W.O.T.D.


WORD OF THE DAY
TarryTEHR-eePart of speech: verbOrigin: Middle English, late 1200s
1Stay longer than intended; delay leaving a place.
 
Examples of Tarry in a sentence “The cottage was so cozy that the travelers tarried their departure.” “Since classes were cancelled, Kyle had time to tarry.”
WORD OF THE DAY
TarryTEHR-eePart of speech: verbOrigin: Middle English, late 1200s
1Stay longer than intended; delay leaving a place.
 
Examples of Tarry in a sentence “The cottage was so cozy that the travelers tarried their departure.” “Since classes were cancelled, Kyle had time to tarry.”

duty


Above all do not forget your duty to love yourself.Søren KierkegaardSøren Kierkegaard was a Danish philosopher who also dabbled in theology and poetry, which gave his philosophical writing an even more humanistic edge: Rather than focusing on theory, Kierkegaard wrote mainly about the lived reality of humans. This line comes from a book of Kierkegaard’s letters to family and friends, in which he shares his ideas and insights. Kierkegaard wrote these words of encouragement to one of his friends who had a physical disability; he urged his friend to remember that although he may feel different from others, he should never let that dampen his sense of worth and self-love.More Quotes >

Requested Ministry-wise PIB Releases


Requested Ministry-wise PIB releases.

CURIOSITY


Explore Your Curiosity

★ “The risk of becoming too steeped in any one framework is you start to be “subject” to that framework, you can only look through its lens, not at the lens. I recommend trying to hold a handful of frameworks in your mind simultaneously in order to maintain flexibility.”

— What’s Going on Here

TINY THOUGHT… VIA BRAIN FOOD


Tiny Thought

What seems like a difference in talent often comes down to a difference in focus.

Focus turns good performers into great performers.

Two keys to focus are saying no to distractions and working on the same problem for an uncommonly long time. Both are simple but not easy.

Did you know…


Did you know…

… that today is Love a Tree Day? Today we celebrate the wonderful gifts that trees give. Trees provide more than just beautiful landscapes and shade on a sunny day. They play a significant role in reducing erosion and moderating the climate as well as give us oxygen. This is a good day to plant a new tree or spend some time enjoying the beauty of the trees that are all around you.

~~~

Today’s Inspirational Quote:

“If you want to touch the past, touch a rock. If you want to touch the present, touch a flower. If you want to touch the future, touch a life.”

— Author Unknown

Good Fences – Seth Godin’s Newsletter


* Good fences [ https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=178225127&f=1081591&c=7667765&u=5102652 ]

Hand washing used to be controversial.

Before Ignaz Semmelweis did his groundbreaking work in proving that disease spread when doctors didn’t wash before and after treating patients, hygiene was ignored. In fact, it took decades for the system to change.

Today, of course, it’s understood that doctors, food service workers and everyone else ought to wash their hands to protect those around us. Doctors don’t wash their hands because they enjoy it, they do it because that’s what doctors do.

Disease evolves.

As it spreads from one person to another, a disease reproduces and has a chance to mutate. And those mutations create new problems, problems that we may be ill-equipped to deal with.

And disease is frightening. When it collides with culture, culture often demands we stand still. We stick with what we know, with what feels safe, with the status quo. Because to do otherwise means that we have to acknowledge that perhaps one day, the disease will win.

It’s easier to sell a new fashion or a sports team than it is to sell public health. Like most of the human challenges we face, it’s a marketing problem, a chance to use words and affiliation and possibility to create change.

There’s a long history of culture pushing back on the smart, generous, safe interventions that ultimately become standard. Because the status quo is the status quo precisely because it’s good at sticking around.

When we have a chance to make things better for the people we care about, we usually realize that this is exactly the thing we hope to do. But first, we need to see what our choices are based on and where they lead.

Requested Ministry-wise PIB Releases


Requested Ministry-wise PIB releases.
Requested Ministry-wise PIB releases.

16th May 2021


International Day of Living Together in Peace 16 May

Living together

This day is celebrated to uphold the desire for communities to live and act together despite all their differences and build a sustainable world of peace, solidarity, and harmony.

Content marketing ideas:   

  • Listicle idea: How can you live peacefully next to a troublesome neighbor?
  • Infographic idea: X Ways volunteering can help you become a more empathetic individual
  • Video idea: How did communities become closer during the COVID-19 pandemic?
  • Podcast idea: How can we learn to see beyond race?

International Day of Light 16 May

Day of light

This day celebrates light as an element of science and how important a role it plays in art, culture, and sustainable architecture.

Content marketing ideas:   

  • Listicle idea: X Best lighting trends to learn from TikTok
  • Infographic idea: X Ways to use light to create a homely ambiance
  • Video idea: X Light-based experiments you can do with your kids
  • Podcast idea: How can you use light therapy to boost your health?

DID YOU KNOW…


Did you know…

… that today is $80 Million Painting Day? In a 1990 Christie’s auction, Vincent van Gogh’s “Portrait du Dr. Gachet” sold for $82.5 million to Ryoei Saito, head of the Japanese firm of Daishowa Paper Manufacturing. It was the first $80 million painting sold at that time. The current record price is approximately $450.3 million paid for Leonardo da Vinci’s Salvator Mundi in November 2017.

~~~

Today’s Inspirational Quote:

“Great things are done by a series of small things brought together.”

— Vincent Van Gogh

W.O.T.D.


WORD OF THE DAY
Refectionrə-FEK-shunPart of speech: nounOrigin: Middle English, early 1300s
1(literary) Refreshment by food or drink.2A meal, especially a light one.
 
Examples of Refection in a sentence “After a brief stop for refection, the Johnsons continued their drive home.” “The backpackers made sure to pack a refection for later in the hike.”

Global Security landscape via IntelligenceFusion…


Here’s your weekly rundown of the global security landscape, highlighting key incidents that have taken place from each region in the last seven days; 
Intelligence Insight Weekly - What's Happening in Asia?
MIDDLE EAST & ASIA
Israel and PalestineEscalations between armed factions based in Gaza and Israel have continued after days of rocket attacks targeting Israeli population centres, and airstrikes targeting sites in the Gaza Strip. Rocket attacks have targeted towns close to the Gaza border as well as further inside of Israeli territory, including sites in the Tel Aviv area. Hamas and other groups appear to be targeting Israel’s airports, cancelling operations at Ben Gurion Airport. Despite a sophisticated ‘Iron Dome’ system being deployed at areas across Israel, the volume of rockets being fired has meant that large numbers of rockets have been able to reach their targets. Currently, neither Israel or Gaza-based factions have shown a desire to de-escalate the situation, and instead have doubled down by firing new rocket salvoes or launching more strikes in Gaza. Israeli forces are expected to be reluctant to carry out a major ground operation in the Gaza Strip, but such an operation can not be ruled out as attacks continue and casualties mount. 
Insight Weekly - Europe Image
EUROPE
Europe wide Reporting throughout the week has featured numerous protests scheduled for Saturday 15th May. The upcoming protests are in two broad groups – the World Wide Rally for Freedom (a movement which has grown from increasing anti-lockdown sentiment) and solidarity protests for Palestinians which have arisen from the current fighting between Israel and Hamas. Prior World Wide Rally for Freedom protests appear to have been small-scale and/or peaceful. The solidarity protests on the other hand have featured anti-Semitic rhetoric and the involvement of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement and Palestine Solidarity Campaigns. These groups frequently push anti-Semitic claims and target businesses who have interest in Israel; Elbit Defence Systems, Caterpillar, JCB and Puma have been frequent targets of activism, petitions, protests outside factories/offices and vandalism (Elbit has been frequently targeted with the last two tactics). The large number of protests this weekend will likely see traffic disruptions throughout capital cities across Europe; particularly in main squares. Palestine solidarity protests though will possibly feature attempts to target businesses with any kind of presence in Israel and possibly Synagogues or other Jewish religious/cultural centres.
Intelligence Insight Weekly - What's Happening in Africa?
AFRICA
Nigeria At least 12 police stations in total, including a checkpoint, have been attacked in Abia, Akwa Ibom and Rivers states in southeast Nigeria since 1st May 2021. Although the perpetrators are unknown, Nigerian authorities have accused the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) separatist group of being behind the attacks. As a consequence of such attacks, Delta State Police Command has banned their officers from embarking on escort duty to Rivers, Enugu, Ebonyi, Imo, Anambra, and Abia states. Additionally, there have also been reports that police officers, particularly those who are not Igbo indigenes, are said to be seeking redeployments. President Buhari has come under heavy criticism due to growing insecurity across the country, leading to the #BuhariMustGo hashtag to trend on Twitter and calls for the passing of a vote of no confidence. Major attacks mounted by ISWAP in northeast Nigeria, pervasive banditry in northwest and central Nigeria and mass abductions of students have added to growing concerns surrounding security in the country. Lawmakers have called for a state of emergency to be declared. 
Insight Weekly - North America Image
NORTH AMERICA
Costa Rica
Several protests broke out in Costa Rica, starting on 10th May, following a call to protest by the leader of the National Rescue Movement the week before. The protests have not been centred around the capital, San Jose, but rather in other provinces of the country. The motive for the protests was to put pressure on the President and the agenda promoted in the Legislative Assembly, which includes debate over an International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan and the Public Employment bill. Protests had already broken out earlier this year over the IMF loan, for fears that it would impact the country’s social welfare programmes and add more taxes to the working class. Protests have included roadblocks and attacks on responding police officers, including Molotov cocktails being thrown at police along National Route 4 near La Cruz in the province of Guanacaste and also in Altamira de San Carlos in the province of Alajuela. Several injuries and arrests have been reported. Protests have not been as large as a few months ago, but sporadic roadblocks will impact the logistics sectors for however long these protests last.
Insight Weekly - South America Image
SOUTH AMERICA Colombia Civil unrest continued across Colombia this week despite the government’s decision to withdraw the proposed tax reform, which initially sparked the protests on 28th April. Roadblocks created by the protesters have led to shortages of fuel, food and medical supplies, particularly in the department of Valle del Cauca, where protesters have looted dozens of cargo trucks, including 11 trucks carrying medical supplies. One of the department’s main arteries, the Pan-American highway, was finally cleared by two army battalions and 270 police officers after it had been blocked by protesters for 15 days. With more groups joining the protest movement, their demands have widened and now include the introduction of a universal basic income, the abolishment of university tuition fees and the improvement of security for indigenous leaders and rights defenders. Finally, hundreds of reports of police brutality have led the protesters to demand the dismantling of Colombia’s riot police force. Since it is unlikely that the Colombian government will meet all these demands, roadblocks and other forms of violent and nonviolent protest are expected to continue.
 
 
📽️🎙️🎧 THE INSIGHT: An Intelligence Fusion Podcast A fortnightly podcast that expands on key incidents and events, providing you with wider analysis on security trends, evolving patterns and unexplored geopolitical themes from every corner of the globe.
LATEST EPISODE:
Land-Based Maritime Threats Africa - YouTube Thumbnail
Piracy in West Africa – what are the drivers of maritime threats? 95% of all kidnappings by pirates in 2020 took place in the Gulf of Guinea, now the epicentre of piracy off the coast of Africa – and one of the most dangerous seas in the world. So what is driving this pirate threat? And how does what happens on land help fuel incidents at sea?
Watch now

Conventional and famous – by Seth Godin


Conventional and famous [ https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=178211137&f=1081591&c=7665709&u=5102652 ]

We can gain a lot of clarity if we insert the right words into daily conversation.

“That’s a good college,” is more accurately stated as, “that’s a famous college.”

Or perhaps, “That person is beautiful,” might be better as, “that person is conventionally beautiful.”

So many choices and measures seem obvious. But the obvious part might come from the fact that they are simply conventional and famous, not obvious or useful.

Make your bed…


If you want to change the world, start off by making your bed. ~ Anonymous

The most difficult part of NCC or RSS training was not :

  1. Wake up to Three Whistles in the dead of night
  2. 3 S Shit, shave shower in 5 minutes
  3. In Full Uniform including Boots (pattis and pongli in RSS)
  4. AND run to catch up with your team-mates

But Making up your bed before joining the Emergency call. 😀

Nib

Positive Day


Quote Image - Desktop Image

Bob Marley’s music has achieved an enduring legacy that finds new listeners every day. Hailing from Jamaica, he was a pioneer of reggae music and helped popularize the genre around the world. When he converted to Rastafari

(a religious and social movement) in the 1970s, the songs he played with his band, Bob Marley and the Wailers, took on more obvious spiritual themes. In lyrics such as this one (from the 1976 song “Positive Vibration”), Marley advocated for love and acceptance, and especially a positive outlook on the world. His songs are still beloved today in part because of their timeless message of inclusivity, optimism, and embracing our shared humanity.

International Day of Families – 15 May


International Day of Families 15 May

Families

Both in traditional and modern societies, families are fundamental for a community to thrive. For most of our growing years, we were nurtured by our families. Every year, on this day, we take a moment to celebrate our families.

Content marketing ideas:   

  • Listicle idea: X Unhealthy behaviors parents need to drop right now
  • Infographic idea: How do group activities help you bond more with family?
  • Video idea: The best movies for a relaxed evening with your family
  • Podcast idea: How can you take care of your family even if you live in a different city?

Requested Ministy-wise PIB Releases


Requested Ministry-wise PIB releases.
 

Did you know…


Did you know…

… that today is the birthday of Marshmallow Fluff? In 1920, H. Allen Durkee and Fred Mower of Lynn, Massachusetts, began selling Marshmallow Fluff (originally named Toot Sweet). Enjoy a Fluffernutter sandwich today (Marshmallow Fluff and peanut butter)! Or not. 😉

~~~

Today’s Inspirational Quote:

“Silence is golden. Unless you have kids, then silence is just suspicious.”

— Author Unknown

GOI – Covid Notifications


Central Government Notifications

Ministry of Communication & Technology

Ministry of Commerce & Industry

Ministry of Finance

Ministry of Health & Family Welfare 

Ministry of Railways 

State Government Notifications

Assam

Bihar

Kerala

Madhya Pradesh

James Clear Newsletter


“The most wisdom per word of any newsletter on the web.”

3-2-1: On character, the process of improvement, and mastering one thing

read onJAMESCLEAR.COM | MAY 13, 2021

Happy 3-2-1 Thursday,

Here are 3 ideas, 2 quotes, and 1 question to consider this week…

3 Ideas From Me

I.

“The way someone else perceives what you do is a result of their own experiences (which you can’t control), their own preferences (which you can’t predict), and their own expectations (which you don’t set).

If your choices don’t match their expectations that is their concern, not yours.”


​II.

“A recipe for getting more out of what you read:

Start more books. Quit most of them. Read the great ones twice.”

(Share this on Twitter)​


III.

“The most reliable way to change your life is by not changing your entire life.

If you try to change everything all at once, you will quickly find yourself pulled back into the same patterns as before. But if you merely focus on changing one specific habit and work on it until it becomes part of your normal day, you will find your life changes naturally as a side effect.

Improve the whole by mastering one thing.”

2 Quotes From Others

I.

Science writer and producer Ann Druyan on the process of improvement:

“Test ideas by experiment and observation. Build on those ideas that pass the test. Reject the ones that fail. Follow the evidence wherever it leads. And question everything, including authority. Do these things and the cosmos is yours.”

Source: Cosmos: Possible Worlds


​II.

Advice columnist Abigail Van Buren on character:

“The best index to a person’s character is (a) how he treats people who can’t do him any good, and (b) how he treats people who can’t fight back.”

Source: Dear Abby column (May 16, 1974)

1 Question For You

What is a small pleasure that brings me great joy? Can I enjoy it today?

Thank you 2000+ Followers of parkhe.com


Thank you my Best Fast Friends, Viewers, LIkers, Commentators and as of now 2000+ followers of my blog http://www.parkhe.com or http://www.parkhe.in.

You are most delightful crowd some of you adorn my front pages.

I wish you all the best of health and Cheer in life.

Efficient and sustainable last-mile logistics: Lessons from Japan


Requested Ministry-wise PIB Releases


Requested Ministry-wise PIB releases.

 

Requested Ministry-wise PIB releases.

Did you know…


Did you know…

… that today is National Frog Jumping Day? The origins of this celebrated day come from Mark Twain’s short story about a betting man and his pet frog. National Frog Jumping Day brings awareness to different kinds of frogs and their impact within our ecosystem. Trivia fans: The South African sharp-nosed frog can jump over 130 inches, which may not sound like much at first except when you realize that is approximately 44 times the length of its body!

~~~

Today’s Inspirational Quote:

“For myself, losing is not coming second. It’s getting out of the water knowing you could have done better. For myself, I have won every race I’ve been in.”

— Ian Thorpe

Dr. Marshall Goldsmith Newsletter


 

 

     
 

My mission is simple. I want to help successful people achieve positive, lasting change in behavior; for themselves, their people, and their teams. I want to help you make your life a little better. Thank you for subscribing! Life is good.


The one thing you need to have a super-charged career today is – drum roll please – an executive coach. People often ask me: Why do top level, successful executives need a coach? They are already so successful, why would they need to get even “better”? Doesn’t having a coach mean they are not that good?

My answer is simple – think Serena Williams, James Harden, Tom Brady. They are good. Can you imagine that any of them do not have a coach? Of course not! Why shouldn’t successful executives have a coach? They are trying to get better or maybe to develop the next level of leadership and help them get better.

I’m very proud of the fact that how people view coaching has changed over the years. Thirty years ago, no CEO or executive would admit to having a coach. They would have been ashamed! Today, many CEOs share their experience with the world. For instance 27 CEOs endorsed my book Triggers. I coach these 27 people. They are working on getting better and they are not ashamed to state it publicly (in my book).

My coaching process doesn’t just work with the super-successful. My partners and I have trained hundreds of external and internal coaches who work with people at all levels. There may be no correlation between an individual’s standing in the corporate pyramid and what his or her co-workers think of his or her interpersonal skills. Middle managers can be just as arrogant and stubborn as CEOs – or just as open-minded. My target audience is the huge cohort of human beings who are already successful in their own way and want to become even more successful. You may be in this group!

So, say you have admitted you need a coach and your organization supports you. What does coaching look like? This depends on the type of coach you hire. If you hire a behavioral change coach like me, I won’t help you change strategy or business practices. I will help you achieve a positive, long-term, measurable change in your behavior. I’ll help you see that the behaviors and habits that have taken your to your current level of success might not be the behaviors and habits that will take you to the next level of success.

I train people to improve their behavior in the workplace – by enrolling them in a simple, yet challenging regimen. Here are the steps.

  1. First, I solicit 360° feedback from my client’s colleagues – as many as can provide valid information – from up, down and sideways in the chain of command, often including family members – for a comprehensive assessment of their strengths and challenges.

  2. I then let my clients know (in a way that protects the confidentiality of the interviewees) what everybody really thinks about them. Assuming that they accept this information, agree that they have something to improve and commit to changing behavior – I go to work and try to help them get better – at what they have chosen – and as judged by whom they have chosen.

  3. My clients learn to apologize to people concerning any mistakes from the past (because this is a great way to erase negative baggage associated with prior actions) and to ask their co-workers for help in getting better.

  4. My clients then advertise their efforts to change. As opposed to keeping their change efforts a ‘dark secret’, they tell everyone around them what they are trying to improve. If we don’t let people know that we are trying to change – and recruit them in our change process – they may never notice or appreciate what we are doing.

  5. My clients follow-up with all of the people around them to get ongoing suggestions. We have research on follow-up that involves over 86,000 respondents in eight major corporations. The findings from this research are crystal clear, leaders that follow-up in a disciplined way get better, those that don’t follow-up are not seen as changing any more than random chance.

  6. As an integral part of the follow-up process, I teach people to listen without prejudice to what their colleagues, family members and friends are saying – that is, to listen without interrupting or arguing.

  7. I teach people to express gratitude to everyone around them for what they are learning. Learning how to simply say “thank you” without qualifiers or embellishments can make a big difference.

  8. Finally, I teach people the value of feedforward, which is my “special sauce” methodology for eliciting advice from colleagues on how they can improve in the future.

It can sometimes be difficult for super-achievers to get over the hump and admit that they can benefit from changing behavior. If behavioral change can help them become more effective in their role, and if they are willing to stick with the steps in our coaching process and if they are given a fair chance – they will almost always get better – not only in their own minds but, more importantly, in the opinions of everyone they impact.

And, that is the spirit underlying all of my coaching. It is aimed at anyone who wants to get better – at work, at home, or any other venue. It will help anyone who wants to supercharge his or her career!

Life is good. Marshall.

Winnie the Pooh – Wisdo


Timeless Wisdom

From Winnie the Pooh

March 3, 2021

Share using facebook
Share using twitter
Share using email

Lovable, huggable Winnie the Pooh has long captivated audiences with his jolly laugh and zest for life (and honey). But this sweet bear and his beloved buddies do more than entertain fans with tales from the Hundred Acre Woods. The characters navigate life’s ups and downs, with helpful advice that’s relevant well beyond Christopher Robin’s neighborhood.

It all starts with author A.A. Milne. The mastermind behind the original four-volume Winnie-the-Pooh series is renowned for his children’s stories — his gentle Pooh Bear gave rise to a wildly popular franchise beloved around the world, with the help of Walt Disney’s animated films and television shows. But Milne was also an intellectual writer and deep thinker, which is reflected through the abiding wisdom of Pooh and his pals.

Milne graduated from the University of Cambridge, and wrote his first play, Wurzel-Flummery, while serving in the British Army’s Royal Corps of Signals during World War I. He went on to make a name for himself as a playwright and, later, a novelist. All along, his calling as a children’s author was taking shape — and it’s largely thanks to his own son, Christopher Robin Milne, proud owner of the sweet little stuffed bear audiences worldwide now call Pooh.

From the first Winnie-the-Pooh book in 1926, Milne and illustrator E. H. Shepard took Pooh and his pals through many of life’s twists and turns, much to the despair of eternally gloomy Eeyore. Through it all, Pooh, Piglet, and the Hundred Acre gang showed readers how to cherish life’s best moments and navigate through the worst of them. Almost 100 years later, this Hundred Acre wisdom couldn’t be more relevant.

You can’t stay in your corner of the forest waiting for others to come to you. You have to go to them sometimes.
 Pooh, “Pooh’s Little Instruction Book”

As Pooh “notes” in his little instruction book, life is about more than cozying up in our favorite corners, or staying in our safe spaces to avoid the unknown. Putting ourselves out there leads to new experiences, important lessons, and valuable friendships we’d never form staying safe at home. There’s a dazzling, enriching world just waiting beyond our comfort zones, if we’re brave enough to leave our corner of the forest.

If ever there is tomorrow when we’re not together, there is something you must always remember. You are braver than you believe, stronger than you seem, and smarter than you think. But the most important thing is, even if we’re apart, I’ll always be with you.
 Christopher Robin, “Pooh’s Grand Adventure: The Search for Christopher Robin”

This sweet conversation between Christopher Robin and Pooh is relatable, and even tear-jerking, for anyone who has experienced loss. The young Christopher Robin wants his best friend Pooh to know that if they were ever to be separated one day, Pooh has everything he needs to carry on and fulfill his dreams. It’s a lesson for us all. While our loved ones may be gone, their spirit and memories live on, and the strong bonds we’ve built make us braver, stronger, and smarter than we realize — just like Winnie the Pooh.

You find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
– Pooh, “The House at Pooh Corner”

He may be a silly old bear, but Pooh was onto something with his knack for collaboration. In chapter six of The House at Pooh Corner, Pooh came up with a new game. But like most ideas, the game didn’t blossom until he shared it with others. In this case, it took Eeyore joining in for Pooh’s little game to take shape. This lesson extends well beyond lighthearted fun; the more we share our ideas and collaborate on our work and dreams, the better we can see and understand them ourselves.  

The things that make me different are the things that make me me.
– Piglet’s song, You’re the One and Only One, “Welcome to Pooh Corner”

As Piglet and Eeyore sing a duet about individuality, this line strikes a chord. Differences set us apart from each other; they fill our world with vibrancy, variety, and beauty. We need all people, from all walks of life, to use their unique skills and personality traits to make this world a better, creative, and inspiring place. Because, as Piglet concludes, “If everybody were like everybody else, how boring would it be!”

They’re funny things, Accidents. You never have them till you’re having them.
– Eeyore, “The House at Pooh Corner”

Cautious and nervous Eeyore worried a lot about life, but deep down this donkey knew that anxiety would only get him so far. Life’s mishaps don’t wait for us to feel prepared. Ready or not, accidents hit us full force — and to be fair, that’s not all bad. Acknowledging that accidents will always happen means we can stop overanalyzing the risks. We should resist the temptation to keep endlessly planning and preparing but never getting started,  because at some point, procrastination is simply fear of failure in disguise.

Don’t underestimate the value of doing nothing, of just going along, listening to all the things you can’t hear, and not bothering.
– Pooh, “Pooh’s Little Instruction Book”

If only Pooh knew how relevant this advice would become — especially to the parents of Winnie the Pooh’s youngest fans. Western society praises the go-go-go work ethic, but “always on” does not lead to a life of happiness. When we take time to unplug, close our emails, and simply look at the world around us, we can connect with ourselves on a deeper level. In fact, while staring into the ocean may feel like doing nothing, this kind of “nothing” is one of the most enriching and gratitude-building experiences on the planet.

A little Consideration, a little Thought for Others, makes all the difference.
– Eeyore, “Winnie-the-Pooh”

It’s no secret that Eeyore is prone to sadness; this makes him the perfect case study on why we should treat everyone with kindness. We never know a person’s backstory, or the troubles they’re currently navigating. It’s best to treat each person with a dose of compassion, thinking about how we can help them instead of how much we have going on in our own lives. Even the tiniest bit of consideration and thoughtfulness could make a world of difference for someone else — whether it’s gloomy Eeyore who needs a pick-me-up, or the taxi driver who’s burnt out trying to make ends meet for their family.

We can’t all, and some of us don’t. That’s all there is to it.
– Eeyore, “Winnie-the-Pooh”

On the surface, this may sound like another one of Eeyore’s pessimistic musings, but Pooh’s buddy is right. The sooner we know and accept our limits, the sooner we can find happiness and contentedness — and it all starts with removing “should” from our vocabulary. “Should” is one of the most dangerous words in the English language. If we dislike doing something but feel guilty because society tells us we “should,” we’ll forever feel less-than or inauthentic. Eeyore’s simple statement reminds us to ditch the guilt, dig deep, and understand what you can do, especially the things you enjoy. .

And he respects Owl, because you can’t help respecting anyone who can spell Tuesday, even if he doesn’t spell it right; but spelling isn’t everything. There are days when spelling Tuesday simply doesn’t count.
– Rabbit, “The House at Pooh Corner”

Rabbit was perhaps the most intelligent of Pooh’s pals, but that wasn’t always a good thing. Sometimes Rabbit judged his neighbors for their silly ideas, or put them down because he knew better. Over time, though, Rabbit realized that smarts aren’t everything. He saw how Christopher Robin respected Owl deeply, despite his mistakes. And this lesson — to respect everyone, mistakes and all — is more than advice for Rabbit; it’s a reminder for us all.

Photo credit: Claudio Testa/ Unsplash

Author image

About the AuthorStephanie VermillionStephanie is an Ohio-based writer and photographer who’s never met a slice of pizza she didn’t like — or inhale.

Magic, persistence, imagination and more by Seth Godin via his Newsletter


* Magic, persistence, imagination and more [ https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=178162455&f=1081591&c=7659493&u=5102652 ]

Magic first: Acar and the folks at Penguin are offering a limited-edition deck of special cards to go with The Practice. It launched today.

Persistence: Today is the 200th episode of my podcast Akimbo. I don’t blog about it here often, but wanted to thank my producer Alex DiPalma and thank you for listening as well. It’s a labor of love, and it’s also among the top 1% of all podcasts. You can check out episodes here and transcripts here and subscribe here. That’s years and years of weekly audio, via the magic of podcasting.

Imagination: Jacqueline Novogratz and Tim Ferriss talk about her new book on Tim’s podcast this week. Hearing two of my friends so thoroughly talk about work that truly matters is a wonder, and I encourage you to check it out.

And more: Erica Dhawan’s book on digital body language just arrived, and it’s a salve for exhausted Zoom users (all of us). Steve Wexler’s new book on data visualizations, charts and graphs is worth checking out when it ships next week. And the blog and book and podcast that will change your life the most is the one you create.

Go make something.

The best newsletter I subscribe. brainpickings.org


This is Brain Pickings midweek pick-me-up, drawn from my fifteen-year archive of ideas unblunted by time, resurfaced as timeless nourishment for heart, mind, and spirit. (If you don’t yet subscribe to the standard Sunday newsletter of new pieces published each week, you can sign up here — it’s free.) If you missed last week’s edition — Kierkegaard on our greatest source of unhappiness and its antidote — you can catch up right here. If my labor of love enriches your life in any way, please consider supporting it with a donation – all these years, I have spent tens of thousands of hours, made many personal sacrifices, and invested tremendous resources in Brain Pickings, which remains free and ad-free and alive thanks to reader patronage. If you already donate: THANK YOU.

FROM THE ARCHIVE | Getting Out of Your Own Light: Aldous Huxley on Mind-Body Integration and How You Become Who You Are

Aldous Huxley (July, 26 1894–November 22, 1963) endures as one of the most visionary and unusual minds of the twentieth century — a man of strong convictions about drugs, democracy, and religion and immensely prescient ideas about the role of technology in human life; a prominent fixture of Carl Sagan’s reading list; and the author of a little-known allegorical children’s book.

In one of his twenty-six altogether excellent essays in The Divine Within: Selected Writings on Enlightenment (public library), Huxley sets out to answer the question of who we are — an enormous question that, he points out, entails a number of complex relationships: between and among humans, between humanity and nature, between the cultural traditions of different societies, between the values and belief systems of the present and the past.aldoushuxley_square.jpg?w=680

Aldous Huxley

Writing in 1955, more than two decades after the publication of Brave New World, Huxley considers the stakes in this ultimate act of bravery:

2e292385-dc1c-4cfe-b95e-845f6f98c2ec.pngWhat are we in relation to our own minds and bodies — or, seeing that there is not a single word, let us use it in a hyphenated form — our own mind-bodies? What are we in relation to this total organism in which we live?

[…]

The moment we begin thinking about it in any detail, we find ourselves confronted by all kinds of extremely difficult, unanswered, and maybe unanswerable questions.

These unanswerable questions, the value of which the great Hannah Arendt would extol as the basis of our civilization two decades later, challenge the very “who” of who we are. Huxley illustrates this with a most basic example:

2e292385-dc1c-4cfe-b95e-845f6f98c2ec.pngI wish to raise my hand. Well, I raise it. But who raises it? Who is the “I” who raises my hand? Certainly it is not exclusively the “I” who is standing here talking, the “I” who signs the checks and has a history behind him, because I do not have the faintest idea how my hand was raised. All I know is that I expressed a wish for my hand to be raised, whereupon something within myself set to work, pulled the switches of a most elaborate nervous system, and made thirty or forty muscles — some of which contract and some of which relax at the same instant — function in perfect harmony so as to produce this extremely simple gesture. And of course, when we ask ourselves, how does my heart beat? how do we breathe? how do I digest my food? — we do not have the faintest idea.

[…]

We as personalities — as what we like to think of ourselves as being — are in fact only a very small part of an immense manifestation of activity, physical and mental, of which we are simply not aware. We have some control over this inasmuch as some actions being voluntary we can say, I want this to happen, and somebody else does the work for us. But meanwhile, many actions go on without our having the slightest consciousness of them, and … these vegetative actions can be grossly interfered with by our undesirable thoughts, our fears, our greeds, our angers, and so on…

The question then arises, How are we related to this? Why is it that we think of ourselves as only this minute part of a totality far larger than we are — a totality which according to many philosophers may actually be coextensive with the total activity of the universe?

youarestardust4.jpg?w=680

Illustration from You Are Stardust

At a time when Alan Watts was beginning to popularize Eastern teachings in the West and prominent public figures like Jack Kerouac were turning to Buddhism, Huxley advances this cross-pollination of East and West. With an eye to pioneering psychologist and philosopher William James, who was among his greatest influences, he considers the notion that our consciousness is the filtering down of a larger universal consciousness, distilled in a way that benefits our survival:

2e292385-dc1c-4cfe-b95e-845f6f98c2ec.pngObviously, if we have to get out of the way of the traffic on Hollywood Boulevard, it is no good being aware of everything that is going on in the universe; we have to be aware of the approaching bus. And this is what the brain does for us: It narrows the field down so that we can go through life without getting into serious trouble.

But … we can and ought to open ourselves up and become what in fact we have always been from the beginning, that is to say … much more widely knowing than we normally think we are. We should realize our identity with what James called the cosmic consciousness and what in the East is called the Atman-Brahman. The end of life in all great religious traditions is the realization that the finite manifests the Infinite in its totality. This is, of course, a complete paradox when it is stated in words; nevertheless, it is one of the facts of experience.

But this deeper and more expansive sense of self, Huxley argues, is habitually obscured by the superficial shells we mistake for our selves:

2e292385-dc1c-4cfe-b95e-845f6f98c2ec.pngThe superficial self — the self which we call ourselves, which answers to our names and which goes about its business — has a terrible habit of imagining itself to be absolute in some sense… We know in an obscure and profound way that in the depths of our being … we are identical with the divine Ground. And we wish to realize this identity. But unfortunately, owing to the ignorance in which we live — partly a cultural product, partly a biological and voluntary product — we tend to look at ourselves, at this wretched little self, as being absolute. We either worship ourselves as such, or we project some magnified image of the self in an ideal or goal which falls short of the highest ideal or goal, and proceed to worship that.

Huxley admonishes against “the appalling dangers of idolatry” — a misguided attempt at communion with a greater truth that, in fact, renders us all the more separate:

2e292385-dc1c-4cfe-b95e-845f6f98c2ec.pngIdolatry is … the worship of a part — especially the self or projection of the self — as though it were the absolute totality. And as soon as this happens, general disaster occurs.

gertrudesteintodo11.jpg?w=680

Illustration by Giselle Potter from To Do: A Book of Alphabets and Birthdays — Gertrude Stein’s little-known alphabet book.

Nearly half a century before Adrienne Rich lamented “the corruptions of language employed to manage our perceptions” in her spectacular critique of capitalism, Huxley argues that the uses and misuses of language mediate our relationship with the self and are responsible for our tendency to confuse the deeper self with the superficial self:

2e292385-dc1c-4cfe-b95e-845f6f98c2ec.pngThis is the greatest gift which man has ever received or given himself, the gift of language. But we have to remember that although language is absolutely essential to us, it can also be absolutely fatal because we use it wrongly. If we analyze our processes of living, we find that, I imagine, at least 50 percent of our life is spent in the universe of language. We are like icebergs, floating in a sea of immediate experience but projecting into the air of language. Icebergs are about four-fifths under water and one-fifth above. But, I would say, we are considerably more than that above. I should say, we are the best part of 50 percent — and, I suspect, some people are about 80 percent above in the world of language. They virtually never have a direct experience; they live entirely in terms of concepts.

It’s a sentiment triply poignant today, in an era when the so-called social media rely on language — both textual and the even more commodified visual language of photography — to convey and to manicure our conceptual perception of each other, often at the expense of the deeper truth of who we are. To be sure, Huxley recognizes that this reliance on concepts is evolutionarily necessary — another sensemaking mechanism for narrowing and organizing the uncontainable chaos of reality into comprehensible bits:

2e292385-dc1c-4cfe-b95e-845f6f98c2ec.pngWhen we see a rose, we immediately say, rose. We do not say, I see a roundish mass of delicately shaded reds and pinks. We immediately pass from the actual experience to the concept.

[…]

We cannot help living to a very large extent in terms of concepts. We have to do so, because immediate experience is so chaotic and so immensely rich that in mere self-preservation we have to use the machinery of language to sort out what is of utility for us, what in any given context is of importance, and at the same time to try to understand—because it is only in terms of language that we can understand what is happening. We make generalizations and we go into higher and higher degrees of abstraction, which permit us to comprehend what we are up to, which we certainly would not if we did not have language. And in this way language is an immense boon, which we could not possibly do without.

But language has its limitations and its traps.

Much like Simone Weil argued that the language of algebra hijacked the scientific understanding of reality in the early twentieth century, Huxley asserts that verbal language is leading us to mistake the names we give to various aspects of reality for reality itself:

2e292385-dc1c-4cfe-b95e-845f6f98c2ec.pngIn general, we think that the pointing finger — the word — is the thing we point at… In reality, words are simply the signs of things. But many people treat things as though they were the signs and illustrations of words. When they see a thing, they immediately think of it as just being an illustration of a verbal category, which is absolutely fatal because this is not the case. And yet we cannot do without words. The whole of life is, after all, a process of walking on a tightrope. If you do not fall one way you fall the other, and each is equally bad. We cannot do without language, and yet if we take language too seriously we are in an extremely bad way. We somehow have to keep going on this knife-edge (every action of life is a knife-edge), being aware of the dangers and doing our best to keep out of them.

This, perhaps, is why David Whyte — as both a poet and a philosopher — is so well poised to unravel the deeper, truer meanings of common words.gertrudesteintodo7.jpg?w=680

Illustration by Giselle Potter from To Do: A Book of Alphabets and Birthdays by Gertrude Stein

The root of our over-reliance on language, Huxley argues, lies in our flawed education system, which is predominantly verbal at the expense of experiential learning. (A similar lament led young Susan Sontag to radically remix the timeline of education.) In a prescient case for today’s rise of tinkering schools and mind-body training for kids, Huxley writes:

2e292385-dc1c-4cfe-b95e-845f6f98c2ec.pngThe liberal arts … are little better than they were in the Middle Ages. In the Middle Ages the liberal arts were entirely verbal. The only two which were not verbal were astronomy and music… Although for hundreds of years we have been talking about mens sana in corpore sano, we really have not paid any serious attention to the problem of training the mind-body, the instrument which has to do with the learning, which has to do with the living. We give children compulsory games, a little drill, and so on, but this really does not amount in any sense to a training of the mind-body. We pour this verbal stuff into them without in any way preparing the organism for life or for understanding its position in the world — who it is, where it stands, how it is related to the universe. This is one of the oddest things.

Moreover, we do not even prepare the child to have any proper relation with its own mind-body.

Long before Buckminster Fuller admonished against the evils of excessive specialization and Leo Buscaglia penned his magnificent critique of the education system’s industrialized conformity, Huxley writes:

2e292385-dc1c-4cfe-b95e-845f6f98c2ec.pngOne of the reasons for the lack of attention to the training of the mind-body is that this particular kind of teaching does not fall into any academic pigeonhole. This is one of the great problems in education: Everything takes place in a pigeonhole… The pigeonholes must be there because we cannot avoid specialization; but what we do need in academic institutions now is a few people who run about on the woodwork between the pigeonholes, and peep into all of them and see what can be done, and who are not closed to disciplines which do not happen to fit into any of the categories considered as valid by the present educational system!

The solution to this paralyzing rigidity, Huxley argues, lies in combining “relaxation and activity.” In a sentiment that calls to mind the Chinese concept of wu-wei — “trying not to try” — he writes:

2e292385-dc1c-4cfe-b95e-845f6f98c2ec.pngTake the piano teacher, for example. He always says, Relax, relax. But how can you relax while your fingers are rushing over the keys? Yet they have to relax. The singing teacher and the golf pro say exactly the same thing. And in the realm of spiritual exercises we find that the person who teaches mental prayer does too. We have somehow to combine relaxation with activity…

The personal conscious self being a kind of small island in the midst of an enormous area of consciousness — what has to be relaxed is the personal self, the self that tries too hard, that thinks it knows what is what, that uses language. This has to be relaxed in order that the multiple powers at work within the deeper and wider self may come through and function as they should. In all psychophysical skills we have this curious fact of the law of reversed effort: the harder we try, the worse we do the thing.

Two decades before Julia Cameron penned her enduring psychoemotional toolkit for getting out of your own way, Huxley makes a beautiful case for the same idea:

2e292385-dc1c-4cfe-b95e-845f6f98c2ec.pngWe have to learn, so to speak, to get out of our own light, because with our personal self — this idolatrously worshiped self — we are continually standing in the light of this wider self — this not-self, if you like — which is associated with us and which this standing in the light prevents. We eclipse the illumination from within. And in all the activities of life, from the simplest physical activities to the highest intellectual and spiritual activities, our whole effort must be to get out of our own light.

flashlight_liziboyd5.jpg?w=680

Illustration by Lizi Boyd from Flashlight

The seed for this lifelong effort, Huxley concludes, must be planted in early education:

2e292385-dc1c-4cfe-b95e-845f6f98c2ec.pngThese [are] extremely important facets of education, which have been wholly neglected. I do not think that in ordinary schools you could teach what are called spiritual exercises, but you could certainly teach children how to use themselves in this relaxedly active way, how to perform these psychophysical skills without the frightful burden of overcoming the law of reversed effort.

The Divine Within is an illuminating read in its totality, exploring such subjects as time, religion, distraction, death, and the nature of reality. Complement it with Alan Watts on learning to live with presence in the age of anxiety and the great Zen teacher Thich Nhat Hanh on how to love.

FORWARD TO A FRIEND/READ ONLINE/
donating=lovingEach month, I spend hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars keeping Brain Pickings going. For a decade and a half, it has remained free and ad-free and alive thanks to patronage from readers. I have no staff, no interns, not even an assistant — a thoroughly one-woman labor of love that is also my life and my livelihood. If this labor makes your life more livable in any way, please consider aiding its sustenance with a donation. Your support makes all the difference.monthly donationYou can become a Sustaining Patron with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a Brooklyn lunch. one-time donationOr you can become a Spontaneous Supporter with a one-time donation in any amount.Partial to Bitcoin? You can beam some bit-love my way: 197usDS6AsL9wDKxtGM6xaWjmR5ejgqem7

KINDRED READINGS:

hugme_ciraolo171.jpg

The Science of How Our Minds and Our Bodies Converge in the Healing of Trauma

* * *

rackham_music.jpg

Aldous Huxley on the Transcendent Power of Music and Why It Sings to Our Souls

* * *

margaretcook_leavesofgrass00.jpg

Anne Gilchrist on Inner Wholeness, Our Greatest Obstacle to Happiness, and the Body as the Seedbed of a Flourishing Soul

* * *

ALSO, A CHILDREN’S BOOK BY YOURS TRULY:

The Snail with the Right Heart: A True Story

thesnailwiththerightheart_0000.jpg

AND A SMALL, DELIGHTFUL SIDE PROJECT:

Vintage Science Face Masks Benefiting the Nature Conservancy (New Designs Added)

Did you know…


Did you know…

… that today is National Odometer Day? Take some time today to learn a little bit more about the odometer! Without odometers, how could we track the progress we have made? Odometer Day was created to remind people to check their odometers and take better care of their cars.

~~~

Today’s Inspirational Quote:

“You’ve got to be very careful if you don’t know where you are going, because you might not get there.”

— Yogi Berra

W.O.T.D.


WORD OF THE DAY
Countervailkown-tər-VEILPart of speech: verbOrigin: Late Middle English, 1350s
1Offset the effect of (something) by countering it with something of equal force.
 
Examples of Countervail in a sentence “The dentist hoped the new toothpaste would countervail the candy’s effect.” “As a skilled debater, Andy was familiar with countervailing arguments.”

W.O.T.D.


WORD OF THE DAY
Corrigendumkor-ə-JEN-dəmPart of speech: nounOrigin: Latin, early 19th century
1A thing to be corrected, typically an error in a printed book.
 
Examples of Corrigendum in a sentence “The editor issued a corrigendum for the incorrect date in the final copy.” “The small typo didn’t merit a corrigendum, but the newspaper still received emails with a correction.”

Curiosity


EXPLORE YOUR CURIOSITY

★ “That thing that made you weird as a kid could make you great as an adult — if you don’t lose it.”

— Unsolicited Advice

★ “The majority of the time you spend sport climbing, you’re failing: falling off and then trying to figure out how not to fall. Climbing reminds you that to get better at anything, you’ve got to put in a tremendous amount of time and effort and keep beating your head against a wall to figure it out.”

— Alex Honnold, Life’s Work

Philosophy with children


Jana Mohr Lone

is director of the Center for Philosophy for Children and affiliate associate professor at the University of Washington. She is the author of The Philosophical Child (2012), co-editor of Philosophy and Education: Introducing Philosophy to Young People (2012) and co-author of Philosophy in Education: Questioning and Dialogue in Schools (2016). Her latest book is Seen and Not Heard: Why Children’s Voices Matter (2021). She lives on Bainbridge Island, Washington.

3,400 words

Edited by Sally DaviesSYNDICATE THIS ESSAYTweet5925 Comments

Aeon for Friends

Find out more

When I tell someone that I run a centre that brings philosophy into children’s lives, much of the time I’m greeted with puzzlement, and sometimes open scepticism. How can children do philosophy? Isn’t it too hard for them? What are you trying to do, teach Kant to kindergarteners? Or, somewhat more suspiciously, what kind of philosophy are you teaching them?

These reactions are understandable, because they stem from very common assumptions – about children and about philosophy. Central to our work at the Center for Philosophy for Children at the University of Washington is the conviction that we ought to challenge beliefs about children’s limited capacities, and to expand our understanding of the nature of philosophy and who is capable of engaging in it. As one seven-year-old put it: ‘In philosophy, we’re growing our minds.’

Most of our philosophy sessions with children are in public elementary schools; the aim is to discover what topics the children want to think about, and to foster discussions and reflection about these subjects. I don’t think of what I do as teaching philosophy, though. The point is not to educate children about the history of philosophy, nor to instruct them in the arguments made by professional philosophers.

Children’s questioning can constitute the most primary of philosophical activities: reflecting on the meaning of ordinary experiences and concepts in order to develop an understanding of the world, others and themselves. When I ask children what questions they wonder about, their responses typically include questions such as: why am I here? Who am I? Why is there hatred in the world? What happens when we die? How do I know the right way to live? One parent told me that her three-year-old daughter keeps asking her: ‘Mommy, why do the days just keep coming?’

Although adults know that young children are inclined to ask a lot of questions, we tend to believe that they’re too immature and unsophisticated to reflect seriously on complex topics. We characterise children as curious and full of wonder, but we assume that they don’t really understand the philosophical dimensions of the larger questions they pose.

But, if we think back, many adults will recall that their philosophical wondering began in childhood. For a lot of us, in fact, childhood is the period of life in which we spend the most time wondering. Quite a few professional philosophers’ interest in the field emerged from an early enthusiasm for questioning. Some describe the experience of taking a philosophy class or reading a philosophical text and recognising the questions involved as those they’d been thinking about since they were young.

When I was a graduate student in philosophy, I became intrigued by the questions my young children were asking. I began thinking about my own childhood and remembering the thoughts I had about life and death, the meaning of life, friendship, happiness, and family. I remember, for example, being six or seven years old, in bed and ready to sleep, thinking about death and the possibility that one day I would no longer exist in any form. Nothingness. How could it be, I reflected, that I was here, now, and then one day I would no longer exist? The fact that I would die someday was scary, and I wondered what it meant for how I should think about my life.

My conversations with children and parents over the years confirm that I was not alone in having these thoughts at this age. Aristotle maintained that ‘all human beings by nature reach out for understanding’. Early in life, young children begin to try to make sense of their worlds and to understand the way things work. Almost as soon as they can formulate them, children begin asking questions about the concepts they hear and the world they experience.

Around age four, children start asking what we call ‘why questions’. Why are people mean to other people? Why do I have to go to school? Why don’t dogs talk?

Many elementary school-age children are wide open to life’s philosophical mysteries, lying awake at night thinking about questions such as whether God exists, why the world has the colours it does, the nature of time, whether dreams are real, why we die, and why we exist. Once, during a philosophy session I was leading, a 10-year-old child asked me:

I want to know why we work hard and worry about money, and what we’re going to do when we grow up, what we’ll do for work and food and shelter, when one day we’re just all going to die. I mean, what’s the point? What does it mean to be alive?

Word of the day


WORD OF THE DAY
EgressEE-gresPart of speech: nounOrigin: Latin, mid 16th century
1The action of going out of or leaving a place.2A way out.
 
Examples of Egress in a sentence “The door was propped open for easy egress.” “Before the lights dimmed, the ushers pointed out points of egress to moviegoers.”
WORD OF THE DAY
EgressEE-gresPart of speech: nounOrigin: Latin, mid 16th century
1The action of going out of or leaving a place.2A way out.
 
Examples of Egress in a sentence “The door was propped open for easy egress.” “Before the lights dimmed, the ushers pointed out points of egress to moviegoers.”

Did you know..


Did you know…

… that today is National Third Shift Day? Today be sure to thank the people who work throughout the night to keep our cities and businesses safe and operational as we sleep. We are grateful for you!

~~~

Today’s Inspirational Quote:

“Our attitudes control our lives. Attitudes are a secret power working twenty-four hours a day, for good or bad. It is of paramount importance that we know how to harness and control this great force.”

— Irving Berlin

International Nurses Day – 12 May


International Nurses Day 12 May

Nurses

This day marks the birth anniversary of Florence Nightingale and celebrates nurses for the contributions they make to society.

Content marketing ideas:   

  • Listicle idea: X Ways you can make healthcare workers’ lives easier next time you are in hospital
  • Infographic idea: X Important duties of nurses that you might not be aware of
  • Video idea: How do doctors’ and nurses’ lives differ?
  • Podcast idea: Overcoming the stigma of being a male nurse

Faster! Faster ? by Seth Godin


Faster! Faster? [ https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=178129647&f=1081591&c=7655837&u=5102652 ]

This simple free tool lets you speed up just about any video you watch in Chrome.

And it’s not difficult at all to speed up audiobooks or podcasts, just look for the button in your favorite player.

If the topic lends itself to you absorbing the information faster than the person is presenting it, this simple hack increases the amount you can learn by 30%, which is huge.

On the other hand, if you’re simply speeding things up because you are in a hurry to get through it, it might be better to not do it at all.

Four Signs Someone Has the Maturity of a Child


View at Medium.com

Recap for your memory

  1. They are a revolving list of complaints. They sound like they always need a nap.
  2. They speak with no consideration for other people, or their feelings. They seize any opportunity to blunt someone over the head with the “hard truth”.
  3. They can’t take criticism of any type without blowing up or getting defensive. Everything is a reaction.
  4. Apologies are rare and when they arrive it is done kicking and screaming. Any apology that includes a “but” isn’t a true apology.

W.O.T.D.


WORD OF THE DAY
EquableEK-wə-blPart of speech: adjectiveOrigin: Latin, mid 17th century
1(of a person) Not easily disturbed or angered; calm and even-tempered.2Not varying or fluctuating greatly.
 
Examples of Equable in a sentence “Dad is easier to bargain with because of his equable personality.” “The sea was equable and glassy, with not a single wave in sight.”

Insights


TIMELESS INSIGHTS

1

“You can’t outrun your pain. You are strong enough to face whatever is in front of you. Medicating your pain will only bring more pain. The only genuine shortcut life offers is facing your feelings. They won’t kill you. Feelings are your soul’s way of communicating. Pain is trying to teach you something, and if you don’t listen now, it will speak louder and louder until it is heard.”

— Jewel in Never Broken (p. 377)

2

On Learning to Argue

“Once people accept the case for why you need to be exposed to people who disagree with you, and who challenge your ideas, then the question is, how do you do it? And here I have two recommendations. One, the one that worked for me, that really helped me, because I was an arrogant argumentative teenager and young adult, is reading Dale Carnegie’s book, How to Win Friends and Influence People. And it’s so easy once you read it. It’s a great book, it’s a really fun book. And what he teaches you is, don’t come out saying, “You’re wrong and here’s why.” Come out saying, “Oh, that’s very interesting. I think you’re right about that one thing there.” Or, “We have this in common.” Or, “I can understand why you’re saying that,” or, “Here’s something in my experience that confirms what you said.” And once you start by agreeing on something, then you can pivot to, “But now on the other hand, it seems to me that…” and then you can raise your point. And then you’re much more likely to persuade the person … If you’re a Homo sapien, you evolved for group combat, you evolved for confirmation bias and motivated reasoning. We’re not really evolved to be academics or scientists searching for truth in an unbiased way. We evolved to basically CYA, and win in social competitions. But if you learn some skills, you can actually be very effective as a teacher, as someone who persuades, as someone who changes people.”

— Jonathan Haidt on TKP

Curiosity


EXPLORE YOUR CURIOSITY

★ “That thing that made you weird as a kid could make you great as an adult — if you don’t lose it.”

— Unsolicited Advice

★ “The majority of the time you spend sport climbing, you’re failing: falling off and then trying to figure out how not to fall. Climbing reminds you that to get better at anything, you’ve got to put in a tremendous amount of time and effort and keep beating your head against a wall to figure it out.”

— Alex Honnold, Life’s Work

ums-likes-and-yknows-get-no-respect-but-theyre-vital-to-conversation


https://aeon.co/videos/ums-likes-and-yknows-get-no-respect-but-theyre-vital-to-conversation?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=df7b664408-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2021_05_10_12_47&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-df7b664408-70852355

Love


Love isn’t a state of perfect caring. It is an active noun like ‘struggle.’
Fred Rogers
Ah, Mister Rogers, the wholesome father figure whom generations of kids grew to cherish thanks to his regularly shared nuggets of wisdom. He had so much good advice, in fact, that he filled an entire book with it, called “You Are Special: Words of Wisdom for All Ages From a Beloved Neighbor.” In this quote from that book, Mister Rogers tells us that love isn’t effortless. You can care about someone easily, but to continue to care about them as they grow and change — and sometimes cause pain — takes some work. But some things are worth working for, and when it comes to love, it’s almost always worth it to put in the effort.

Why the blockchain matters – By SEth Godin


Why the blockchain matters [ https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=178109673&f=1081591&c=7653545&u=5102652 ]

But first, let’s understand some words…

Bitcoin is not the blockchain. If the blockchain is a printing press, Bitcoin is a kind of paper money. There are countless things that one can do with a printing press, in fact, it changed the world, but the invention of paper money isn’t even one of the top 100 most important outputs the printed press created.

Cryptocurrency has a terrible name. Most people associate “crypto” with spies and secrets. And a currency is generally backed by a nation, with a treasury, an exchequer and banks.

It’s more accurately thought of as a token.

If you went to an amusement park, you might buy a bunch of tokens or tickets to go on the rides. And if you run one of the rides, you collect the tokens, which at some point, you can trade in for a different sort of value, probably currency.

If people need tokens and they’re scarce, they go up in value. If people think that tokens are going to up in value, they might buy them in anticipation of that. And the things that people do to get tokens can range from simply buying them with paper money (!) to performing various tasks (like the ride operators in the example above).

And, if a lot of people own tokens, they’re likely to do things that make tokens go up in value. Thus, an ecosystem is born.

Okay, so what’s the blockchain?

It’s a database.

Unlike most databases, it’s not controlled by one entity and it’s not easily rewritten. Instead, it’s a ledger, a permanent, examinable, public database. One can use it to record transactions of various sorts.

It would be a really good way to keep track of property records, for example. Instead, we have title insurance, unsearchable folders of deeds in City Hall and often dusty tax records.

There are databases everywhere around us (Facebook, for example, is mostly a database–who are the users, who do they know, what do they do?). Because the internet rewards people who own networks so handsomely, these organizations continue to gain in power. Google began by building a database on top of the open internet, and they’ve spent the last twenty years relentlessly making the internet less open so they can fortify the power of their databases and the attention they influence or control.

And that’s the first reason that the blockchain matters—because there’s a chance that it might lead to more open, resilient, market-focused networks and databases. It’s only a chance, though, because all the hype around the tokens sometimes makes it seem more likely that financial operators will simply seek to manipulate unregulated markets for their own benefit.

The second reason might support positive change. The existence of tokens and decentralization means that it’s possible to build resilient open source communities where early contributors and supporters benefit handsomely over time. No one owns these communities, and we can hope that these communities will work hard to serve themselves and their users, not the capital markets or other short-term players.

Consider a project like Wikipedia. Tens of thousands of people have devoted millions of hours to working to build it. 5,000 active editors are responsible for most of the work that we benefit from every day. This is unpaid work, done for the community and for the satisfaction and status that comes with it.

But of the top 100 websites, there are very few that are built on this model.

Now imagine a blockchain/token project in which contributors earned tokens as they built it and supported it.

Over time, the decentralized project would go up in value. As the ecosystem and the market delivered more and more utility to more and more people, the users would need to buy tokens to use it. And the holders of tokens would receive either a dividend or have the ability to sell their tokens if they chose.

Early speculators would attract more attention, and people with more skill than capital could invest by contributing early and often.

As the project reached a steady state, the stakeholders would shift, from innovators and speculators to people who treat their daily contributions as a job without a boss. Innovators could build on top of this network without permission, creating more and more variations and choice using the same underlying database.

One way to consider this: The open web led to a huge leap in the number of useful databases that we all use (things like Zillow, Instagram and even Tinder). They were fairly cheap to launch and run, and once the network effect kicked in, the profits were significant. Investors were eager to fund the next one, because the odds of a big win dwarfed most of what they could choose from in traditional businesses.

But dominant players are now working to make the openness of the web (the thing that allowed them to grow in the first place) less open. Google and Facebook and others push to make their stock price go up, not to serve users and others who now understand they have little choice in the matter.

The distributed nature of the blockchain, combined with this novel way of funding early contributions means that the network effect may very well bring powerful new databases to the fore, creating new ways for us to interact.

It’s hardly going to be perfect. There’s the issue of how the blockchain itself is run. If it’s run on the original method—proof of work—it’s likely to be a carbon disaster, getting worse as it succeeds. Fortunately, there are new approaches on the horizon (with great names like ‘proof of stake’ and ‘sharding’) that might address these problems.

For the typical user, the existence of the blockchain itself won’t matter, just as you don’t need to know how many volunteer editors Wikipedia has to benefit from using it.

The reason the blockchain matters is that it is an agent of change. Just like the transistor and yes, the printing press, when an agent of change shows up, it often leads to shifts that we probably didn’t expect.

Understanding it now is more productive than simply being forced to deal with it later.Why the blockchain matters [ https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=178109673&f=1081591&c=7653545&u=5102652 ]

But first, let’s understand some words…

Bitcoin is not the blockchain. If the blockchain is a printing press, Bitcoin is a kind of paper money. There are countless things that one can do with a printing press, in fact, it changed the world, but the invention of paper money isn’t even one of the top 100 most important outputs the printed press created.

Cryptocurrency has a terrible name. Most people associate “crypto” with spies and secrets. And a currency is generally backed by a nation, with a treasury, an exchequer and banks.

It’s more accurately thought of as a token.

If you went to an amusement park, you might buy a bunch of tokens or tickets to go on the rides. And if you run one of the rides, you collect the tokens, which at some point, you can trade in for a different sort of value, probably currency.

If people need tokens and they’re scarce, they go up in value. If people think that tokens are going to up in value, they might buy them in anticipation of that. And the things that people do to get tokens can range from simply buying them with paper money (!) to performing various tasks (like the ride operators in the example above).

And, if a lot of people own tokens, they’re likely to do things that make tokens go up in value. Thus, an ecosystem is born.

Okay, so what’s the blockchain?

It’s a database.

Unlike most databases, it’s not controlled by one entity and it’s not easily rewritten. Instead, it’s a ledger, a permanent, examinable, public database. One can use it to record transactions of various sorts.

It would be a really good way to keep track of property records, for example. Instead, we have title insurance, unsearchable folders of deeds in City Hall and often dusty tax records.

There are databases everywhere around us (Facebook, for example, is mostly a database–who are the users, who do they know, what do they do?). Because the internet rewards people who own networks so handsomely, these organizations continue to gain in power. Google began by building a database on top of the open internet, and they’ve spent the last twenty years relentlessly making the internet less open so they can fortify the power of their databases and the attention they influence or control.

And that’s the first reason that the blockchain matters—because there’s a chance that it might lead to more open, resilient, market-focused networks and databases. It’s only a chance, though, because all the hype around the tokens sometimes makes it seem more likely that financial operators will simply seek to manipulate unregulated markets for their own benefit.

The second reason might support positive change. The existence of tokens and decentralization means that it’s possible to build resilient open source communities where early contributors and supporters benefit handsomely over time. No one owns these communities, and we can hope that these communities will work hard to serve themselves and their users, not the capital markets or other short-term players.

Consider a project like Wikipedia. Tens of thousands of people have devoted millions of hours to working to build it. 5,000 active editors are responsible for most of the work that we benefit from every day. This is unpaid work, done for the community and for the satisfaction and status that comes with it.

But of the top 100 websites, there are very few that are built on this model.

Now imagine a blockchain/token project in which contributors earned tokens as they built it and supported it.

Over time, the decentralized project would go up in value. As the ecosystem and the market delivered more and more utility to more and more people, the users would need to buy tokens to use it. And the holders of tokens would receive either a dividend or have the ability to sell their tokens if they chose.

Early speculators would attract more attention, and people with more skill than capital could invest by contributing early and often.

As the project reached a steady state, the stakeholders would shift, from innovators and speculators to people who treat their daily contributions as a job without a boss. Innovators could build on top of this network without permission, creating more and more variations and choice using the same underlying database.

One way to consider this: The open web led to a huge leap in the number of useful databases that we all use (things like Zillow, Instagram and even Tinder). They were fairly cheap to launch and run, and once the network effect kicked in, the profits were significant. Investors were eager to fund the next one, because the odds of a big win dwarfed most of what they could choose from in traditional businesses.

But dominant players are now working to make the openness of the web (the thing that allowed them to grow in the first place) less open. Google and Facebook and others push to make their stock price go up, not to serve users and others who now understand they have little choice in the matter.

The distributed nature of the blockchain, combined with this novel way of funding early contributions means that the network effect may very well bring powerful new databases to the fore, creating new ways for us to interact.

It’s hardly going to be perfect. There’s the issue of how the blockchain itself is run. If it’s run on the original method—proof of work—it’s likely to be a carbon disaster, getting worse as it succeeds. Fortunately, there are new approaches on the horizon (with great names like ‘proof of stake’ and ‘sharding’) that might address these problems.

For the typical user, the existence of the blockchain itself won’t matter, just as you don’t need to know how many volunteer editors Wikipedia has to benefit from using it.

The reason the blockchain matters is that it is an agent of change. Just like the transistor and yes, the printing press, when an agent of change shows up, it often leads to shifts that we probably didn’t expect.

Understanding it now is more productive than simply being forced to deal with it later.Why the blockchain matters [ https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=178109673&f=1081591&c=7653545&u=5102652 ]

But first, let’s understand some words…

Bitcoin is not the blockchain. If the blockchain is a printing press, Bitcoin is a kind of paper money. There are countless things that one can do with a printing press, in fact, it changed the world, but the invention of paper money isn’t even one of the top 100 most important outputs the printed press created.

Cryptocurrency has a terrible name. Most people associate “crypto” with spies and secrets. And a currency is generally backed by a nation, with a treasury, an exchequer and banks.

It’s more accurately thought of as a token.

If you went to an amusement park, you might buy a bunch of tokens or tickets to go on the rides. And if you run one of the rides, you collect the tokens, which at some point, you can trade in for a different sort of value, probably currency.

If people need tokens and they’re scarce, they go up in value. If people think that tokens are going to up in value, they might buy them in anticipation of that. And the things that people do to get tokens can range from simply buying them with paper money (!) to performing various tasks (like the ride operators in the example above).

And, if a lot of people own tokens, they’re likely to do things that make tokens go up in value. Thus, an ecosystem is born.

Okay, so what’s the blockchain?

It’s a database.

Unlike most databases, it’s not controlled by one entity and it’s not easily rewritten. Instead, it’s a ledger, a permanent, examinable, public database. One can use it to record transactions of various sorts.

It would be a really good way to keep track of property records, for example. Instead, we have title insurance, unsearchable folders of deeds in City Hall and often dusty tax records.

There are databases everywhere around us (Facebook, for example, is mostly a database–who are the users, who do they know, what do they do?). Because the internet rewards people who own networks so handsomely, these organizations continue to gain in power. Google began by building a database on top of the open internet, and they’ve spent the last twenty years relentlessly making the internet less open so they can fortify the power of their databases and the attention they influence or control.

And that’s the first reason that the blockchain matters—because there’s a chance that it might lead to more open, resilient, market-focused networks and databases. It’s only a chance, though, because all the hype around the tokens sometimes makes it seem more likely that financial operators will simply seek to manipulate unregulated markets for their own benefit.

The second reason might support positive change. The existence of tokens and decentralization means that it’s possible to build resilient open source communities where early contributors and supporters benefit handsomely over time. No one owns these communities, and we can hope that these communities will work hard to serve themselves and their users, not the capital markets or other short-term players.

Consider a project like Wikipedia. Tens of thousands of people have devoted millions of hours to working to build it. 5,000 active editors are responsible for most of the work that we benefit from every day. This is unpaid work, done for the community and for the satisfaction and status that comes with it.

But of the top 100 websites, there are very few that are built on this model.

Now imagine a blockchain/token project in which contributors earned tokens as they built it and supported it.

Over time, the decentralized project would go up in value. As the ecosystem and the market delivered more and more utility to more and more people, the users would need to buy tokens to use it. And the holders of tokens would receive either a dividend or have the ability to sell their tokens if they chose.

Early speculators would attract more attention, and people with more skill than capital could invest by contributing early and often.

As the project reached a steady state, the stakeholders would shift, from innovators and speculators to people who treat their daily contributions as a job without a boss. Innovators could build on top of this network without permission, creating more and more variations and choice using the same underlying database.

One way to consider this: The open web led to a huge leap in the number of useful databases that we all use (things like Zillow, Instagram and even Tinder). They were fairly cheap to launch and run, and once the network effect kicked in, the profits were significant. Investors were eager to fund the next one, because the odds of a big win dwarfed most of what they could choose from in traditional businesses.

But dominant players are now working to make the openness of the web (the thing that allowed them to grow in the first place) less open. Google and Facebook and others push to make their stock price go up, not to serve users and others who now understand they have little choice in the matter.

The distributed nature of the blockchain, combined with this novel way of funding early contributions means that the network effect may very well bring powerful new databases to the fore, creating new ways for us to interact.

It’s hardly going to be perfect. There’s the issue of how the blockchain itself is run. If it’s run on the original method—proof of work—it’s likely to be a carbon disaster, getting worse as it succeeds. Fortunately, there are new approaches on the horizon (with great names like ‘proof of stake’ and ‘sharding’) that might address these problems.

For the typical user, the existence of the blockchain itself won’t matter, just as you don’t need to know how many volunteer editors Wikipedia has to benefit from using it.

The reason the blockchain matters is that it is an agent of change. Just like the transistor and yes, the printing press, when an agent of change shows up, it often leads to shifts that we probably didn’t expect.

Understanding it now is more productive than simply being forced to deal with it later.Why the blockchain matters [ https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=178109673&f=1081591&c=7653545&u=5102652 ]

But first, let’s understand some words…

Bitcoin is not the blockchain. If the blockchain is a printing press, Bitcoin is a kind of paper money. There are countless things that one can do with a printing press, in fact, it changed the world, but the invention of paper money isn’t even one of the top 100 most important outputs the printed press created.

Cryptocurrency has a terrible name. Most people associate “crypto” with spies and secrets. And a currency is generally backed by a nation, with a treasury, an exchequer and banks.

It’s more accurately thought of as a token.

If you went to an amusement park, you might buy a bunch of tokens or tickets to go on the rides. And if you run one of the rides, you collect the tokens, which at some point, you can trade in for a different sort of value, probably currency.

If people need tokens and they’re scarce, they go up in value. If people think that tokens are going to up in value, they might buy them in anticipation of that. And the things that people do to get tokens can range from simply buying them with paper money (!) to performing various tasks (like the ride operators in the example above).

And, if a lot of people own tokens, they’re likely to do things that make tokens go up in value. Thus, an ecosystem is born.

Okay, so what’s the blockchain?

It’s a database.

Unlike most databases, it’s not controlled by one entity and it’s not easily rewritten. Instead, it’s a ledger, a permanent, examinable, public database. One can use it to record transactions of various sorts.

It would be a really good way to keep track of property records, for example. Instead, we have title insurance, unsearchable folders of deeds in City Hall and often dusty tax records.

There are databases everywhere around us (Facebook, for example, is mostly a database–who are the users, who do they know, what do they do?). Because the internet rewards people who own networks so handsomely, these organizations continue to gain in power. Google began by building a database on top of the open internet, and they’ve spent the last twenty years relentlessly making the internet less open so they can fortify the power of their databases and the attention they influence or control.

And that’s the first reason that the blockchain matters—because there’s a chance that it might lead to more open, resilient, market-focused networks and databases. It’s only a chance, though, because all the hype around the tokens sometimes makes it seem more likely that financial operators will simply seek to manipulate unregulated markets for their own benefit.

The second reason might support positive change. The existence of tokens and decentralization means that it’s possible to build resilient open source communities where early contributors and supporters benefit handsomely over time. No one owns these communities, and we can hope that these communities will work hard to serve themselves and their users, not the capital markets or other short-term players.

Consider a project like Wikipedia. Tens of thousands of people have devoted millions of hours to working to build it. 5,000 active editors are responsible for most of the work that we benefit from every day. This is unpaid work, done for the community and for the satisfaction and status that comes with it.

But of the top 100 websites, there are very few that are built on this model.

Now imagine a blockchain/token project in which contributors earned tokens as they built it and supported it.

Over time, the decentralized project would go up in value. As the ecosystem and the market delivered more and more utility to more and more people, the users would need to buy tokens to use it. And the holders of tokens would receive either a dividend or have the ability to sell their tokens if they chose.

Early speculators would attract more attention, and people with more skill than capital could invest by contributing early and often.

As the project reached a steady state, the stakeholders would shift, from innovators and speculators to people who treat their daily contributions as a job without a boss. Innovators could build on top of this network without permission, creating more and more variations and choice using the same underlying database.

One way to consider this: The open web led to a huge leap in the number of useful databases that we all use (things like Zillow, Instagram and even Tinder). They were fairly cheap to launch and run, and once the network effect kicked in, the profits were significant. Investors were eager to fund the next one, because the odds of a big win dwarfed most of what they could choose from in traditional businesses.

But dominant players are now working to make the openness of the web (the thing that allowed them to grow in the first place) less open. Google and Facebook and others push to make their stock price go up, not to serve users and others who now understand they have little choice in the matter.

The distributed nature of the blockchain, combined with this novel way of funding early contributions means that the network effect may very well bring powerful new databases to the fore, creating new ways for us to interact.

It’s hardly going to be perfect. There’s the issue of how the blockchain itself is run. If it’s run on the original method—proof of work—it’s likely to be a carbon disaster, getting worse as it succeeds. Fortunately, there are new approaches on the horizon (with great names like ‘proof of stake’ and ‘sharding’) that might address these problems.

For the typical user, the existence of the blockchain itself won’t matter, just as you don’t need to know how many volunteer editors Wikipedia has to benefit from using it.

The reason the blockchain matters is that it is an agent of change. Just like the transistor and yes, the printing press, when an agent of change shows up, it often leads to shifts that we probably didn’t expect.

Understanding it now is more productive than simply being forced to deal with it later.Why the blockchain matters [ https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=178109673&f=1081591&c=7653545&u=5102652 ]

But first, let’s understand some words…

Bitcoin is not the blockchain. If the blockchain is a printing press, Bitcoin is a kind of paper money. There are countless things that one can do with a printing press, in fact, it changed the world, but the invention of paper money isn’t even one of the top 100 most important outputs the printed press created.

Cryptocurrency has a terrible name. Most people associate “crypto” with spies and secrets. And a currency is generally backed by a nation, with a treasury, an exchequer and banks.

It’s more accurately thought of as a token.

If you went to an amusement park, you might buy a bunch of tokens or tickets to go on the rides. And if you run one of the rides, you collect the tokens, which at some point, you can trade in for a different sort of value, probably currency.

If people need tokens and they’re scarce, they go up in value. If people think that tokens are going to up in value, they might buy them in anticipation of that. And the things that people do to get tokens can range from simply buying them with paper money (!) to performing various tasks (like the ride operators in the example above).

And, if a lot of people own tokens, they’re likely to do things that make tokens go up in value. Thus, an ecosystem is born.

Okay, so what’s the blockchain?

It’s a database.

Unlike most databases, it’s not controlled by one entity and it’s not easily rewritten. Instead, it’s a ledger, a permanent, examinable, public database. One can use it to record transactions of various sorts.

It would be a really good way to keep track of property records, for example. Instead, we have title insurance, unsearchable folders of deeds in City Hall and often dusty tax records.

There are databases everywhere around us (Facebook, for example, is mostly a database–who are the users, who do they know, what do they do?). Because the internet rewards people who own networks so handsomely, these organizations continue to gain in power. Google began by building a database on top of the open internet, and they’ve spent the last twenty years relentlessly making the internet less open so they can fortify the power of their databases and the attention they influence or control.

And that’s the first reason that the blockchain matters—because there’s a chance that it might lead to more open, resilient, market-focused networks and databases. It’s only a chance, though, because all the hype around the tokens sometimes makes it seem more likely that financial operators will simply seek to manipulate unregulated markets for their own benefit.

The second reason might support positive change. The existence of tokens and decentralization means that it’s possible to build resilient open source communities where early contributors and supporters benefit handsomely over time. No one owns these communities, and we can hope that these communities will work hard to serve themselves and their users, not the capital markets or other short-term players.

Consider a project like Wikipedia. Tens of thousands of people have devoted millions of hours to working to build it. 5,000 active editors are responsible for most of the work that we benefit from every day. This is unpaid work, done for the community and for the satisfaction and status that comes with it.

But of the top 100 websites, there are very few that are built on this model.

Now imagine a blockchain/token project in which contributors earned tokens as they built it and supported it.

Over time, the decentralized project would go up in value. As the ecosystem and the market delivered more and more utility to more and more people, the users would need to buy tokens to use it. And the holders of tokens would receive either a dividend or have the ability to sell their tokens if they chose.

Early speculators would attract more attention, and people with more skill than capital could invest by contributing early and often.

As the project reached a steady state, the stakeholders would shift, from innovators and speculators to people who treat their daily contributions as a job without a boss. Innovators could build on top of this network without permission, creating more and more variations and choice using the same underlying database.

One way to consider this: The open web led to a huge leap in the number of useful databases that we all use (things like Zillow, Instagram and even Tinder). They were fairly cheap to launch and run, and once the network effect kicked in, the profits were significant. Investors were eager to fund the next one, because the odds of a big win dwarfed most of what they could choose from in traditional businesses.

But dominant players are now working to make the openness of the web (the thing that allowed them to grow in the first place) less open. Google and Facebook and others push to make their stock price go up, not to serve users and others who now understand they have little choice in the matter.

The distributed nature of the blockchain, combined with this novel way of funding early contributions means that the network effect may very well bring powerful new databases to the fore, creating new ways for us to interact.

It’s hardly going to be perfect. There’s the issue of how the blockchain itself is run. If it’s run on the original method—proof of work—it’s likely to be a carbon disaster, getting worse as it succeeds. Fortunately, there are new approaches on the horizon (with great names like ‘proof of stake’ and ‘sharding’) that might address these problems.

For the typical user, the existence of the blockchain itself won’t matter, just as you don’t need to know how many volunteer editors Wikipedia has to benefit from using it.

The reason the blockchain matters is that it is an agent of change. Just like the transistor and yes, the printing press, when an agent of change shows up, it often leads to shifts that we probably didn’t expect.

Understanding it now is more productive than simply being forced to deal with it later.Why the blockchain matters [ https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=178109673&f=1081591&c=7653545&u=5102652 ]

But first, let’s understand some words…

Bitcoin is not the blockchain. If the blockchain is a printing press, Bitcoin is a kind of paper money. There are countless things that one can do with a printing press, in fact, it changed the world, but the invention of paper money isn’t even one of the top 100 most important outputs the printed press created.

Cryptocurrency has a terrible name. Most people associate “crypto” with spies and secrets. And a currency is generally backed by a nation, with a treasury, an exchequer and banks.

It’s more accurately thought of as a token.

If you went to an amusement park, you might buy a bunch of tokens or tickets to go on the rides. And if you run one of the rides, you collect the tokens, which at some point, you can trade in for a different sort of value, probably currency.

If people need tokens and they’re scarce, they go up in value. If people think that tokens are going to up in value, they might buy them in anticipation of that. And the things that people do to get tokens can range from simply buying them with paper money (!) to performing various tasks (like the ride operators in the example above).

And, if a lot of people own tokens, they’re likely to do things that make tokens go up in value. Thus, an ecosystem is born.

Okay, so what’s the blockchain?

It’s a database.

Unlike most databases, it’s not controlled by one entity and it’s not easily rewritten. Instead, it’s a ledger, a permanent, examinable, public database. One can use it to record transactions of various sorts.

It would be a really good way to keep track of property records, for example. Instead, we have title insurance, unsearchable folders of deeds in City Hall and often dusty tax records.

There are databases everywhere around us (Facebook, for example, is mostly a database–who are the users, who do they know, what do they do?). Because the internet rewards people who own networks so handsomely, these organizations continue to gain in power. Google began by building a database on top of the open internet, and they’ve spent the last twenty years relentlessly making the internet less open so they can fortify the power of their databases and the attention they influence or control.

And that’s the first reason that the blockchain matters—because there’s a chance that it might lead to more open, resilient, market-focused networks and databases. It’s only a chance, though, because all the hype around the tokens sometimes makes it seem more likely that financial operators will simply seek to manipulate unregulated markets for their own benefit.

The second reason might support positive change. The existence of tokens and decentralization means that it’s possible to build resilient open source communities where early contributors and supporters benefit handsomely over time. No one owns these communities, and we can hope that these communities will work hard to serve themselves and their users, not the capital markets or other short-term players.

Consider a project like Wikipedia. Tens of thousands of people have devoted millions of hours to working to build it. 5,000 active editors are responsible for most of the work that we benefit from every day. This is unpaid work, done for the community and for the satisfaction and status that comes with it.

But of the top 100 websites, there are very few that are built on this model.

Now imagine a blockchain/token project in which contributors earned tokens as they built it and supported it.

Over time, the decentralized project would go up in value. As the ecosystem and the market delivered more and more utility to more and more people, the users would need to buy tokens to use it. And the holders of tokens would receive either a dividend or have the ability to sell their tokens if they chose.

Early speculators would attract more attention, and people with more skill than capital could invest by contributing early and often.

As the project reached a steady state, the stakeholders would shift, from innovators and speculators to people who treat their daily contributions as a job without a boss. Innovators could build on top of this network without permission, creating more and more variations and choice using the same underlying database.

One way to consider this: The open web led to a huge leap in the number of useful databases that we all use (things like Zillow, Instagram and even Tinder). They were fairly cheap to launch and run, and once the network effect kicked in, the profits were significant. Investors were eager to fund the next one, because the odds of a big win dwarfed most of what they could choose from in traditional businesses.

But dominant players are now working to make the openness of the web (the thing that allowed them to grow in the first place) less open. Google and Facebook and others push to make their stock price go up, not to serve users and others who now understand they have little choice in the matter.

The distributed nature of the blockchain, combined with this novel way of funding early contributions means that the network effect may very well bring powerful new databases to the fore, creating new ways for us to interact.

It’s hardly going to be perfect. There’s the issue of how the blockchain itself is run. If it’s run on the original method—proof of work—it’s likely to be a carbon disaster, getting worse as it succeeds. Fortunately, there are new approaches on the horizon (with great names like ‘proof of stake’ and ‘sharding’) that might address these problems.

For the typical user, the existence of the blockchain itself won’t matter, just as you don’t need to know how many volunteer editors Wikipedia has to benefit from using it.

The reason the blockchain matters is that it is an agent of change. Just like the transistor and yes, the printing press, when an agent of change shows up, it often leads to shifts that we probably didn’t expect.

Understanding it now is more productive than simply being forced to deal with it later.Why the blockchain matters [ https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=178109673&f=1081591&c=7653545&u=5102652 ]

But first, let’s understand some words…

Bitcoin is not the blockchain. If the blockchain is a printing press, Bitcoin is a kind of paper money. There are countless things that one can do with a printing press, in fact, it changed the world, but the invention of paper money isn’t even one of the top 100 most important outputs the printed press created.

Cryptocurrency has a terrible name. Most people associate “crypto” with spies and secrets. And a currency is generally backed by a nation, with a treasury, an exchequer and banks.

It’s more accurately thought of as a token.

If you went to an amusement park, you might buy a bunch of tokens or tickets to go on the rides. And if you run one of the rides, you collect the tokens, which at some point, you can trade in for a different sort of value, probably currency.

If people need tokens and they’re scarce, they go up in value. If people think that tokens are going to up in value, they might buy them in anticipation of that. And the things that people do to get tokens can range from simply buying them with paper money (!) to performing various tasks (like the ride operators in the example above).

And, if a lot of people own tokens, they’re likely to do things that make tokens go up in value. Thus, an ecosystem is born.

Okay, so what’s the blockchain?

It’s a database.

Unlike most databases, it’s not controlled by one entity and it’s not easily rewritten. Instead, it’s a ledger, a permanent, examinable, public database. One can use it to record transactions of various sorts.

It would be a really good way to keep track of property records, for example. Instead, we have title insurance, unsearchable folders of deeds in City Hall and often dusty tax records.

There are databases everywhere around us (Facebook, for example, is mostly a database–who are the users, who do they know, what do they do?). Because the internet rewards people who own networks so handsomely, these organizations continue to gain in power. Google began by building a database on top of the open internet, and they’ve spent the last twenty years relentlessly making the internet less open so they can fortify the power of their databases and the attention they influence or control.

And that’s the first reason that the blockchain matters—because there’s a chance that it might lead to more open, resilient, market-focused networks and databases. It’s only a chance, though, because all the hype around the tokens sometimes makes it seem more likely that financial operators will simply seek to manipulate unregulated markets for their own benefit.

The second reason might support positive change. The existence of tokens and decentralization means that it’s possible to build resilient open source communities where early contributors and supporters benefit handsomely over time. No one owns these communities, and we can hope that these communities will work hard to serve themselves and their users, not the capital markets or other short-term players.

Consider a project like Wikipedia. Tens of thousands of people have devoted millions of hours to working to build it. 5,000 active editors are responsible for most of the work that we benefit from every day. This is unpaid work, done for the community and for the satisfaction and status that comes with it.

But of the top 100 websites, there are very few that are built on this model.

Now imagine a blockchain/token project in which contributors earned tokens as they built it and supported it.

Over time, the decentralized project would go up in value. As the ecosystem and the market delivered more and more utility to more and more people, the users would need to buy tokens to use it. And the holders of tokens would receive either a dividend or have the ability to sell their tokens if they chose.

Early speculators would attract more attention, and people with more skill than capital could invest by contributing early and often.

As the project reached a steady state, the stakeholders would shift, from innovators and speculators to people who treat their daily contributions as a job without a boss. Innovators could build on top of this network without permission, creating more and more variations and choice using the same underlying database.

One way to consider this: The open web led to a huge leap in the number of useful databases that we all use (things like Zillow, Instagram and even Tinder). They were fairly cheap to launch and run, and once the network effect kicked in, the profits were significant. Investors were eager to fund the next one, because the odds of a big win dwarfed most of what they could choose from in traditional businesses.

But dominant players are now working to make the openness of the web (the thing that allowed them to grow in the first place) less open. Google and Facebook and others push to make their stock price go up, not to serve users and others who now understand they have little choice in the matter.

The distributed nature of the blockchain, combined with this novel way of funding early contributions means that the network effect may very well bring powerful new databases to the fore, creating new ways for us to interact.

It’s hardly going to be perfect. There’s the issue of how the blockchain itself is run. If it’s run on the original method—proof of work—it’s likely to be a carbon disaster, getting worse as it succeeds. Fortunately, there are new approaches on the horizon (with great names like ‘proof of stake’ and ‘sharding’) that might address these problems.

For the typical user, the existence of the blockchain itself won’t matter, just as you don’t need to know how many volunteer editors Wikipedia has to benefit from using it.

The reason the blockchain matters is that it is an agent of change. Just like the transistor and yes, the printing press, when an agent of change shows up, it often leads to shifts that we probably didn’t expect.

Understanding it now is more productive than simply being forced to deal with it later.Why the blockchain matters [ https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=178109673&f=1081591&c=7653545&u=5102652 ]

But first, let’s understand some words…

Bitcoin is not the blockchain. If the blockchain is a printing press, Bitcoin is a kind of paper money. There are countless things that one can do with a printing press, in fact, it changed the world, but the invention of paper money isn’t even one of the top 100 most important outputs the printed press created.

Cryptocurrency has a terrible name. Most people associate “crypto” with spies and secrets. And a currency is generally backed by a nation, with a treasury, an exchequer and banks.

It’s more accurately thought of as a token.

If you went to an amusement park, you might buy a bunch of tokens or tickets to go on the rides. And if you run one of the rides, you collect the tokens, which at some point, you can trade in for a different sort of value, probably currency.

If people need tokens and they’re scarce, they go up in value. If people think that tokens are going to up in value, they might buy them in anticipation of that. And the things that people do to get tokens can range from simply buying them with paper money (!) to performing various tasks (like the ride operators in the example above).

And, if a lot of people own tokens, they’re likely to do things that make tokens go up in value. Thus, an ecosystem is born.

Okay, so what’s the blockchain?

It’s a database.

Unlike most databases, it’s not controlled by one entity and it’s not easily rewritten. Instead, it’s a ledger, a permanent, examinable, public database. One can use it to record transactions of various sorts.

It would be a really good way to keep track of property records, for example. Instead, we have title insurance, unsearchable folders of deeds in City Hall and often dusty tax records.

There are databases everywhere around us (Facebook, for example, is mostly a database–who are the users, who do they know, what do they do?). Because the internet rewards people who own networks so handsomely, these organizations continue to gain in power. Google began by building a database on top of the open internet, and they’ve spent the last twenty years relentlessly making the internet less open so they can fortify the power of their databases and the attention they influence or control.

And that’s the first reason that the blockchain matters—because there’s a chance that it might lead to more open, resilient, market-focused networks and databases. It’s only a chance, though, because all the hype around the tokens sometimes makes it seem more likely that financial operators will simply seek to manipulate unregulated markets for their own benefit.

The second reason might support positive change. The existence of tokens and decentralization means that it’s possible to build resilient open source communities where early contributors and supporters benefit handsomely over time. No one owns these communities, and we can hope that these communities will work hard to serve themselves and their users, not the capital markets or other short-term players.

Consider a project like Wikipedia. Tens of thousands of people have devoted millions of hours to working to build it. 5,000 active editors are responsible for most of the work that we benefit from every day. This is unpaid work, done for the community and for the satisfaction and status that comes with it.

But of the top 100 websites, there are very few that are built on this model.

Now imagine a blockchain/token project in which contributors earned tokens as they built it and supported it.

Over time, the decentralized project would go up in value. As the ecosystem and the market delivered more and more utility to more and more people, the users would need to buy tokens to use it. And the holders of tokens would receive either a dividend or have the ability to sell their tokens if they chose.

Early speculators would attract more attention, and people with more skill than capital could invest by contributing early and often.

As the project reached a steady state, the stakeholders would shift, from innovators and speculators to people who treat their daily contributions as a job without a boss. Innovators could build on top of this network without permission, creating more and more variations and choice using the same underlying database.

One way to consider this: The open web led to a huge leap in the number of useful databases that we all use (things like Zillow, Instagram and even Tinder). They were fairly cheap to launch and run, and once the network effect kicked in, the profits were significant. Investors were eager to fund the next one, because the odds of a big win dwarfed most of what they could choose from in traditional businesses.

But dominant players are now working to make the openness of the web (the thing that allowed them to grow in the first place) less open. Google and Facebook and others push to make their stock price go up, not to serve users and others who now understand they have little choice in the matter.

The distributed nature of the blockchain, combined with this novel way of funding early contributions means that the network effect may very well bring powerful new databases to the fore, creating new ways for us to interact.

It’s hardly going to be perfect. There’s the issue of how the blockchain itself is run. If it’s run on the original method—proof of work—it’s likely to be a carbon disaster, getting worse as it succeeds. Fortunately, there are new approaches on the horizon (with great names like ‘proof of stake’ and ‘sharding’) that might address these problems.

For the typical user, the existence of the blockchain itself won’t matter, just as you don’t need to know how many volunteer editors Wikipedia has to benefit from using it.

The reason the blockchain matters is that it is an agent of change. Just like the transistor and yes, the printing press, when an agent of change shows up, it often leads to shifts that we probably didn’t expect.

Understanding it now is more productive than simply being forced to deal with it later.Why the blockchain matters [ https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=178109673&f=1081591&c=7653545&u=5102652 ]

But first, let’s understand some words…

Bitcoin is not the blockchain. If the blockchain is a printing press, Bitcoin is a kind of paper money. There are countless things that one can do with a printing press, in fact, it changed the world, but the invention of paper money isn’t even one of the top 100 most important outputs the printed press created.

Cryptocurrency has a terrible name. Most people associate “crypto” with spies and secrets. And a currency is generally backed by a nation, with a treasury, an exchequer and banks.

It’s more accurately thought of as a token.

If you went to an amusement park, you might buy a bunch of tokens or tickets to go on the rides. And if you run one of the rides, you collect the tokens, which at some point, you can trade in for a different sort of value, probably currency.

If people need tokens and they’re scarce, they go up in value. If people think that tokens are going to up in value, they might buy them in anticipation of that. And the things that people do to get tokens can range from simply buying them with paper money (!) to performing various tasks (like the ride operators in the example above).

And, if a lot of people own tokens, they’re likely to do things that make tokens go up in value. Thus, an ecosystem is born.

Okay, so what’s the blockchain?

It’s a database.

Unlike most databases, it’s not controlled by one entity and it’s not easily rewritten. Instead, it’s a ledger, a permanent, examinable, public database. One can use it to record transactions of various sorts.

It would be a really good way to keep track of property records, for example. Instead, we have title insurance, unsearchable folders of deeds in City Hall and often dusty tax records.

There are databases everywhere around us (Facebook, for example, is mostly a database–who are the users, who do they know, what do they do?). Because the internet rewards people who own networks so handsomely, these organizations continue to gain in power. Google began by building a database on top of the open internet, and they’ve spent the last twenty years relentlessly making the internet less open so they can fortify the power of their databases and the attention they influence or control.

And that’s the first reason that the blockchain matters—because there’s a chance that it might lead to more open, resilient, market-focused networks and databases. It’s only a chance, though, because all the hype around the tokens sometimes makes it seem more likely that financial operators will simply seek to manipulate unregulated markets for their own benefit.

The second reason might support positive change. The existence of tokens and decentralization means that it’s possible to build resilient open source communities where early contributors and supporters benefit handsomely over time. No one owns these communities, and we can hope that these communities will work hard to serve themselves and their users, not the capital markets or other short-term players.

Consider a project like Wikipedia. Tens of thousands of people have devoted millions of hours to working to build it. 5,000 active editors are responsible for most of the work that we benefit from every day. This is unpaid work, done for the community and for the satisfaction and status that comes with it.

But of the top 100 websites, there are very few that are built on this model.

Now imagine a blockchain/token project in which contributors earned tokens as they built it and supported it.

Over time, the decentralized project would go up in value. As the ecosystem and the market delivered more and more utility to more and more people, the users would need to buy tokens to use it. And the holders of tokens would receive either a dividend or have the ability to sell their tokens if they chose.

Early speculators would attract more attention, and people with more skill than capital could invest by contributing early and often.

As the project reached a steady state, the stakeholders would shift, from innovators and speculators to people who treat their daily contributions as a job without a boss. Innovators could build on top of this network without permission, creating more and more variations and choice using the same underlying database.

One way to consider this: The open web led to a huge leap in the number of useful databases that we all use (things like Zillow, Instagram and even Tinder). They were fairly cheap to launch and run, and once the network effect kicked in, the profits were significant. Investors were eager to fund the next one, because the odds of a big win dwarfed most of what they could choose from in traditional businesses.

But dominant players are now working to make the openness of the web (the thing that allowed them to grow in the first place) less open. Google and Facebook and others push to make their stock price go up, not to serve users and others who now understand they have little choice in the matter.

The distributed nature of the blockchain, combined with this novel way of funding early contributions means that the network effect may very well bring powerful new databases to the fore, creating new ways for us to interact.

It’s hardly going to be perfect. There’s the issue of how the blockchain itself is run. If it’s run on the original method—proof of work—it’s likely to be a carbon disaster, getting worse as it succeeds. Fortunately, there are new approaches on the horizon (with great names like ‘proof of stake’ and ‘sharding’) that might address these problems.

For the typical user, the existence of the blockchain itself won’t matter, just as you don’t need to know how many volunteer editors Wikipedia has to benefit from using it.

The reason the blockchain matters is that it is an agent of change. Just like the transistor and yes, the printing press, when an agent of change shows up, it often leads to shifts that we probably didn’t expect.

Understanding it now is more productive than simply being forced to deal with it later.Why the blockchain matters [ https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=178109673&f=1081591&c=7653545&u=5102652 ]

But first, let’s understand some words…

Bitcoin is not the blockchain. If the blockchain is a printing press, Bitcoin is a kind of paper money. There are countless things that one can do with a printing press, in fact, it changed the world, but the invention of paper money isn’t even one of the top 100 most important outputs the printed press created.

Cryptocurrency has a terrible name. Most people associate “crypto” with spies and secrets. And a currency is generally backed by a nation, with a treasury, an exchequer and banks.

It’s more accurately thought of as a token.

If you went to an amusement park, you might buy a bunch of tokens or tickets to go on the rides. And if you run one of the rides, you collect the tokens, which at some point, you can trade in for a different sort of value, probably currency.

If people need tokens and they’re scarce, they go up in value. If people think that tokens are going to up in value, they might buy them in anticipation of that. And the things that people do to get tokens can range from simply buying them with paper money (!) to performing various tasks (like the ride operators in the example above).

And, if a lot of people own tokens, they’re likely to do things that make tokens go up in value. Thus, an ecosystem is born.

Okay, so what’s the blockchain?

It’s a database.

Unlike most databases, it’s not controlled by one entity and it’s not easily rewritten. Instead, it’s a ledger, a permanent, examinable, public database. One can use it to record transactions of various sorts.

It would be a really good way to keep track of property records, for example. Instead, we have title insurance, unsearchable folders of deeds in City Hall and often dusty tax records.

There are databases everywhere around us (Facebook, for example, is mostly a database–who are the users, who do they know, what do they do?). Because the internet rewards people who own networks so handsomely, these organizations continue to gain in power. Google began by building a database on top of the open internet, and they’ve spent the last twenty years relentlessly making the internet less open so they can fortify the power of their databases and the attention they influence or control.

And that’s the first reason that the blockchain matters—because there’s a chance that it might lead to more open, resilient, market-focused networks and databases. It’s only a chance, though, because all the hype around the tokens sometimes makes it seem more likely that financial operators will simply seek to manipulate unregulated markets for their own benefit.

The second reason might support positive change. The existence of tokens and decentralization means that it’s possible to build resilient open source communities where early contributors and supporters benefit handsomely over time. No one owns these communities, and we can hope that these communities will work hard to serve themselves and their users, not the capital markets or other short-term players.

Consider a project like Wikipedia. Tens of thousands of people have devoted millions of hours to working to build it. 5,000 active editors are responsible for most of the work that we benefit from every day. This is unpaid work, done for the community and for the satisfaction and status that comes with it.

But of the top 100 websites, there are very few that are built on this model.

Now imagine a blockchain/token project in which contributors earned tokens as they built it and supported it.

Over time, the decentralized project would go up in value. As the ecosystem and the market delivered more and more utility to more and more people, the users would need to buy tokens to use it. And the holders of tokens would receive either a dividend or have the ability to sell their tokens if they chose.

Early speculators would attract more attention, and people with more skill than capital could invest by contributing early and often.

As the project reached a steady state, the stakeholders would shift, from innovators and speculators to people who treat their daily contributions as a job without a boss. Innovators could build on top of this network without permission, creating more and more variations and choice using the same underlying database.

One way to consider this: The open web led to a huge leap in the number of useful databases that we all use (things like Zillow, Instagram and even Tinder). They were fairly cheap to launch and run, and once the network effect kicked in, the profits were significant. Investors were eager to fund the next one, because the odds of a big win dwarfed most of what they could choose from in traditional businesses.

But dominant players are now working to make the openness of the web (the thing that allowed them to grow in the first place) less open. Google and Facebook and others push to make their stock price go up, not to serve users and others who now understand they have little choice in the matter.

The distributed nature of the blockchain, combined with this novel way of funding early contributions means that the network effect may very well bring powerful new databases to the fore, creating new ways for us to interact.

It’s hardly going to be perfect. There’s the issue of how the blockchain itself is run. If it’s run on the original method—proof of work—it’s likely to be a carbon disaster, getting worse as it succeeds. Fortunately, there are new approaches on the horizon (with great names like ‘proof of stake’ and ‘sharding’) that might address these problems.

For the typical user, the existence of the blockchain itself won’t matter, just as you don’t need to know how many volunteer editors Wikipedia has to benefit from using it.

The reason the blockchain matters is that it is an agent of change. Just like the transistor and yes, the printing press, when an agent of change shows up, it often leads to shifts that we probably didn’t expect.

Understanding it now is more productive than simply being forced to deal with it later.Why the blockchain matters [ https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=178109673&f=1081591&c=7653545&u=5102652 ]

But first, let’s understand some words…

Bitcoin is not the blockchain. If the blockchain is a printing press, Bitcoin is a kind of paper money. There are countless things that one can do with a printing press, in fact, it changed the world, but the invention of paper money isn’t even one of the top 100 most important outputs the printed press created.

Cryptocurrency has a terrible name. Most people associate “crypto” with spies and secrets. And a currency is generally backed by a nation, with a treasury, an exchequer and banks.

It’s more accurately thought of as a token.

If you went to an amusement park, you might buy a bunch of tokens or tickets to go on the rides. And if you run one of the rides, you collect the tokens, which at some point, you can trade in for a different sort of value, probably currency.

If people need tokens and they’re scarce, they go up in value. If people think that tokens are going to up in value, they might buy them in anticipation of that. And the things that people do to get tokens can range from simply buying them with paper money (!) to performing various tasks (like the ride operators in the example above).

And, if a lot of people own tokens, they’re likely to do things that make tokens go up in value. Thus, an ecosystem is born.

Okay, so what’s the blockchain?

It’s a database.

Unlike most databases, it’s not controlled by one entity and it’s not easily rewritten. Instead, it’s a ledger, a permanent, examinable, public database. One can use it to record transactions of various sorts.

It would be a really good way to keep track of property records, for example. Instead, we have title insurance, unsearchable folders of deeds in City Hall and often dusty tax records.

There are databases everywhere around us (Facebook, for example, is mostly a database–who are the users, who do they know, what do they do?). Because the internet rewards people who own networks so handsomely, these organizations continue to gain in power. Google began by building a database on top of the open internet, and they’ve spent the last twenty years relentlessly making the internet less open so they can fortify the power of their databases and the attention they influence or control.

And that’s the first reason that the blockchain matters—because there’s a chance that it might lead to more open, resilient, market-focused networks and databases. It’s only a chance, though, because all the hype around the tokens sometimes makes it seem more likely that financial operators will simply seek to manipulate unregulated markets for their own benefit.

The second reason might support positive change. The existence of tokens and decentralization means that it’s possible to build resilient open source communities where early contributors and supporters benefit handsomely over time. No one owns these communities, and we can hope that these communities will work hard to serve themselves and their users, not the capital markets or other short-term players.

Consider a project like Wikipedia. Tens of thousands of people have devoted millions of hours to working to build it. 5,000 active editors are responsible for most of the work that we benefit from every day. This is unpaid work, done for the community and for the satisfaction and status that comes with it.

But of the top 100 websites, there are very few that are built on this model.

Now imagine a blockchain/token project in which contributors earned tokens as they built it and supported it.

Over time, the decentralized project would go up in value. As the ecosystem and the market delivered more and more utility to more and more people, the users would need to buy tokens to use it. And the holders of tokens would receive either a dividend or have the ability to sell their tokens if they chose.

Early speculators would attract more attention, and people with more skill than capital could invest by contributing early and often.

As the project reached a steady state, the stakeholders would shift, from innovators and speculators to people who treat their daily contributions as a job without a boss. Innovators could build on top of this network without permission, creating more and more variations and choice using the same underlying database.

One way to consider this: The open web led to a huge leap in the number of useful databases that we all use (things like Zillow, Instagram and even Tinder). They were fairly cheap to launch and run, and once the network effect kicked in, the profits were significant. Investors were eager to fund the next one, because the odds of a big win dwarfed most of what they could choose from in traditional businesses.

But dominant players are now working to make the openness of the web (the thing that allowed them to grow in the first place) less open. Google and Facebook and others push to make their stock price go up, not to serve users and others who now understand they have little choice in the matter.

The distributed nature of the blockchain, combined with this novel way of funding early contributions means that the network effect may very well bring powerful new databases to the fore, creating new ways for us to interact.

It’s hardly going to be perfect. There’s the issue of how the blockchain itself is run. If it’s run on the original method—proof of work—it’s likely to be a carbon disaster, getting worse as it succeeds. Fortunately, there are new approaches on the horizon (with great names like ‘proof of stake’ and ‘sharding’) that might address these problems.

For the typical user, the existence of the blockchain itself won’t matter, just as you don’t need to know how many volunteer editors Wikipedia has to benefit from using it.

The reason the blockchain matters is that it is an agent of change. Just like the transistor and yes, the printing press, when an agent of change shows up, it often leads to shifts that we probably didn’t expect.

Understanding it now is more productive than simply being forced to deal with it later.Why the blockchain matters [ https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=178109673&f=1081591&c=7653545&u=5102652 ]

But first, let’s understand some words…

Bitcoin is not the blockchain. If the blockchain is a printing press, Bitcoin is a kind of paper money. There are countless things that one can do with a printing press, in fact, it changed the world, but the invention of paper money isn’t even one of the top 100 most important outputs the printed press created.

Cryptocurrency has a terrible name. Most people associate “crypto” with spies and secrets. And a currency is generally backed by a nation, with a treasury, an exchequer and banks.

It’s more accurately thought of as a token.

If you went to an amusement park, you might buy a bunch of tokens or tickets to go on the rides. And if you run one of the rides, you collect the tokens, which at some point, you can trade in for a different sort of value, probably currency.

If people need tokens and they’re scarce, they go up in value. If people think that tokens are going to up in value, they might buy them in anticipation of that. And the things that people do to get tokens can range from simply buying them with paper money (!) to performing various tasks (like the ride operators in the example above).

And, if a lot of people own tokens, they’re likely to do things that make tokens go up in value. Thus, an ecosystem is born.

Okay, so what’s the blockchain?

It’s a database.

Unlike most databases, it’s not controlled by one entity and it’s not easily rewritten. Instead, it’s a ledger, a permanent, examinable, public database. One can use it to record transactions of various sorts.

It would be a really good way to keep track of property records, for example. Instead, we have title insurance, unsearchable folders of deeds in City Hall and often dusty tax records.

There are databases everywhere around us (Facebook, for example, is mostly a database–who are the users, who do they know, what do they do?). Because the internet rewards people who own networks so handsomely, these organizations continue to gain in power. Google began by building a database on top of the open internet, and they’ve spent the last twenty years relentlessly making the internet less open so they can fortify the power of their databases and the attention they influence or control.

And that’s the first reason that the blockchain matters—because there’s a chance that it might lead to more open, resilient, market-focused networks and databases. It’s only a chance, though, because all the hype around the tokens sometimes makes it seem more likely that financial operators will simply seek to manipulate unregulated markets for their own benefit.

The second reason might support positive change. The existence of tokens and decentralization means that it’s possible to build resilient open source communities where early contributors and supporters benefit handsomely over time. No one owns these communities, and we can hope that these communities will work hard to serve themselves and their users, not the capital markets or other short-term players.

Consider a project like Wikipedia. Tens of thousands of people have devoted millions of hours to working to build it. 5,000 active editors are responsible for most of the work that we benefit from every day. This is unpaid work, done for the community and for the satisfaction and status that comes with it.

But of the top 100 websites, there are very few that are built on this model.

Now imagine a blockchain/token project in which contributors earned tokens as they built it and supported it.

Over time, the decentralized project would go up in value. As the ecosystem and the market delivered more and more utility to more and more people, the users would need to buy tokens to use it. And the holders of tokens would receive either a dividend or have the ability to sell their tokens if they chose.

Early speculators would attract more attention, and people with more skill than capital could invest by contributing early and often.

As the project reached a steady state, the stakeholders would shift, from innovators and speculators to people who treat their daily contributions as a job without a boss. Innovators could build on top of this network without permission, creating more and more variations and choice using the same underlying database.

One way to consider this: The open web led to a huge leap in the number of useful databases that we all use (things like Zillow, Instagram and even Tinder). They were fairly cheap to launch and run, and once the network effect kicked in, the profits were significant. Investors were eager to fund the next one, because the odds of a big win dwarfed most of what they could choose from in traditional businesses.

But dominant players are now working to make the openness of the web (the thing that allowed them to grow in the first place) less open. Google and Facebook and others push to make their stock price go up, not to serve users and others who now understand they have little choice in the matter.

The distributed nature of the blockchain, combined with this novel way of funding early contributions means that the network effect may very well bring powerful new databases to the fore, creating new ways for us to interact.

It’s hardly going to be perfect. There’s the issue of how the blockchain itself is run. If it’s run on the original method—proof of work—it’s likely to be a carbon disaster, getting worse as it succeeds. Fortunately, there are new approaches on the horizon (with great names like ‘proof of stake’ and ‘sharding’) that might address these problems.

For the typical user, the existence of the blockchain itself won’t matter, just as you don’t need to know how many volunteer editors Wikipedia has to benefit from using it.

The reason the blockchain matters is that it is an agent of change. Just like the transistor and yes, the printing press, when an agent of change shows up, it often leads to shifts that we probably didn’t expect.

Understanding it now is more productive than simply being forced to deal with it later.Why the blockchain matters [ https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=178109673&f=1081591&c=7653545&u=5102652 ]

But first, let’s understand some words…

Bitcoin is not the blockchain. If the blockchain is a printing press, Bitcoin is a kind of paper money. There are countless things that one can do with a printing press, in fact, it changed the world, but the invention of paper money isn’t even one of the top 100 most important outputs the printed press created.

Cryptocurrency has a terrible name. Most people associate “crypto” with spies and secrets. And a currency is generally backed by a nation, with a treasury, an exchequer and banks.

It’s more accurately thought of as a token.

If you went to an amusement park, you might buy a bunch of tokens or tickets to go on the rides. And if you run one of the rides, you collect the tokens, which at some point, you can trade in for a different sort of value, probably currency.

If people need tokens and they’re scarce, they go up in value. If people think that tokens are going to up in value, they might buy them in anticipation of that. And the things that people do to get tokens can range from simply buying them with paper money (!) to performing various tasks (like the ride operators in the example above).

And, if a lot of people own tokens, they’re likely to do things that make tokens go up in value. Thus, an ecosystem is born.

Okay, so what’s the blockchain?

It’s a database.

Unlike most databases, it’s not controlled by one entity and it’s not easily rewritten. Instead, it’s a ledger, a permanent, examinable, public database. One can use it to record transactions of various sorts.

It would be a really good way to keep track of property records, for example. Instead, we have title insurance, unsearchable folders of deeds in City Hall and often dusty tax records.

There are databases everywhere around us (Facebook, for example, is mostly a database–who are the users, who do they know, what do they do?). Because the internet rewards people who own networks so handsomely, these organizations continue to gain in power. Google began by building a database on top of the open internet, and they’ve spent the last twenty years relentlessly making the internet less open so they can fortify the power of their databases and the attention they influence or control.

And that’s the first reason that the blockchain matters—because there’s a chance that it might lead to more open, resilient, market-focused networks and databases. It’s only a chance, though, because all the hype around the tokens sometimes makes it seem more likely that financial operators will simply seek to manipulate unregulated markets for their own benefit.

The second reason might support positive change. The existence of tokens and decentralization means that it’s possible to build resilient open source communities where early contributors and supporters benefit handsomely over time. No one owns these communities, and we can hope that these communities will work hard to serve themselves and their users, not the capital markets or other short-term players.

Consider a project like Wikipedia. Tens of thousands of people have devoted millions of hours to working to build it. 5,000 active editors are responsible for most of the work that we benefit from every day. This is unpaid work, done for the community and for the satisfaction and status that comes with it.

But of the top 100 websites, there are very few that are built on this model.

Now imagine a blockchain/token project in which contributors earned tokens as they built it and supported it.

Over time, the decentralized project would go up in value. As the ecosystem and the market delivered more and more utility to more and more people, the users would need to buy tokens to use it. And the holders of tokens would receive either a dividend or have the ability to sell their tokens if they chose.

Early speculators would attract more attention, and people with more skill than capital could invest by contributing early and often.

As the project reached a steady state, the stakeholders would shift, from innovators and speculators to people who treat their daily contributions as a job without a boss. Innovators could build on top of this network without permission, creating more and more variations and choice using the same underlying database.

One way to consider this: The open web led to a huge leap in the number of useful databases that we all use (things like Zillow, Instagram and even Tinder). They were fairly cheap to launch and run, and once the network effect kicked in, the profits were significant. Investors were eager to fund the next one, because the odds of a big win dwarfed most of what they could choose from in traditional businesses.

But dominant players are now working to make the openness of the web (the thing that allowed them to grow in the first place) less open. Google and Facebook and others push to make their stock price go up, not to serve users and others who now understand they have little choice in the matter.

The distributed nature of the blockchain, combined with this novel way of funding early contributions means that the network effect may very well bring powerful new databases to the fore, creating new ways for us to interact.

It’s hardly going to be perfect. There’s the issue of how the blockchain itself is run. If it’s run on the original method—proof of work—it’s likely to be a carbon disaster, getting worse as it succeeds. Fortunately, there are new approaches on the horizon (with great names like ‘proof of stake’ and ‘sharding’) that might address these problems.

For the typical user, the existence of the blockchain itself won’t matter, just as you don’t need to know how many volunteer editors Wikipedia has to benefit from using it.

The reason the blockchain matters is that it is an agent of change. Just like the transistor and yes, the printing press, when an agent of change shows up, it often leads to shifts that we probably didn’t expect.

Understanding it now is more productive than simply being forced to deal with it later.Why the blockchain matters [ https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=178109673&f=1081591&c=7653545&u=5102652 ]

But first, let’s understand some words…

Bitcoin is not the blockchain. If the blockchain is a printing press, Bitcoin is a kind of paper money. There are countless things that one can do with a printing press, in fact, it changed the world, but the invention of paper money isn’t even one of the top 100 most important outputs the printed press created.

Cryptocurrency has a terrible name. Most people associate “crypto” with spies and secrets. And a currency is generally backed by a nation, with a treasury, an exchequer and banks.

It’s more accurately thought of as a token.

If you went to an amusement park, you might buy a bunch of tokens or tickets to go on the rides. And if you run one of the rides, you collect the tokens, which at some point, you can trade in for a different sort of value, probably currency.

If people need tokens and they’re scarce, they go up in value. If people think that tokens are going to up in value, they might buy them in anticipation of that. And the things that people do to get tokens can range from simply buying them with paper money (!) to performing various tasks (like the ride operators in the example above).

And, if a lot of people own tokens, they’re likely to do things that make tokens go up in value. Thus, an ecosystem is born.

Okay, so what’s the blockchain?

It’s a database.

Unlike most databases, it’s not controlled by one entity and it’s not easily rewritten. Instead, it’s a ledger, a permanent, examinable, public database. One can use it to record transactions of various sorts.

It would be a really good way to keep track of property records, for example. Instead, we have title insurance, unsearchable folders of deeds in City Hall and often dusty tax records.

There are databases everywhere around us (Facebook, for example, is mostly a database–who are the users, who do they know, what do they do?). Because the internet rewards people who own networks so handsomely, these organizations continue to gain in power. Google began by building a database on top of the open internet, and they’ve spent the last twenty years relentlessly making the internet less open so they can fortify the power of their databases and the attention they influence or control.

And that’s the first reason that the blockchain matters—because there’s a chance that it might lead to more open, resilient, market-focused networks and databases. It’s only a chance, though, because all the hype around the tokens sometimes makes it seem more likely that financial operators will simply seek to manipulate unregulated markets for their own benefit.

The second reason might support positive change. The existence of tokens and decentralization means that it’s possible to build resilient open source communities where early contributors and supporters benefit handsomely over time. No one owns these communities, and we can hope that these communities will work hard to serve themselves and their users, not the capital markets or other short-term players.

Consider a project like Wikipedia. Tens of thousands of people have devoted millions of hours to working to build it. 5,000 active editors are responsible for most of the work that we benefit from every day. This is unpaid work, done for the community and for the satisfaction and status that comes with it.

But of the top 100 websites, there are very few that are built on this model.

Now imagine a blockchain/token project in which contributors earned tokens as they built it and supported it.

Over time, the decentralized project would go up in value. As the ecosystem and the market delivered more and more utility to more and more people, the users would need to buy tokens to use it. And the holders of tokens would receive either a dividend or have the ability to sell their tokens if they chose.

Early speculators would attract more attention, and people with more skill than capital could invest by contributing early and often.

As the project reached a steady state, the stakeholders would shift, from innovators and speculators to people who treat their daily contributions as a job without a boss. Innovators could build on top of this network without permission, creating more and more variations and choice using the same underlying database.

One way to consider this: The open web led to a huge leap in the number of useful databases that we all use (things like Zillow, Instagram and even Tinder). They were fairly cheap to launch and run, and once the network effect kicked in, the profits were significant. Investors were eager to fund the next one, because the odds of a big win dwarfed most of what they could choose from in traditional businesses.

But dominant players are now working to make the openness of the web (the thing that allowed them to grow in the first place) less open. Google and Facebook and others push to make their stock price go up, not to serve users and others who now understand they have little choice in the matter.

The distributed nature of the blockchain, combined with this novel way of funding early contributions means that the network effect may very well bring powerful new databases to the fore, creating new ways for us to interact.

It’s hardly going to be perfect. There’s the issue of how the blockchain itself is run. If it’s run on the original method—proof of work—it’s likely to be a carbon disaster, getting worse as it succeeds. Fortunately, there are new approaches on the horizon (with great names like ‘proof of stake’ and ‘sharding’) that might address these problems.

For the typical user, the existence of the blockchain itself won’t matter, just as you don’t need to know how many volunteer editors Wikipedia has to benefit from using it.

The reason the blockchain matters is that it is an agent of change. Just like the transistor and yes, the printing press, when an agent of change shows up, it often leads to shifts that we probably didn’t expect.

Understanding it now is more productive than simply being forced to deal with it later.Why the blockchain matters [ https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=178109673&f=1081591&c=7653545&u=5102652 ]

But first, let’s understand some words…

Bitcoin is not the blockchain. If the blockchain is a printing press, Bitcoin is a kind of paper money. There are countless things that one can do with a printing press, in fact, it changed the world, but the invention of paper money isn’t even one of the top 100 most important outputs the printed press created.

Cryptocurrency has a terrible name. Most people associate “crypto” with spies and secrets. And a currency is generally backed by a nation, with a treasury, an exchequer and banks.

It’s more accurately thought of as a token.

If you went to an amusement park, you might buy a bunch of tokens or tickets to go on the rides. And if you run one of the rides, you collect the tokens, which at some point, you can trade in for a different sort of value, probably currency.

If people need tokens and they’re scarce, they go up in value. If people think that tokens are going to up in value, they might buy them in anticipation of that. And the things that people do to get tokens can range from simply buying them with paper money (!) to performing various tasks (like the ride operators in the example above).

And, if a lot of people own tokens, they’re likely to do things that make tokens go up in value. Thus, an ecosystem is born.

Okay, so what’s the blockchain?

It’s a database.

Unlike most databases, it’s not controlled by one entity and it’s not easily rewritten. Instead, it’s a ledger, a permanent, examinable, public database. One can use it to record transactions of various sorts.

It would be a really good way to keep track of property records, for example. Instead, we have title insurance, unsearchable folders of deeds in City Hall and often dusty tax records.

There are databases everywhere around us (Facebook, for example, is mostly a database–who are the users, who do they know, what do they do?). Because the internet rewards people who own networks so handsomely, these organizations continue to gain in power. Google began by building a database on top of the open internet, and they’ve spent the last twenty years relentlessly making the internet less open so they can fortify the power of their databases and the attention they influence or control.

And that’s the first reason that the blockchain matters—because there’s a chance that it might lead to more open, resilient, market-focused networks and databases. It’s only a chance, though, because all the hype around the tokens sometimes makes it seem more likely that financial operators will simply seek to manipulate unregulated markets for their own benefit.

The second reason might support positive change. The existence of tokens and decentralization means that it’s possible to build resilient open source communities where early contributors and supporters benefit handsomely over time. No one owns these communities, and we can hope that these communities will work hard to serve themselves and their users, not the capital markets or other short-term players.

Consider a project like Wikipedia. Tens of thousands of people have devoted millions of hours to working to build it. 5,000 active editors are responsible for most of the work that we benefit from every day. This is unpaid work, done for the community and for the satisfaction and status that comes with it.

But of the top 100 websites, there are very few that are built on this model.

Now imagine a blockchain/token project in which contributors earned tokens as they built it and supported it.

Over time, the decentralized project would go up in value. As the ecosystem and the market delivered more and more utility to more and more people, the users would need to buy tokens to use it. And the holders of tokens would receive either a dividend or have the ability to sell their tokens if they chose.

Early speculators would attract more attention, and people with more skill than capital could invest by contributing early and often.

As the project reached a steady state, the stakeholders would shift, from innovators and speculators to people who treat their daily contributions as a job without a boss. Innovators could build on top of this network without permission, creating more and more variations and choice using the same underlying database.

One way to consider this: The open web led to a huge leap in the number of useful databases that we all use (things like Zillow, Instagram and even Tinder). They were fairly cheap to launch and run, and once the network effect kicked in, the profits were significant. Investors were eager to fund the next one, because the odds of a big win dwarfed most of what they could choose from in traditional businesses.

But dominant players are now working to make the openness of the web (the thing that allowed them to grow in the first place) less open. Google and Facebook and others push to make their stock price go up, not to serve users and others who now understand they have little choice in the matter.

The distributed nature of the blockchain, combined with this novel way of funding early contributions means that the network effect may very well bring powerful new databases to the fore, creating new ways for us to interact.

It’s hardly going to be perfect. There’s the issue of how the blockchain itself is run. If it’s run on the original method—proof of work—it’s likely to be a carbon disaster, getting worse as it succeeds. Fortunately, there are new approaches on the horizon (with great names like ‘proof of stake’ and ‘sharding’) that might address these problems.

For the typical user, the existence of the blockchain itself won’t matter, just as you don’t need to know how many volunteer editors Wikipedia has to benefit from using it.

The reason the blockchain matters is that it is an agent of change. Just like the transistor and yes, the printing press, when an agent of change shows up, it often leads to shifts that we probably didn’t expect.

Understanding it now is more productive than simply being forced to deal with it later.Why the blockchain matters [ https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=178109673&f=1081591&c=7653545&u=5102652 ]

But first, let’s understand some words…

Bitcoin is not the blockchain. If the blockchain is a printing press, Bitcoin is a kind of paper money. There are countless things that one can do with a printing press, in fact, it changed the world, but the invention of paper money isn’t even one of the top 100 most important outputs the printed press created.

Cryptocurrency has a terrible name. Most people associate “crypto” with spies and secrets. And a currency is generally backed by a nation, with a treasury, an exchequer and banks.

It’s more accurately thought of as a token.

If you went to an amusement park, you might buy a bunch of tokens or tickets to go on the rides. And if you run one of the rides, you collect the tokens, which at some point, you can trade in for a different sort of value, probably currency.

If people need tokens and they’re scarce, they go up in value. If people think that tokens are going to up in value, they might buy them in anticipation of that. And the things that people do to get tokens can range from simply buying them with paper money (!) to performing various tasks (like the ride operators in the example above).

And, if a lot of people own tokens, they’re likely to do things that make tokens go up in value. Thus, an ecosystem is born.

Okay, so what’s the blockchain?

It’s a database.

Unlike most databases, it’s not controlled by one entity and it’s not easily rewritten. Instead, it’s a ledger, a permanent, examinable, public database. One can use it to record transactions of various sorts.

It would be a really good way to keep track of property records, for example. Instead, we have title insurance, unsearchable folders of deeds in City Hall and often dusty tax records.

There are databases everywhere around us (Facebook, for example, is mostly a database–who are the users, who do they know, what do they do?). Because the internet rewards people who own networks so handsomely, these organizations continue to gain in power. Google began by building a database on top of the open internet, and they’ve spent the last twenty years relentlessly making the internet less open so they can fortify the power of their databases and the attention they influence or control.

And that’s the first reason that the blockchain matters—because there’s a chance that it might lead to more open, resilient, market-focused networks and databases. It’s only a chance, though, because all the hype around the tokens sometimes makes it seem more likely that financial operators will simply seek to manipulate unregulated markets for their own benefit.

The second reason might support positive change. The existence of tokens and decentralization means that it’s possible to build resilient open source communities where early contributors and supporters benefit handsomely over time. No one owns these communities, and we can hope that these communities will work hard to serve themselves and their users, not the capital markets or other short-term players.

Consider a project like Wikipedia. Tens of thousands of people have devoted millions of hours to working to build it. 5,000 active editors are responsible for most of the work that we benefit from every day. This is unpaid work, done for the community and for the satisfaction and status that comes with it.

But of the top 100 websites, there are very few that are built on this model.

Now imagine a blockchain/token project in which contributors earned tokens as they built it and supported it.

Over time, the decentralized project would go up in value. As the ecosystem and the market delivered more and more utility to more and more people, the users would need to buy tokens to use it. And the holders of tokens would receive either a dividend or have the ability to sell their tokens if they chose.

Early speculators would attract more attention, and people with more skill than capital could invest by contributing early and often.

As the project reached a steady state, the stakeholders would shift, from innovators and speculators to people who treat their daily contributions as a job without a boss. Innovators could build on top of this network without permission, creating more and more variations and choice using the same underlying database.

One way to consider this: The open web led to a huge leap in the number of useful databases that we all use (things like Zillow, Instagram and even Tinder). They were fairly cheap to launch and run, and once the network effect kicked in, the profits were significant. Investors were eager to fund the next one, because the odds of a big win dwarfed most of what they could choose from in traditional businesses.

But dominant players are now working to make the openness of the web (the thing that allowed them to grow in the first place) less open. Google and Facebook and others push to make their stock price go up, not to serve users and others who now understand they have little choice in the matter.

The distributed nature of the blockchain, combined with this novel way of funding early contributions means that the network effect may very well bring powerful new databases to the fore, creating new ways for us to interact.

It’s hardly going to be perfect. There’s the issue of how the blockchain itself is run. If it’s run on the original method—proof of work—it’s likely to be a carbon disaster, getting worse as it succeeds. Fortunately, there are new approaches on the horizon (with great names like ‘proof of stake’ and ‘sharding’) that might address these problems.

For the typical user, the existence of the blockchain itself won’t matter, just as you don’t need to know how many volunteer editors Wikipedia has to benefit from using it.

The reason the blockchain matters is that it is an agent of change. Just like the transistor and yes, the printing press, when an agent of change shows up, it often leads to shifts that we probably didn’t expect.

Understanding it now is more productive than simply being forced to deal with it later.Why the blockchain matters [ https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=178109673&f=1081591&c=7653545&u=5102652 ]

But first, let’s understand some words…

Bitcoin is not the blockchain. If the blockchain is a printing press, Bitcoin is a kind of paper money. There are countless things that one can do with a printing press, in fact, it changed the world, but the invention of paper money isn’t even one of the top 100 most important outputs the printed press created.

Cryptocurrency has a terrible name. Most people associate “crypto” with spies and secrets. And a currency is generally backed by a nation, with a treasury, an exchequer and banks.

It’s more accurately thought of as a token.

If you went to an amusement park, you might buy a bunch of tokens or tickets to go on the rides. And if you run one of the rides, you collect the tokens, which at some point, you can trade in for a different sort of value, probably currency.

If people need tokens and they’re scarce, they go up in value. If people think that tokens are going to up in value, they might buy them in anticipation of that. And the things that people do to get tokens can range from simply buying them with paper money (!) to performing various tasks (like the ride operators in the example above).

And, if a lot of people own tokens, they’re likely to do things that make tokens go up in value. Thus, an ecosystem is born.

Okay, so what’s the blockchain?

It’s a database.

Unlike most databases, it’s not controlled by one entity and it’s not easily rewritten. Instead, it’s a ledger, a permanent, examinable, public database. One can use it to record transactions of various sorts.

It would be a really good way to keep track of property records, for example. Instead, we have title insurance, unsearchable folders of deeds in City Hall and often dusty tax records.

There are databases everywhere around us (Facebook, for example, is mostly a database–who are the users, who do they know, what do they do?). Because the internet rewards people who own networks so handsomely, these organizations continue to gain in power. Google began by building a database on top of the open internet, and they’ve spent the last twenty years relentlessly making the internet less open so they can fortify the power of their databases and the attention they influence or control.

And that’s the first reason that the blockchain matters—because there’s a chance that it might lead to more open, resilient, market-focused networks and databases. It’s only a chance, though, because all the hype around the tokens sometimes makes it seem more likely that financial operators will simply seek to manipulate unregulated markets for their own benefit.

The second reason might support positive change. The existence of tokens and decentralization means that it’s possible to build resilient open source communities where early contributors and supporters benefit handsomely over time. No one owns these communities, and we can hope that these communities will work hard to serve themselves and their users, not the capital markets or other short-term players.

Consider a project like Wikipedia. Tens of thousands of people have devoted millions of hours to working to build it. 5,000 active editors are responsible for most of the work that we benefit from every day. This is unpaid work, done for the community and for the satisfaction and status that comes with it.

But of the top 100 websites, there are very few that are built on this model.

Now imagine a blockchain/token project in which contributors earned tokens as they built it and supported it.

Over time, the decentralized project would go up in value. As the ecosystem and the market delivered more and more utility to more and more people, the users would need to buy tokens to use it. And the holders of tokens would receive either a dividend or have the ability to sell their tokens if they chose.

Early speculators would attract more attention, and people with more skill than capital could invest by contributing early and often.

As the project reached a steady state, the stakeholders would shift, from innovators and speculators to people who treat their daily contributions as a job without a boss. Innovators could build on top of this network without permission, creating more and more variations and choice using the same underlying database.

One way to consider this: The open web led to a huge leap in the number of useful databases that we all use (things like Zillow, Instagram and even Tinder). They were fairly cheap to launch and run, and once the network effect kicked in, the profits were significant. Investors were eager to fund the next one, because the odds of a big win dwarfed most of what they could choose from in traditional businesses.

But dominant players are now working to make the openness of the web (the thing that allowed them to grow in the first place) less open. Google and Facebook and others push to make their stock price go up, not to serve users and others who now understand they have little choice in the matter.

The distributed nature of the blockchain, combined with this novel way of funding early contributions means that the network effect may very well bring powerful new databases to the fore, creating new ways for us to interact.

It’s hardly going to be perfect. There’s the issue of how the blockchain itself is run. If it’s run on the original method—proof of work—it’s likely to be a carbon disaster, getting worse as it succeeds. Fortunately, there are new approaches on the horizon (with great names like ‘proof of stake’ and ‘sharding’) that might address these problems.

For the typical user, the existence of the blockchain itself won’t matter, just as you don’t need to know how many volunteer editors Wikipedia has to benefit from using it.

The reason the blockchain matters is that it is an agent of change. Just like the transistor and yes, the printing press, when an agent of change shows up, it often leads to shifts that we probably didn’t expect.

Understanding it now is more productive than simply being forced to deal with it later.Why the blockchain matters [ https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=178109673&f=1081591&c=7653545&u=5102652 ]

But first, let’s understand some words…

Bitcoin is not the blockchain. If the blockchain is a printing press, Bitcoin is a kind of paper money. There are countless things that one can do with a printing press, in fact, it changed the world, but the invention of paper money isn’t even one of the top 100 most important outputs the printed press created.

Cryptocurrency has a terrible name. Most people associate “crypto” with spies and secrets. And a currency is generally backed by a nation, with a treasury, an exchequer and banks.

It’s more accurately thought of as a token.

If you went to an amusement park, you might buy a bunch of tokens or tickets to go on the rides. And if you run one of the rides, you collect the tokens, which at some point, you can trade in for a different sort of value, probably currency.

If people need tokens and they’re scarce, they go up in value. If people think that tokens are going to up in value, they might buy them in anticipation of that. And the things that people do to get tokens can range from simply buying them with paper money (!) to performing various tasks (like the ride operators in the example above).

And, if a lot of people own tokens, they’re likely to do things that make tokens go up in value. Thus, an ecosystem is born.

Okay, so what’s the blockchain?

It’s a database.

Unlike most databases, it’s not controlled by one entity and it’s not easily rewritten. Instead, it’s a ledger, a permanent, examinable, public database. One can use it to record transactions of various sorts.

It would be a really good way to keep track of property records, for example. Instead, we have title insurance, unsearchable folders of deeds in City Hall and often dusty tax records.

There are databases everywhere around us (Facebook, for example, is mostly a database–who are the users, who do they know, what do they do?). Because the internet rewards people who own networks so handsomely, these organizations continue to gain in power. Google began by building a database on top of the open internet, and they’ve spent the last twenty years relentlessly making the internet less open so they can fortify the power of their databases and the attention they influence or control.

And that’s the first reason that the blockchain matters—because there’s a chance that it might lead to more open, resilient, market-focused networks and databases. It’s only a chance, though, because all the hype around the tokens sometimes makes it seem more likely that financial operators will simply seek to manipulate unregulated markets for their own benefit.

The second reason might support positive change. The existence of tokens and decentralization means that it’s possible to build resilient open source communities where early contributors and supporters benefit handsomely over time. No one owns these communities, and we can hope that these communities will work hard to serve themselves and their users, not the capital markets or other short-term players.

Consider a project like Wikipedia. Tens of thousands of people have devoted millions of hours to working to build it. 5,000 active editors are responsible for most of the work that we benefit from every day. This is unpaid work, done for the community and for the satisfaction and status that comes with it.

But of the top 100 websites, there are very few that are built on this model.

Now imagine a blockchain/token project in which contributors earned tokens as they built it and supported it.

Over time, the decentralized project would go up in value. As the ecosystem and the market delivered more and more utility to more and more people, the users would need to buy tokens to use it. And the holders of tokens would receive either a dividend or have the ability to sell their tokens if they chose.

Early speculators would attract more attention, and people with more skill than capital could invest by contributing early and often.

As the project reached a steady state, the stakeholders would shift, from innovators and speculators to people who treat their daily contributions as a job without a boss. Innovators could build on top of this network without permission, creating more and more variations and choice using the same underlying database.

One way to consider this: The open web led to a huge leap in the number of useful databases that we all use (things like Zillow, Instagram and even Tinder). They were fairly cheap to launch and run, and once the network effect kicked in, the profits were significant. Investors were eager to fund the next one, because the odds of a big win dwarfed most of what they could choose from in traditional businesses.

But dominant players are now working to make the openness of the web (the thing that allowed them to grow in the first place) less open. Google and Facebook and others push to make their stock price go up, not to serve users and others who now understand they have little choice in the matter.

The distributed nature of the blockchain, combined with this novel way of funding early contributions means that the network effect may very well bring powerful new databases to the fore, creating new ways for us to interact.

It’s hardly going to be perfect. There’s the issue of how the blockchain itself is run. If it’s run on the original method—proof of work—it’s likely to be a carbon disaster, getting worse as it succeeds. Fortunately, there are new approaches on the horizon (with great names like ‘proof of stake’ and ‘sharding’) that might address these problems.

For the typical user, the existence of the blockchain itself won’t matter, just as you don’t need to know how many volunteer editors Wikipedia has to benefit from using it.

The reason the blockchain matters is that it is an agent of change. Just like the transistor and yes, the printing press, when an agent of change shows up, it often leads to shifts that we probably didn’t expect.

Understanding it now is more productive than simply being forced to deal with it later.Why the blockchain matters [ https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=178109673&f=1081591&c=7653545&u=5102652 ]

But first, let’s understand some words…

Bitcoin is not the blockchain. If the blockchain is a printing press, Bitcoin is a kind of paper money. There are countless things that one can do with a printing press, in fact, it changed the world, but the invention of paper money isn’t even one of the top 100 most important outputs the printed press created.

Cryptocurrency has a terrible name. Most people associate “crypto” with spies and secrets. And a currency is generally backed by a nation, with a treasury, an exchequer and banks.

It’s more accurately thought of as a token.

If you went to an amusement park, you might buy a bunch of tokens or tickets to go on the rides. And if you run one of the rides, you collect the tokens, which at some point, you can trade in for a different sort of value, probably currency.

If people need tokens and they’re scarce, they go up in value. If people think that tokens are going to up in value, they might buy them in anticipation of that. And the things that people do to get tokens can range from simply buying them with paper money (!) to performing various tasks (like the ride operators in the example above).

And, if a lot of people own tokens, they’re likely to do things that make tokens go up in value. Thus, an ecosystem is born.

Okay, so what’s the blockchain?

It’s a database.

Unlike most databases, it’s not controlled by one entity and it’s not easily rewritten. Instead, it’s a ledger, a permanent, examinable, public database. One can use it to record transactions of various sorts.

It would be a really good way to keep track of property records, for example. Instead, we have title insurance, unsearchable folders of deeds in City Hall and often dusty tax records.

There are databases everywhere around us (Facebook, for example, is mostly a database–who are the users, who do they know, what do they do?). Because the internet rewards people who own networks so handsomely, these organizations continue to gain in power. Google began by building a database on top of the open internet, and they’ve spent the last twenty years relentlessly making the internet less open so they can fortify the power of their databases and the attention they influence or control.

And that’s the first reason that the blockchain matters—because there’s a chance that it might lead to more open, resilient, market-focused networks and databases. It’s only a chance, though, because all the hype around the tokens sometimes makes it seem more likely that financial operators will simply seek to manipulate unregulated markets for their own benefit.

The second reason might support positive change. The existence of tokens and decentralization means that it’s possible to build resilient open source communities where early contributors and supporters benefit handsomely over time. No one owns these communities, and we can hope that these communities will work hard to serve themselves and their users, not the capital markets or other short-term players.

Consider a project like Wikipedia. Tens of thousands of people have devoted millions of hours to working to build it. 5,000 active editors are responsible for most of the work that we benefit from every day. This is unpaid work, done for the community and for the satisfaction and status that comes with it.

But of the top 100 websites, there are very few that are built on this model.

Now imagine a blockchain/token project in which contributors earned tokens as they built it and supported it.

Over time, the decentralized project would go up in value. As the ecosystem and the market delivered more and more utility to more and more people, the users would need to buy tokens to use it. And the holders of tokens would receive either a dividend or have the ability to sell their tokens if they chose.

Early speculators would attract more attention, and people with more skill than capital could invest by contributing early and often.

As the project reached a steady state, the stakeholders would shift, from innovators and speculators to people who treat their daily contributions as a job without a boss. Innovators could build on top of this network without permission, creating more and more variations and choice using the same underlying database.

One way to consider this: The open web led to a huge leap in the number of useful databases that we all use (things like Zillow, Instagram and even Tinder). They were fairly cheap to launch and run, and once the network effect kicked in, the profits were significant. Investors were eager to fund the next one, because the odds of a big win dwarfed most of what they could choose from in traditional businesses.

But dominant players are now working to make the openness of the web (the thing that allowed them to grow in the first place) less open. Google and Facebook and others push to make their stock price go up, not to serve users and others who now understand they have little choice in the matter.

The distributed nature of the blockchain, combined with this novel way of funding early contributions means that the network effect may very well bring powerful new databases to the fore, creating new ways for us to interact.

It’s hardly going to be perfect. There’s the issue of how the blockchain itself is run. If it’s run on the original method—proof of work—it’s likely to be a carbon disaster, getting worse as it succeeds. Fortunately, there are new approaches on the horizon (with great names like ‘proof of stake’ and ‘sharding’) that might address these problems.

For the typical user, the existence of the blockchain itself won’t matter, just as you don’t need to know how many volunteer editors Wikipedia has to benefit from using it.

The reason the blockchain matters is that it is an agent of change. Just like the transistor and yes, the printing press, when an agent of change shows up, it often leads to shifts that we probably didn’t expect.

Understanding it now is more productive than simply being forced to deal with it later.Why the blockchain matters [ https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=178109673&f=1081591&c=7653545&u=5102652 ]

But first, let’s understand some words…

Bitcoin is not the blockchain. If the blockchain is a printing press, Bitcoin is a kind of paper money. There are countless things that one can do with a printing press, in fact, it changed the world, but the invention of paper money isn’t even one of the top 100 most important outputs the printed press created.

Cryptocurrency has a terrible name. Most people associate “crypto” with spies and secrets. And a currency is generally backed by a nation, with a treasury, an exchequer and banks.

It’s more accurately thought of as a token.

If you went to an amusement park, you might buy a bunch of tokens or tickets to go on the rides. And if you run one of the rides, you collect the tokens, which at some point, you can trade in for a different sort of value, probably currency.

If people need tokens and they’re scarce, they go up in value. If people think that tokens are going to up in value, they might buy them in anticipation of that. And the things that people do to get tokens can range from simply buying them with paper money (!) to performing various tasks (like the ride operators in the example above).

And, if a lot of people own tokens, they’re likely to do things that make tokens go up in value. Thus, an ecosystem is born.

Okay, so what’s the blockchain?

It’s a database.

Unlike most databases, it’s not controlled by one entity and it’s not easily rewritten. Instead, it’s a ledger, a permanent, examinable, public database. One can use it to record transactions of various sorts.

It would be a really good way to keep track of property records, for example. Instead, we have title insurance, unsearchable folders of deeds in City Hall and often dusty tax records.

There are databases everywhere around us (Facebook, for example, is mostly a database–who are the users, who do they know, what do they do?). Because the internet rewards people who own networks so handsomely, these organizations continue to gain in power. Google began by building a database on top of the open internet, and they’ve spent the last twenty years relentlessly making the internet less open so they can fortify the power of their databases and the attention they influence or control.

And that’s the first reason that the blockchain matters—because there’s a chance that it might lead to more open, resilient, market-focused networks and databases. It’s only a chance, though, because all the hype around the tokens sometimes makes it seem more likely that financial operators will simply seek to manipulate unregulated markets for their own benefit.

The second reason might support positive change. The existence of tokens and decentralization means that it’s possible to build resilient open source communities where early contributors and supporters benefit handsomely over time. No one owns these communities, and we can hope that these communities will work hard to serve themselves and their users, not the capital markets or other short-term players.

Consider a project like Wikipedia. Tens of thousands of people have devoted millions of hours to working to build it. 5,000 active editors are responsible for most of the work that we benefit from every day. This is unpaid work, done for the community and for the satisfaction and status that comes with it.

But of the top 100 websites, there are very few that are built on this model.

Now imagine a blockchain/token project in which contributors earned tokens as they built it and supported it.

Over time, the decentralized project would go up in value. As the ecosystem and the market delivered more and more utility to more and more people, the users would need to buy tokens to use it. And the holders of tokens would receive either a dividend or have the ability to sell their tokens if they chose.

Early speculators would attract more attention, and people with more skill than capital could invest by contributing early and often.

As the project reached a steady state, the stakeholders would shift, from innovators and speculators to people who treat their daily contributions as a job without a boss. Innovators could build on top of this network without permission, creating more and more variations and choice using the same underlying database.

One way to consider this: The open web led to a huge leap in the number of useful databases that we all use (things like Zillow, Instagram and even Tinder). They were fairly cheap to launch and run, and once the network effect kicked in, the profits were significant. Investors were eager to fund the next one, because the odds of a big win dwarfed most of what they could choose from in traditional businesses.

But dominant players are now working to make the openness of the web (the thing that allowed them to grow in the first place) less open. Google and Facebook and others push to make their stock price go up, not to serve users and others who now understand they have little choice in the matter.

The distributed nature of the blockchain, combined with this novel way of funding early contributions means that the network effect may very well bring powerful new databases to the fore, creating new ways for us to interact.

It’s hardly going to be perfect. There’s the issue of how the blockchain itself is run. If it’s run on the original method—proof of work—it’s likely to be a carbon disaster, getting worse as it succeeds. Fortunately, there are new approaches on the horizon (with great names like ‘proof of stake’ and ‘sharding’) that might address these problems.

For the typical user, the existence of the blockchain itself won’t matter, just as you don’t need to know how many volunteer editors Wikipedia has to benefit from using it.

The reason the blockchain matters is that it is an agent of change. Just like the transistor and yes, the printing press, when an agent of change shows up, it often leads to shifts that we probably didn’t expect.

Understanding it now is more productive than simply being forced to deal with it later.Why the blockchain matters [ https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=178109673&f=1081591&c=7653545&u=5102652 ]

But first, let’s understand some words…

Bitcoin is not the blockchain. If the blockchain is a printing press, Bitcoin is a kind of paper money. There are countless things that one can do with a printing press, in fact, it changed the world, but the invention of paper money isn’t even one of the top 100 most important outputs the printed press created.

Cryptocurrency has a terrible name. Most people associate “crypto” with spies and secrets. And a currency is generally backed by a nation, with a treasury, an exchequer and banks.

It’s more accurately thought of as a token.

If you went to an amusement park, you might buy a bunch of tokens or tickets to go on the rides. And if you run one of the rides, you collect the tokens, which at some point, you can trade in for a different sort of value, probably currency.

If people need tokens and they’re scarce, they go up in value. If people think that tokens are going to up in value, they might buy them in anticipation of that. And the things that people do to get tokens can range from simply buying them with paper money (!) to performing various tasks (like the ride operators in the example above).

And, if a lot of people own tokens, they’re likely to do things that make tokens go up in value. Thus, an ecosystem is born.

Okay, so what’s the blockchain?

It’s a database.

Unlike most databases, it’s not controlled by one entity and it’s not easily rewritten. Instead, it’s a ledger, a permanent, examinable, public database. One can use it to record transactions of various sorts.

It would be a really good way to keep track of property records, for example. Instead, we have title insurance, unsearchable folders of deeds in City Hall and often dusty tax records.

There are databases everywhere around us (Facebook, for example, is mostly a database–who are the users, who do they know, what do they do?). Because the internet rewards people who own networks so handsomely, these organizations continue to gain in power. Google began by building a database on top of the open internet, and they’ve spent the last twenty years relentlessly making the internet less open so they can fortify the power of their databases and the attention they influence or control.

And that’s the first reason that the blockchain matters—because there’s a chance that it might lead to more open, resilient, market-focused networks and databases. It’s only a chance, though, because all the hype around the tokens sometimes makes it seem more likely that financial operators will simply seek to manipulate unregulated markets for their own benefit.

The second reason might support positive change. The existence of tokens and decentralization means that it’s possible to build resilient open source communities where early contributors and supporters benefit handsomely over time. No one owns these communities, and we can hope that these communities will work hard to serve themselves and their users, not the capital markets or other short-term players.

Consider a project like Wikipedia. Tens of thousands of people have devoted millions of hours to working to build it. 5,000 active editors are responsible for most of the work that we benefit from every day. This is unpaid work, done for the community and for the satisfaction and status that comes with it.

But of the top 100 websites, there are very few that are built on this model.

Now imagine a blockchain/token project in which contributors earned tokens as they built it and supported it.

Over time, the decentralized project would go up in value. As the ecosystem and the market delivered more and more utility to more and more people, the users would need to buy tokens to use it. And the holders of tokens would receive either a dividend or have the ability to sell their tokens if they chose.

Early speculators would attract more attention, and people with more skill than capital could invest by contributing early and often.

As the project reached a steady state, the stakeholders would shift, from innovators and speculators to people who treat their daily contributions as a job without a boss. Innovators could build on top of this network without permission, creating more and more variations and choice using the same underlying database.

One way to consider this: The open web led to a huge leap in the number of useful databases that we all use (things like Zillow, Instagram and even Tinder). They were fairly cheap to launch and run, and once the network effect kicked in, the profits were significant. Investors were eager to fund the next one, because the odds of a big win dwarfed most of what they could choose from in traditional businesses.

But dominant players are now working to make the openness of the web (the thing that allowed them to grow in the first place) less open. Google and Facebook and others push to make their stock price go up, not to serve users and others who now understand they have little choice in the matter.

The distributed nature of the blockchain, combined with this novel way of funding early contributions means that the network effect may very well bring powerful new databases to the fore, creating new ways for us to interact.

It’s hardly going to be perfect. There’s the issue of how the blockchain itself is run. If it’s run on the original method—proof of work—it’s likely to be a carbon disaster, getting worse as it succeeds. Fortunately, there are new approaches on the horizon (with great names like ‘proof of stake’ and ‘sharding’) that might address these problems.

For the typical user, the existence of the blockchain itself won’t matter, just as you don’t need to know how many volunteer editors Wikipedia has to benefit from using it.

The reason the blockchain matters is that it is an agent of change. Just like the transistor and yes, the printing press, when an agent of change shows up, it often leads to shifts that we probably didn’t expect.

Understanding it now is more productive than simply being forced to deal with it later. [ https://p.feedblitz.com/r3.asp?l=178109673&f=1081591&c=7653545&u=5102652 ]

But first, let’s understand some words…

Bitcoin is not the blockchain. If the blockchain is a printing press, Bitcoin is a kind of paper money. There are countless things that one can do with a printing press, in fact, it changed the world, but the invention of paper money isn’t even one of the top 100 most important outputs the printed press created.

Cryptocurrency has a terrible name. Most people associate “crypto” with spies and secrets. And a currency is generally backed by a nation, with a treasury, an exchequer and banks.

It’s more accurately thought of as a token.

If you went to an amusement park, you might buy a bunch of tokens or tickets to go on the rides. And if you run one of the rides, you collect the tokens, which at some point, you can trade in for a different sort of value, probably currency.

If people need tokens and they’re scarce, they go up in value. If people think that tokens are going to up in value, they might buy them in anticipation of that. And the things that people do to get tokens can range from simply buying them with paper money (!) to performing various tasks (like the ride operators in the example above).

And, if a lot of people own tokens, they’re likely to do things that make tokens go up in value. Thus, an ecosystem is born.

Okay, so what’s the blockchain?

It’s a database.

Unlike most databases, it’s not controlled by one entity and it’s not easily rewritten. Instead, it’s a ledger, a permanent, examinable, public database. One can use it to record transactions of various sorts.

It would be a really good way to keep track of property records, for example. Instead, we have title insurance, unsearchable folders of deeds in City Hall and often dusty tax records.

There are databases everywhere around us (Facebook, for example, is mostly a database–who are the users, who do they know, what do they do?). Because the internet rewards people who own networks so handsomely, these organizations continue to gain in power. Google began by building a database on top of the open internet, and they’ve spent the last twenty years relentlessly making the internet less open so they can fortify the power of their databases and the attention they influence or control.

And that’s the first reason that the blockchain matters—because there’s a chance that it might lead to more open, resilient, market-focused networks and databases. It’s only a chance, though, because all the hype around the tokens sometimes makes it seem more likely that financial operators will simply seek to manipulate unregulated markets for their own benefit.

The second reason might support positive change. The existence of tokens and decentralization means that it’s possible to build resilient open source communities where early contributors and supporters benefit handsomely over time. No one owns these communities, and we can hope that these communities will work hard to serve themselves and their users, not the capital markets or other short-term players.

Consider a project like Wikipedia. Tens of thousands of people have devoted millions of hours to working to build it. 5,000 active editors are responsible for most of the work that we benefit from every day. This is unpaid work, done for the community and for the satisfaction and status that comes with it.

But of the top 100 websites, there are very few that are built on this model.

Now imagine a blockchain/token project in which contributors earned tokens as they built it and supported it.

Over time, the decentralized project would go up in value. As the ecosystem and the market delivered more and more utility to more and more people, the users would need to buy tokens to use it. And the holders of tokens would receive either a dividend or have the ability to sell their tokens if they chose.

Early speculators would attract more attention, and people with more skill than capital could invest by contributing early and often.

As the project reached a steady state, the stakeholders would shift, from innovators and speculators to people who treat their daily contributions as a job without a boss. Innovators could build on top of this network without permission, creating more and more variations and choice using the same underlying database.

One way to consider this: The open web led to a huge leap in the number of useful databases that we all use (things like Zillow, Instagram and even Tinder). They were fairly cheap to launch and run, and once the network effect kicked in, the profits were significant. Investors were eager to fund the next one, because the odds of a big win dwarfed most of what they could choose from in traditional businesses.

But dominant players are now working to make the openness of the web (the thing that allowed them to grow in the first place) less open. Google and Facebook and others push to make their stock price go up, not to serve users and others who now understand they have little choice in the matter.

The distributed nature of the blockchain, combined with this novel way of funding early contributions means that the network effect may very well bring powerful new databases to the fore, creating new ways for us to interact.

It’s hardly going to be perfect. There’s the issue of how the blockchain itself is run. If it’s run on the original method—proof of work—it’s likely to be a carbon disaster, getting worse as it succeeds. Fortunately, there are new approaches on the horizon (with great names like ‘proof of stake’ and ‘sharding’) that might address these problems.

For the typical user, the existence of the blockchain itself won’t matter, just as you don’t need to know how many volunteer editors Wikipedia has to benefit from using it.

The reason the blockchain matters is that it is an agent of change. Just like the transistor and yes, the printing press, when an agent of change shows up, it often leads to shifts that we probably didn’t expect.

Understanding it now is more productive than simply being forced to deal with it later.