The social web is no problem. We can choose what we visit like the author's father chose to buy those books.

What is missing is a beacon of light in the desert of choice. There is no lack of knowledge anymore but a lack of orientation. The author's father knew that he could buy knowledge in a bookstore. Where do we go to find orientation on the web?

People don't know. That's why they are stuck in the social net with its memes.

Wasn't China's unified standard from about 2007 much more influential?

Which standard?

Some standard about unified chargers.

>You simply can't trust sites, who have a strong incentive to get to the top of SEO rankings

Why is it not enough to punish sites that abuse the keywords?

Who is the one who punishes the abusers? How can you scale the solution to deal with billions of pages?

The users punish.

You need a trustworthy core by which you can judge the vote of new users. You can incorporate them until somebody complains about a result that is out of place.

This doesn't have to fully scale. There are many pages without monetary value that won't be manipulated. The tags are an additional signal that can be used where they work. If they don't work, they can be ignored.

But it will scale because there are far more consumers than producers.

>Because Google would then become a business with virtually no revenue - and no chance of producing revenue.

kagi.com bets on becoming a business with revenue. In the same way, Google could start asking money for searches without ads.

In the long run, Google should make more money because a society that runs on the best available information will be more valuable. The information market will be bigger and thus Google's income should be bigger.

The problem is that it's too easy to pitch advertisers against each other and force them to pay a huge fraction of their profits. On the other hand, profit margins in a transparent market are small.

Google could become something like Bloomberg and sell their good information to companies for high margins.

If the network is that important, isn't there a startup looming that provides such a network to the many people who are not in one?

I tend to think that networks are not excluding on principle. If somebody can demonstrate value, people will be eager to include that person into the network. On the other hand, Quibi shows that networks alone cannot rescue startups.

The interesting group are all the average people who could create something successful (of the Figma type) together. As a group, they have access to all resources, but they don't coordinate them. $20B means that 20.000 people could come together and make $1M each. Maybe they need a tool (of the Figma type) to coordinate themselves and that's another startup opportunity.

A high value network is a group of people that have inherent trust or a common background or understanding that allows them to provide access to each other's highest value connections and resources. A low value network are those people that don't really know each other and won't trust providing access to high value resources or people, even if they share common interests. A network of people with common interests is not the same as a network of people with common background or other deep connections. This is what prevents startups (or LinkedIN or Meetup or what have you) providing the same depth of network as a "closed" network provides. By definition a high value network will be somewhat to very exclusionary. Low value networks are inclusive.

And no, networks alone can't accomplish much, and having a great network is no guarantee of success. But clearly having a great, high value network provides a significant advantage over not having any network or only access to low value networks.

> Quibi shows that networks alone cannot rescue startups

Arguably it goes to GP's point - it's not about having a network, but the "right" network. Quibi had the wrong network and was doomed from inception.

> If the network is that important, isn't there a startup looming that provides such a network to the many people who are not in one?

There is, it's called Y Combinator.

My cynical point of view: if you try to replicate the benefits of a network with technology, social media, etc... the benefits of such a network quickly become overwhelmed by volume and the quality degrades.

This is fun.

A minor issue: It would be nice if nodes could be skipped.

E.g. initially, the dog is on the tree and can move to the carrot in two steps. It is required to make both steps and drop the dog on the well. I would prefer if I could put the dog directly on the carrot, or if I could put the dog on the carrot after hovering the dog over the well.

I like having to drop the dog, it makes it easier to figure out the rules initially without instruction. Also it forces more explicit play, rather than just checking where you're allowed to drop the dog. Obviously it's not very hard to figure out, but I'm imagining kids might end up playing this--having them drop the dog makes sure they understand the solution.

Is there a limit to the usability of that accuracy or will there be a huge increase in the demand for electricity soon that is only limited by the ability of NVIDIA and AMD to produce GPUs?

>[extrovert] children who grow up in more prosperous homes are less likely to face the kind of stressful events that undermine self-confidence.

Is extrovert synonymous with confident or that strongly correlated? Why should an introvert not be confident in themselves and their abilities?

>Extraversion [...] is the state of primarily obtaining gratification from outside oneself.

>Introversion is the state of being predominantly interested in one's own mental self

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion

I would assume that extroverts, trying to obtain gratification from outside themselves, boast out with ideas, opinions and the like much more easily than introverts and are thus perceived as more confident. Confident as in "I am confident in myself, hence I say this thing out loud". An introvert may say that thing out in his/her head and leave it at that, so no perception can be made from outside.

And on the other hand if you're an unconfident extrovert it would also keep you from boasting with ideas out loud. As both of these cases look mostly the same from the outside, and I would speculate it leads this sort of introvert == unconfident general view.

I wonder if extroverts appear more confident to others and the feedback makes them more confident.

With these devotions, I’d happily pick to be an introvert.

That's something I have also read about Donald Knuth. In his first years, he spent additional time on solving all available mathematically problems for a class until he became much more proficient in it than his peers.

Starting to work on the syllabus of a class before your peer students can do definitely has lots of benefits, I've tried it before, and it has always landed me ahead of my peers.

You can also use this in other areas of life. Its better to start on the next challenge even if no one is offering you an opportunity.

That only works well if you are brilliant enough to solve all available problems in less than 24x7x365hrs/year.

Have you considered adding ActivityPub comments?

I would love to see every social bookmarking service and RSS reader to have an interoperate-able comment section. Why should I manage my bookmarks outside of the browser if not for the benefit of receiving additional information about the articles?

So if I book the same url, and you do as well, then have both conglomerates comments (anon) and private notes as well?

That sounds good.

The problem is, it would be demolished by spammers, without some sort of moderation.