback loops.

Zack [42] distinguished these four termsaccording to two dimensions: the nature of what is being processed and the consti-tution of the processing problem.The nature of what is being processed is either information or frames of ref-erence. With information, we mean “observations that have been cognitively pro-cessed and punctuated into coherent messages” [42]. Frames of reference [4, p.108], on the other hand, are the interpretative frames which provide the context forcreating and understanding information. There can be situations in which there is alack of information or a frame of reference, or too much information or too manyframes of reference to process.

Ta b l e 3DERMIS design premises [29]

For our research design, we drew on Walsham [33] and Klein and Myers [13],who provide comprehensive guidelines on how to conduct interpretive case studyresearch in the IS domain.

The problems of managing information and managing frames of reference are“tightly linked in a mutually interacting loop” and require “managing informationand the systems that provide it” [42]. IS have been generally designed to overcomethe information problems from Table 1. Most IS are aimed at either storing and re-trieving information to reduce uncertainty, such as database management systemsand document repositories, or at analyzing and processing large amounts of infor-mation to reduce complexity, such as decision support systems [31]. However, aswe have previously discussed, information related strategies are not always helpfulin coping with a variety of potential meanings.Problems of interpretation and the creation and management of frames of refer-ence, which aids Sensemaking, have generally not been taken into account whendesigning IS. Most IS currently seem tointend the opposite because they aim atreplacing or suppressing the possibility tomake sense of situations.

there is scarce research on how IS can support informa-tion processing challenges—specifically related to Sensemaking—in crisis manage-ment [14]

Sensemaking is about contextual rationality, built out of vaguequestions, muddy answers, and negotiated agreements that attempt to reduce ambi-guity and equivocality. The genesis of Sensemaking is a lack of fit between whatwe expect and what we encounter [40]. With Sensemaking, one does not look at thequestion of “which course of action should we choose?”, but instead at an earlierpoint in time where users are unsure whether there is even a decision to be made,with questions such as “what is going on here, and should I even be asking this ques-tion just now?” [40]. This shows that Sensemaking is used to overcome situationsof ambiguity. When there are too many interpretations of an event, people engagein Sensemaking too, to reduce equivocality.

Decision making is traditionally viewed as a sequential process of problem classifi-cation and definition, alternative generation, alternative evaluation, and selection ofthe best course of action [26]. This process is about strategic rationality, aimed atreducing uncertainty [6, 36]. Uncertainty can be reduced through objective analysisbecause it consists of clear questions for which answers exist [5, 40]. Complex-ity can also be reduced by objective analysis, as it requires restricting or reducingfactual information and associated linkages [42]

The central problem requiring Sensemaking ismostly that there are too many potential meanings, and so acquiring informationcan sometimes help but often is not needed. Instead, triangulating information [34],socializing and exchanging different points of view [20], and thinking back of pre-vious experiences to place the current situation into context, as the retrospectionproperty showed us, are a few strategies that are likely to be more successful forSensemaking.

Just as the information processing challenges from Table 1 are not mutually ex-clusive, Sensemaking and decision making cannot be separated, but instead operatesimultaneously. Meaning must be established and then sufficiently negotiated priorto acting on information [42]: Sensemaking shapes events into decisions, and deci-sion making clarifies what is happening [40].

Weick et al. [41, p. 419] formulate a gripping conclusion on what the sevenSensemaking properties are all about: “Taken together these properties suggest thatincreased skill at Sensemaking should occur when people are socialized to makedo, be resilient, treat constraints as self-imposed, strive for plausibility, keep show-ing up, use retrospect to get a sense of direction, and articulate descriptions thatenergize. These are micro-level actions. They are small actions. But they are smallactions with large consequences.”

The seven different properties of Sensemaking can be captured by the acronym SIRCOPE: Social context, Identity construction, Retrospection, Cue extraction, Ongo-ing projects, Plausibility, and Enactment [17–21, 37–39]

Crisis environments are characterized by various types of information problemsthat complicate the response, such as inaccurate, late, superficial, irrelevant, unreli-able, and conflicting information [30, 32]. This poses difficulties for actors to makesense of what is going on and to take appropriate action. Such issues of informationprocessing are a major challenge for the field of crisis management, both concep-tually and empirically [19].

We use the theory of Sensemaking to study exactly this: how people makesense of their environment, and how they give meaning to what is happening. Sense-making is a crucial process in crises, as the manner and thereby the success of howone deals with crucial events is determined by the grasp one has of a situation.

Value Sensitive Design (VSD) emphasizes consideration of stakeholder values when making design decisions [5]. Applying this rationale to the goal of leveraging the capacity of digital workers during crisis events, we identify design solutions that fit the underlying community dynamics, including current work practices, organizational structures, and motivations of digital volunteer work.

Our research reveals several design opportunities in this space. Importantly, informed by the empirical findings presented here, we argue for situating solutions within current work practices and infrastructures.

By ignoring the diversity and discord of the ‘goals’ of theparticipants involved, the differentiation of strategies, and the incongruence of theconceptual frames of reference within a cooperating ensemble, much of the currentCSCW research evades the problem of how to provide computer support for peoplecooperating through the establishment of a common information space.

On the one hand, the visibility requirement is amplified by this divergence. Thatis, knowledge of the identity of the originator and the situational context motivat-ing the production and dissemination of the information is required so as to enableany user of the information to interpret the likely motives of the originator. On theother hand, however, the visibility requirement is moderated by the divergence ofinterests and motives. A certain degree of opaqueness is required for discretionarydecision making to be conducted in an environment charged with colliding inter-ests. Hence,visibility must be bounded.

Thus, a computer-basedsystem supporting cooperative work involving decision making should enhancethe ability of cooperating workers to interrelate their partial and parochial domainknowledge and facilitate the expression and communication of alternative perspec-tives on a given problem. This requires a representation of the problem domainas a whole as well as a representation, in some form, of the mappings betweenperspectives on that problem domain.

Theproblem, then, was centered by social scientists in the process of design. Cer-tainly, many studies in CSCW, HCI, information technology, and informa-tion science at least indirectly have emphasized a dichotomy betweendesigners, programmers, and implementers on one hand and the social ana-lyst on the other.

In particular, concurrency control problems arise when the software, data,and interface are distributed over several computers. Time delays when ex-changing potentially conflicting actions are especially worrisome. ... Ifconcurrency control is not established, people may invoke conflicting ac-tions. As a result, the group may become confused because displays are incon-sistent, and the groupware document corrupted due to events being handledout of order. (p. 207)

The baseline here is detecting technical issues (counting errors, service availability, etc) but it's also worth monitoring business issues (such as detecting a drop in orders).

If you ain't talking about the teacher in the classroom, I ain't listening. Teacher quality matters. Too many in the profession are quick to awfulize students in poverty to rationalize poor results. Better teaching inspires students and gets better results. Better teaching engages students and keeps them in classrooms, rather than the streets. Better teaching is the one thing we never really talk about. Better teaching is the only mechanism we have left.