philanthropy is in some ways the the most symbolic externalization of neoliberal capitalism. Some people have amassed huge amounts of wealth through a rigged game of extraction and destruction of life. And then it's also presented back to us as an alternative to capitalism that somehow philanthropy can solve the problems that capital created in the first place. And in many ways, that is the fundamental paradox and the absurdity of modern philanthropy.

let's start with host capitalism and recognize that the way that we're using this is not as simple linearity of a transition out of an old system into a new system. We're using it in a way as a conceptual container to hold multiple values and ways of being and knowing that are rooted in reciprocity, solidarity, compassion, empathy, reverence for life.

perhaps the ultimate paradox that this entire inquiry is the ground is the paradox of host capitalism and post-capitalist philanthropy itself

sCarlyle's writings show. Proverb, Paradox, Epigram,exaggeration, humour, and unexpected order of words,all these can be means of Emphasis.

Thus if P isthe set of all sets, we can apparently form the set Q = {Ae P| A ¢ A}, leading tothe contradictory Oe Q iff O¢€ Q. This is Russell’s paradox (see Exercise 1A)and can be avoided (in our naive discussion) by agreeing that no aggregate shallbe a set which would be an element of itself.

The basis for our intuitive set theory is the Zermelo—Fraenkel set theory developedby Zermelo (Untersuchungen tiber die Grundlagen der Mengenlehre J) andstrengthened by Fraenkel (Zu den Grundlagen der Cantor—Zermeloschen Mengen-lehre). Their work rests on the researches of Cantor in the 1870’s which first putmathematics firmly on a set-theoretic base. Zermelo’s work, in particular, was adirect response to the Russell paradox.

bateson's Paradox actually slams into the Paradox of self-transcendence

It does not make sense today to quarry limestone, burn it with aluminium and a few other ingredients at extremely high temperatures to create a powder that is mixed with water, sand and gravel to convert it back into a solid material. And concrete is not good in tension. It has to be reinforced with steel in order to build with it.

you don't meet something head-on you meet it around you meet it within you meet it 00:04:24 totally in ecological systems nothing is happening one thing at a time there's not a solution to a problem

The Paradox of Freedom: you can only be free if you follow rules. Decentralization means making our own choices. Unless we agree on some basic things, no one will see the result of our choices. Agreement can be layered: 100% agrees on a small set (labeling, authorship, …) 80% agrees on a larger set (places, dimensions) 5% agrees on many smaller sets (sizes, colors, …)

I think part and you see this kind of delicate dance that when things are going uh uh too slow so people vote in a more 00:25:29 liberal Administration that will speed things up and will be more creative Bolder in its social experiments and when things go too fast then you say okay liberals you had your chance now 00:25:41 let's bring the conservatives to slow down a little and and have a bit of of a breath

we need to understand this deep inheritance within us in order to to to understand our emotions our fears our behavior in 00:04:50 the 21st century

we are certainly special I mean 00:02:57 no other animal rich the moon or know how to build atom bombs so we are definitely quite different from chimpanzees and elephants and and all the rest of the animals but we are still 00:03:09 animals you know many of our most basic emotions much of our society is still run on Stone Age code

It does not make sense for   one species to command most of the energy flow  through the ecosystems of which it is a part.   That's a very destabilizing situation. And  the wise species would do everything possible   to reestablish some kind of balanced energy and  material throughput. If we don't do that, again,   01:15:52 I keep harping on this, people hate me for it,  but we will go down

transcendental need for reason as the vehicle of itself undermining

coastline paradox

I think we are very good at honing in on the ways in which the world remains imperfect and there are ways in which it is egregiously unfair today 00:43:57 but we discount the fact that so many of the gains of the last 100 to 250 years have been enabled by the Industrial Revolution

best reading, latest school start age—is sometimes called the‘Finnish paradox’

Should we build an A.G.I. that loves the Proud Boys, the spam artists, the Russian troll farms, the QAnon fabulists?

Sustainable consumption scholars offer several explanations forwhy earth-friendly, justice-supporting consumers falter when itcomes to translating their values into meaningful impact.

When we throw in the fact that some of the parties with the deepest resources, expertise and capabilities in AI are the very same providers of the primitives – providers intent on growth and whose customers are struggling with the size of their respective product catalogs – it’s worth asking whether said providers may be coming around on the idea of a PaaS, but models based on AI rather than prescriptive curation and constraints. One thing, at least, is clear: if any of the above speculation proves true, the industry equilibrium is about to be punctuated.

Kimura's theory explains the diversity paradox that puzzled Darwin. Why are we surrounded by such an astonishing diversity of birds and insects and microbes? From the point of view of Darwin, a small number of dominant species would have been sufficient. Kimura explains the mystery by invoking the power of genetic drift, which becomes suddenly rapid and effective just when it is needed, when small populations can vary fast enough to become genetically isolated and form new species.

. Naively, we should expect Darwinian evolution to result in a world with a much smaller number of species, each selected by superior fitness to be a winner in the game of survival. All through his life, Darwin was puzzled by the abundance of weird and wonderful species that look like losers but still survive. I call this abundance the diversity paradox.   If only the fittest survive, we should expect to find a few hundred superbly fit species adapted to live in various habitats. Darwin looked at the real world and found an extravagant display of species, with a great diversity of superficial differences. He saw elaborate structures that are expensive to maintain. The theory of evolution by natural selection should tend to keep creatures plain and simple, but nature appears to prefer structures that are elegant and complicated.

Vulnerable users increasingly felt the effects of Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance, that if we include in a more tolerant discussion those who are less tolerant, they will prevent the discussion from being fully open. (Thus, in Popper's view, some level of "intolerance towards intolerance" must be exercised even by the tolerant.)

This is a case of what Paul Keller and I have called the Paradox of Open: the existence of power imbalances that leads to, at best, ambivalent outcomes of openness. It is a paradox that the success of open code software, both in terms of the reach of the technology and in economic terms, has happened through underfunded or entirely volunteer work of individual coders. This shows the limits of the open source development model that will affect the future growth of the Fediverse as well. 

Ultimately, after identifying some critical aspects of the doctrines of common goods, I will try to examine the possibility to guarantee all people the fundamental right to access to food by using the “public utilities made available by the local government”. Otherwise, if we let the laws of the market be the ones that can guarantee food, we risk legitimizing a “juridical paradox” that the constitutional order (at least the Italian one) by no means can tolerate.

Contents 1 Overview 2 Reasons for failure 2.1 Overconfidence and complacency 2.1.1 Natural tendency 2.1.2 The illusion of control 2.1.3 Anchoring 2.1.4 Competitor neglect 2.1.5 Organisational pressure 2.1.6 Machiavelli factor 2.2 Dogma, ritual and specialisation 2.2.1 Frames become blinders 2.2.2 Processes become routines 2.2.3 Resources become millstones 2.2.4 Relationships become shackles 2.2.5 Values becomes dogmas 3 The paradox of information systems 3.1 The irrationality of rationality 3.2 How computers can be destructive 3.3 Recommendations for practice 4 Case studies 4.1 Fresh & Easy 4.2 Firestone Tire and Rubber Company 4.3 Laura Ashley 4.4 Xerox 5 See also 6 References

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]

What Is a Blockchain Oracle? A blockchain oracle is a secure piece of middleware that facilitates communication between blockchains and any off-chain system, including data providers, web APIs, enterprise backends, cloud providers, IoT devices, e-signatures, payment systems, other blockchains, and more. Oracles take on several key functions: Listen – monitor the blockchain network to check for any incoming user or smart contract requests for off-chain data. Extract – fetch data from one or multiple external systems such as off-chain APIs hosted on third-party web servers. Format – format data retrieved from external APIs into a blockchain readable format (input) and/or making blockchain data compatible with an external API (output). Validate – generate a cryptographic proof attesting to the performance of an oracle service using any combination of data signing, blockchain transaction signing, TLS signatures, Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) attestations, or zero-knowledge proofs. Compute – perform some type of secure off-chain computation for the smart contract, such as calculating a median from multiple oracle submissions or generating a verifiable random number for a gaming application. Broadcast – sign and broadcast a transaction on the blockchain in order to send data and any corresponding proof on-chain for consumption by the smart contract. Output (optional) –  send data to an external system upon the execution of a smart contract, such as relaying payment instructions to a traditional payment network or triggering actions from a cyber-physical system.

so big companies, like Apple, saw new restrictions coming in at the same time as more aggressive enforcement, and said "well shit, we want to base our software on these handy convenient tools like GCC but we can't use GPLv3 software while keeping our hardware and software as locked together as we'd like." so they started pouring money into a new C compiler, LLVM, that was instead open source.

Imo, open source as a community endeavor is falling apart right before our eyes, and being replaced by open source as Big Corp entrenchment strategy.

My interest goes yet further, to the metaphysical ground of cognition andmental processes and how they reflect on existence, meaning and value. There is anobvious and unavoidable strange loop (Hofstadter, 2013) here: the cognitive think-ing agent trying to make sense of these same sense-making processes that bring forthboth her as a subject and the objects of her observation while these are being broughtforth.

let me comment on your quantum physics i have only one objection please i think it's uh uh it's 01:01:21 what you said about the two uh sort of prototypical uh quantum puzzles which is schrodinger the double slit experiment uh it's uh it's perfect um my only objection is that in my book 01:01:34 i described of course i had a chapter about schrodinger cat but i don't use a situation in which the cat is dead or alive 01:01:46 i prefer a situation in which the cat is asleep or awake just because i don't like killing cats even in in in in mental experiments so after that 01:01:58 uh uh replacing a sleep cut with a dead cat i think uh i i i i completely agree and let me come to the the serious part of the answer um 01:02:10 what you mentioned as the passage from uh the third and the fourth um between among the the sort of the versions of 01:02:25 wooden philosophy it's it's exactly what i what i think is relevant for quantum mechanics for this for the following reason we read in quantum mechanics books 01:02:37 that um we should not think about the mechanical description of reality but the description reality with respect to the observer and there is always this notion in in books that there's observer or there are 01:02:50 paratus that measure so it's a uh but i am a scientist which view the world from the perspective of 01:03:02 modern science where one way of viewing the world is that uh there are uh you know uh billions and billions of galaxies each one with billions and billions of 01:03:14 of of of stars probably with planets all around and uh um from that perspective the observer in any quantum mechanical experiment is just one piece in the big story 01:03:28 so i have found the uh berkeley subjective idealism um uh profoundly unconvincing from the point 01:03:39 of view of a scientist uh because it there is an aspect of naturalism which uh it's a in which i i i grew up as a scientist 01:03:52 which refuses to say that to understand quantum mechanics we have to bring in our mind quantum mechanics is not something that has directly to do with our mind has not 01:04:05 something directly to do about any observer any apparatus because we use quantum mechanics for describing uh what happened inside the sun the the the reaction the nuclear reaction there or 01:04:18 galaxy formations so i think quantum mechanics in a way i think quantum mechanics is experiments about not about psychology not about our mind not about consciousness not 01:04:32 about anything like that it has to do about the world my question what we mean by real world that's fine because science repeatedly was forced to change its own ideas about the 01:04:46 real world so if uh if to make sense of quantum mechanics i have to think that the cat is awake or asleep only when a conscious observer our mind 01:05:00 interacts with this uh i say no that's not there are interpretations of quantum mechanics that go in that direction they require either am i correct to say the copenhagen 01:05:14 school does copenhagen school uh talk about the observer without saying who is what is observed but the compelling school which is the way most 01:05:27 textbooks are written uh describe any quantum mechanical situation in terms okay there is an observer making a measurement and we're talking about the outcome of the measurements 01:05:39 so yes it's uh it assumes an observer but it's very vague about what what an observer is some more sharp interpretation like cubism uh take this notion observer to be real 01:05:54 fundamental it's an agent somebody who makes who thinks about and can compute the future so it's a it's a that's that's a starting point for for doing uh for doing the rest i was 01:06:07 i've always been unhappy with that because things happen on the sun when there is nobody that is an observer in anything and i want to think to have a way of thinking in the world that things happen there 01:06:20 independently of me so to say is they might depend on one another but why should they depend on me and who am i or you know what observers should be a you know a white western scientist with 01:06:32 a phd i mean should we include women should we include people without phd should we include cats is the cat an observer should we fly i mean it's just not something i understand

i just wanted to interject that uh could i come at this point carlo i would like to insist a bit on this because i'm i'm not quite clear 01:07:22 on whether you are agreeing or not on the question of the mind um thank you this is also i wanted to ask him the same question mario uh so by just raise the question 01:07:40 specifically all right so let me okay since we're talking about nagarjuna now i would also like to uh read some simple verses that he has and get from both from barry and you what do you 01:07:53 think so this is from chapter three examination of the sentences seeing hearing smelling tasting touching and mind are the six sense faculties their 01:08:04 spheres are the visible objects etc like the scene the herd the smell that tasted and the touched the hair sound etc and consciousness should be understood so actually i'm confused from both of 01:08:18 you first of all barry is the mind anything special in buddhist philosophy or is it just like seeing and hearing and carlo are you saying there is anything 01:08:31 special about them right

The absolute in the relative and the relative in the absolute

In a 1966 book,* the British-Hungarian philosopher MichaelPolanyi made an observation that has since become known as“Polanyi’s Paradox.” It can be summarized as “We know more thanwe can say.”

Moreover, civilization has used renewables not to reduce fossil fuel demand but to augment energy consumption.

In truth, it is highly unlikely that every text you read will containexactly the information you looked for and nothing else. Otherwise,you must have already known what was in there and wouldn’t havehad reason to read it in the first place.[7]

So it can issue a cross-sign whose validity extends beyond the expiration of its own self-signed certificate without any issues.

There's a joke in philosophy that goes like this: The First Law of Philosophy: For every philosopher, there exists an equal and opposite philosopher. The Second Law of Philosophy: They're both wrong.

Many people think of the waiting-time paradox as a paradox because a typical waiting time at a bus station is longer than half of the average interval of time between buses

In languages, as in so many things, there's not much correlation between popularity and quality. Why does John Grisham (King of Torts sales rank, 44) outsell Jane Austen (Pride and Prejudice sales rank, 6191)? Would even Grisham claim that it's because he's a better writer?

Quantum Realism: A virtual reality would be subject to virtual time, where each processing cycle is one "tick." Every gamer knows that when the computer is busy the screen lags—game time slows down under load. Likewise, time in our world slows down with speed or near massive bodies, suggesting that it is virtual. So the rocket twin only aged a year because that was all the processing cycles the system busy moving him could spare. What changed was his virtual time.

Whereas I say, that things as objects of our senses existing outside us are given, but we know nothing of what they may be in themselves, knowing only their appearances, i. e., the representations which they cause in us by affecting our senses. Consequently I grant by all means that there are bodies without us, that is, things which, though quite unknown to us as to what they are in themselves, we yet know by the representations which their influence on our sensibility procures us, and which we call bodies, a term signifying merely the appearance of the thing which is unknown to us, but not therefore less actual. Can this be termed idealism? It is the very contrary.

We may hate and fear the death of a loved one, and do whatever we can to prevent it, while also recognizing “that a mortal life is the only life in which the people one loves could actually be.” This tension is, says Nussbaum, “part of the best human life” (Nussbaum 1990: 381).

a sound spirit of legislation, which banishing all arbitrary & unnecessary restraint on individual action shall leave us free to do whatever does not violate the equal rights of another.

Somewhere, early in our conversations, I told you that you have to be willing to stand at the point where you know nothing, because that is what allows you to become aware of Something. You are beginning to sit down and begin our conversations as though you have a pretty good idea of what’s going to come about. This is going to begin to get in the way. The meditation exercises that we have been doing have been partly for the purpose of helping you get to the point where you can see, from an experiential standpoint, that when you let go of everything, infinity has an opportunity to appear. You, yourself, have begun to find, when a subject is difficult for you to deal with, that if you will do a meditation, it removes the resistance and allows the communication to unfold smoothly. I would like you to stop forming preconceptions in the first place. Paul, we are talking about becoming the Door. The image you have in your mind of the Door is, indeed, accurate. It is a doorway, and there isn’t a single door attached to it. And yet, you have begun to come to these conversations ready to close a door—that shouldn’t even be there in the first place—if what you are hearing can’t be quickly classified, judged, and decided upon before you get the first word out of your mouth.

RAJ: Good evening, Paul. You are beginning to notice the limitations you place upon yourself by virtue of assuming that you don’t know something or that you can’t figure it out, or that it’s not the right time, or any of a number of excuses which are totally false, but which you totally believe. You are beginning to discover that you truly do not have to figure a single thing out. You, Paul, person, three-dimensional finite consciousness, do not have the answer! Yet, the answers are available. The answers are available because of What You Are when you are standing as the Door. You are really beginning to see this, and this is excellent. You are also beginning to find more satisfaction from being that which is the Answer unfolding Itself, rather than being the one who is figuring out what the Answer is, or being able in any way to claim credit for the Answer. This also is excellent.

Remember that letting go of control—letting go of these intellectual thought structures—will not cause disorganization and disorientation of the Universe. Rather, it will reveal from an experiential standpoint, the fact that the Universe is already organized and orderly and intelligent in Its Function, whether you are intellectualizing about it or not. Remember, too, that until you do go ahead and let go, you will not have the opportunity to observe It working in Its absolute perfection and spontaneous and effortless harmony.

RAJ: There is no other way. Mind you, the key word there is “willingness,” The emphasis is not meant to be placed on the collapse of everything around you. PAUL: Does this mean that the unfoldment cannot be harmonious? RAJ: No it does not. But, you are not going to see that harmony of it when your attention is focused on the appearance. You see, Paul, all of you is always present, and all of you is always functioning. This means there is nothing that exists that can be added to you. What you are doing is already done. What you are learning, you already Know. You are in the process of simply beginning to experience what has always been true of you and as You.

Architects continue to be fascinated with finding and describing parallels between symbolic structures and architectural forms.

The orator's demonstration is an enthymeme, and this is, in general, the most effective of the modes of persuasion.