Politicians and their science advisers need to get with the times and embrace open research. They should harness the collective expertise — now also accessible through social media — of virologists, epidemiologists, behavioural researchers and others who can help them to better interrogate their models, and therefore improve their decisions. This is imperative now, when they are making decisions on which the future of lives and economies depend.
— Läs på www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00772-4
Short of citing the entire article, I just quote this essential early part. But do go read the whole piece. It is important now, and in the future, for anyone with any level of power.
The first thing is that you should be communicating a lot, consistently and with trusted sources. You have to be open and transparent. You have to say what you do know and then you have to say what you don’t know. You have to emphasise, and keep emphasising, the uncertainty, the fact that there is much we don’t know. Then you have to say what you are planning to do and why. Finally, you have to say what people themselves can do, how they should act. The crucial thing to say is that this will change as we learn more.
Tack till Nicklas för pekaren.
In support of its research programme CERN has developed tools for Big Data management and extended Digital Library capabilities for Open Data. Through Zenodo these Big Science tools could be effectively shared with the long-tail of research.
Cities need data and transparency about how new mobility services are being utilized because only they have the power to manage our public right-of-way: the streets, curbs, and sidewalks that these mobility services depend on,”
— Read on www.sae.org/news/press-room/2019/05/sae-international-brings-together-public-and-private-partners-to-address-mobility-data-sharing-principles
This is the great thing about the decentralized, permissionless innovation of the internet – telcos don’t need to decide in advance what the use cases are, any more than Intel had to decide what the use cases for faster CPUs would be.
— Read on www.ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2019/1/16/5g-if-you-build-it-we-will-fill-it
Ben is not a telecoms analyst anymore. He has a different perspective. Thinks in ways that resonate with how I tick. Great stuff.
I’ve known of Flattr for a long time. Last fall I was part of the group that converged on sending them some grant money (http://www.vinnova.se/sv/Verksamhet/ForskaVax/Tidigare-finansierade-projekt/Finansierade-projekt-hosten-2010/). This morning I activated my flattr-account, input some funds and started flattr-ing stuff that others pointed me to. They actively pointed out that they ‘produced’ something of tangible size and ‘value’. I guess. Otherwise they wouldn’t have submitted it?
Flattr’s a great thing. I. Do. Think. So.
BUT. Not every influence or thought wants to or needs to be ‘clickable’, transparent, and trackable. It doesn’t need to be shone a light on! It is not ‘valuable’ enough to merit submission, according to the author, who is the one that have to submit. At least I don’t think so. Not that it wants to be ‘secret’. It merely doesn’t want to be clickable, to stand out, to ‘brag’ about its own (potential) merits. Because it’s small, and part of a pattern, a (possibly persietent) flow, but not valuable _on its own_.
There’s lot’s of intelligent writing on the pro’s and cons of making every word in a text into a hypertext link. Or Lessig’s text ‘Against Transparency’ in the Atlantic (no url provided here… but, surely, google is your friend if you think it’s worth checking out?) I kind of appreciate the not-so-very-linked texts more and more. And. But this short breakfast reflection isn’t entirely about that part but about my feeling that I don’t want or need for every ‘submission’ to be countable as a statistic in a list of flattr-submission, or posts on a blog or heart ticks in an endomondo-diagram or check-ins on my private google latitude dashbord. ”Life’s bigger and more than a series of numbers”. More happens. Most of ‘what happens’ isn’t accounted for explicitly and ‘individually’, either because we can’t track it yet, or because we don’t _want_ it to be tracked or counted, ok?
I will surely write and contribute and participate as I like to think I do at times, at work, in life, at home, connected at times, disconnected at other times. Sometimes I might submit something actively (to flattr, or just point to something via twitter, or…). But more often, what ‘I do’ or think or say to a collegue in a corridor conversation or… will neither be submitted, nor understood by the algorithms of the great machine. But still, hopefully, provide some value at the time, in its context etc.
This will be my first blog post in a while. Surely not worth much. But I will submit it to flattr, to celebrate the great morning of a great day that I’ll mostly spend in the garden, tending to (removing!!!) last years oak leaves and my aging SAAB 9-3, while keeping wife and son happy with cheers and cooking etc :)
Kollegan Peter Krantz på e-delegationen tipsade mig om denna dragning som överskådligt beskriver möjligheterna med öppna data. Tillväxt- och möjlighetsdimensionen är lätt att se. Rekommenderas till alla kollegor!
Update: Denna publicerades tidigare på en annan blogg, men där passade den inte längre. Och, ska noteras, jag jobbar alltså på Vinnova, men uttalar mig på intet sätt, i detta forum eller någon annan stans, för Vinnovas räkning. Om jag inte explicit säger så, dvs. Vilket jag nog inte kommer göra någonsin, då jag inte jobbar på V:s kommunikationsavdelning.