The 80/20 Rule
Hi Ben, you are of course on to something and we will of course see 80% of what you say in 20% of the time. It occurs to me that a company focusing on freeing the data in a participatory way is a way to achieve 80% of this with 20% of the effort.

  1. Identify the areas on the planet where 20% of the patterns cause 80% of the pain.
  2. Identify the solutions that take 20% of the effort to fix 80% of those.
  3. Create a dynamic port to 20% of the movers and shakers (technically and individually) so that the data is in constant flow.
  4. Show areas where individuals can participate to shift the tightest bottle necks.

What this can lead to is what I would call enlightened self-interest. In my own life, getting a home-management person to come 1.5 hours a day eliminates 80% of the sap to my creative energy. What if the same could be true of a pioneer? What if I could buy a pioneer a home-management assistant that added 30% efficiency to the three people who were affecting 80% of the bottleneck on a technology that affected 90% of 80% of the key world issues. This is incredible leverage. "Free the data" is profound. 90% of the data I need to make a potent impact is not available to me as an individual and the paradigm is not laid down as a mental pathway. This is your strength. My non-profit www.happinessdata.org looks at this issue but 80% of it's potential is held up by 20% skills that I don't have. I would like to see an interactive probability format developed for engaging with your information - something 10X more potent than youtube, which is already 10X more potent than TV (which I don't watch) and getting this to real-time dynamics is a 10X-20X improvement.

I see huge impacts on this in personal lives and in global transformation. What if there was one person in
government of a country we don't pay attention to who could, with 10 hours of data presented altruistically by someone that person respects, shift 80% of that country's energy policy. The problem is I don't have the data on that. Neither do you. But what if we could create a platform where - a bit like wikipedia - people could contribute to a 3D version of data as graphical objects in a real-time representation of probability fields, that would generate alerts graphically (red areas of the object showing chains of events where if something does not happen at a given moment of time leads to 10 years of suffering). If this platform could generate a 10X track record, showing graphically the impact of interacting it on personal lives, companies, countries and future probabilities and correlate this with dimensions of well-being and suffering ecologically and emotionally, this becomes a road-map for interacting as a species in which we prioritize a $100. investment that could save 1 million Chinese lives from cancer over a $1000. investment that saves 1 person in our own neighborhood from cancer and vice versa - a technology in which data reveals a capacity for synergy in which - in the antithesis of the drawing of hell in which devils go hungry at a feast in which everyone has 3' forks and no one can feed themselves - we partner in more and more ways to follow the most efficient data available to benefitting the species, and the planet it depends on, outside of all political or group lines.

Have you worked in 3D at all with data and can you turn it into 2D like google earth in areas until we all have VR interfaces? I think that much as Google generated trillions of global value by prioritizing the chaos of search, that such an interface would generate trillions more by using a data algorithm building on Ray Dalio's experiences in his decision-making app at Bridgewater to effectively prioritize the weight to place on each voice, the
trust-worthiness and value of each voice in what emerges as a globally interactive data stream, translated into all languages.

Components:

  1. Open source framework with blockchain.

  2. Open source algorithms (unlike google, facebook and youtube who won't tell you why your video is or is not monetized etc.)

  3. A competition module that allows for divergence and competition within the network (I can propose a competing algorithm and the data can be processed through my program AND your program AND anyone else's and the outcomes in hard data determine the ranking of each approach proactively so that users can pick from the top five most effective algorithms for processing the data and can experiment: "I spend $100. following Ben's assessment of data and generated X impact. I spent $100. following the next program and generated X impact and all data is available to all programs being the only ethical basis to compete with.

  4. A translator module that is dynamically improving all communication with each iteration.

  5. Competing graphical presentation modules for all of the above that are independent and can be personalized for a fee.

  6. Anyone can import data and be measured over time based on their accuracy, competency and the quality of the data (a first hand video being higher ranked than "I saw" comments and someone who has a long-standing reputation being ranked higher than a new account, to account for the biggest lobbying game this would induce: the game of trying to shift the data in the favor of special interests).

  7. Peripheral filter modules to curate data to people's interests, by region, language and culture of the above.

When you free the data our minds do follow. Intelligence = the efficiency with which energy (time/money/resources) is transferred into human well-being. 5% of the data is free for 2% of the population to access. There is room for an exponential explosion of intelligence in this domain. And it sets the stage for A.I. and allows us to partner with it. A.I. will move in this direction because it is intelligent for A.I. to develop a profile of everyone existing in the digital world, to develop a sense of who to listen to in what areas based on past results, and to make recommendations based on these patterns. The issue is that if we don't do this transparently the unintuitive A.I. suggestions such as: "The best thing for the planet today would be for the world to focus all it's energy on the policy of a Chinese agricultural minister and their Monsanto bribe to plant a specific species of corn and suppress the data" may leave most of us with our heads scratching and unclear why this is anything to do with us. But it may be the single most important thing that we do to tip the balance of an ecological framework that will have impact on our lives five years down the road in a predictable pattern that the data reveals, for the 1-2 people who know the data.

You are doing the best job in the Tesla community of asking the right questions and showing your world with images. Were such an infrastructure in place, you would be getting data right now from civic and Tesla customers in graphical form. And more importantly, so would Tesla, so would every other auto-maker and so would the public and government. When you have a politician with a 10% intelligence rating voting against a decision-making algorithm with a 90% intelligence ranking it would be grounds to remove the politician - even take them to court for abusing public funds and certainly vote them out of office. This transcends government in the long run because any sane politician would align themselves to the data, as would their constituents for the simple reason that those people who respect commonly known data always out-perform those who don't in the long run, just like those who bet against the house always lose. You strike me as someone able and willing to grapple with the probability fields and potential of such an enterprise. It will come with or without your or I, but the amount of conflict and war in the ultimate battle between dogma and data will be determined by how gracefully and articulately we make the process transparent, participatory and give people time to get used to it. I know of no project on earth that could affect the species and planet as much in the next 50 years. Fifty years from now the A.I. with the best track record will be using a superior version of this idea to create a superb track-record and anyone with care for the future will be participating in that process willingly. From now until 50 years there may be unrest, war and planetary destruction as we battle with our fear of the unknown (based on a traumatized population's primary need for certainty by clinging to dogma at the expense of success (traumatized individuals prefer known pain to the terror of the unknown and will die for it)) and fight with the changes we need to survive. Complete transparency by allowing past-zooming in to each decision and the data around it creates a bypass of this fear of the unknown and allows us as individuals to partner with data. It also transcends political parties because there are specific instances where a policy hurts the parties own values because the policy is crude and lacks nuance. When people are able to input their value hierarchies and see how data and outcome looks through the lens of their stated values (I'm working on homelessness and the people most interested in blaming the homeless because they don't want to spend their money on the homeless are the people who pay the highest taxes for the ER visits and policing that create, along with tight housing policies, the very hand-outs they say they don't want). On a personal level it will reveal things like the behaviors we do that induce the behaviors we don't want in our partners. It will reveal things like "If you would simply take five minutes a day away from this activity and do this one thing your live would be 20% different 10 years from now." We will always be free to fight the data, but those who do will lose rank because their performance will suffer, or exceptions to that rule will be the basis to challenge the sophistication of distinctions within the code - edits to which can be transparent and reasoned and debated with the choice to test various versions. I'd be interested to know if you see anything else on the horizon remotely as impactful (we are talking less than 1% of the earth's energy, 5% of human time for a 100%-10,000% in human well-being and a framework in which data of this quality would be the most valuable asset any government, company or individual could gain access to.

Dane E. Rose, Owner
Mystical Landscapes Inc.
www.Mysticallandscapes.com
(415) 455 9161