mfioretti

Bookmarks on this page are managed by an admin user.

18237 bookmark(s) - Sort by: Date ↓ / Title / Voting /

  1. What type of decisions will citizens support?

    Hamburg wants citizen input in regards to the positioning of trees in urban areas and the construction of playgrounds for children. Where would they be the most useful/appreciated?

    The Royal London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea is going for a bottom up approach, with citizens free to make proposals that will enhance social cohesion and engagement across all age groups. Residents can also give input into the planning process, voicing concerns and proposing alternatives. The city is hoping that residents and businesses will use the available data to develop apps that improve quality of life.

    Rome wants to become more transparent in its decision-making, and is emphasising the democratic possibilities of the smarticipate platform. The city particularly wants citizens’ ideas on potential uses for abandoned buildings in the city. How can they be transformed into something positive?

    Ultimately smarticipate is the first step on a path that could change the way cities operate. It aims to upend the traditional relationship between local authorities and citizens and bring them closer together. There’s no doubt that the project will change over time, shaped by its experiences. It is an exciting opportunity that we encourage everyone to be a part of.
    https://www.smarticipate.eu/about
    Voting 0
  2. dismissing Facebook’s change as a mere strategy credit is perhaps to give short shrift to Zuckerberg’s genuine desire to leverage Facebook’s power to make the world a better place. Zuckerberg argued in his 2017 manifesto Building Global Community:

    Progress now requires humanity coming together not just as cities or nations, but also as a global community. This is especially important right now. Facebook stands for bringing us closer together and building a global community. When we began, this idea was not controversial. Every year, the world got more connected and this was seen as a positive trend. Yet now, across the world there are people left behind by globalization, and movements for withdrawing from global connection. There are questions about whether we can make a global community that works for everyone, and whether the path ahead is to connect more or reverse course.

    Our job at Facebook is to help people make the greatest positive impact while mitigating areas where technology and social media can contribute to divisiveness and isolation. Facebook is a work in progress, and we are dedicated to learning and improving. We take our responsibility seriously.

    That, though, leaves the question I raised in response to that manifesto:

    Even if Zuckerberg is right, is there anyone who believes that a private company run by an unaccountable all-powerful person that tracks your every move for the purpose of selling advertising is the best possible form said global governance should take?

    My deep-rooted suspicion of Zuckerberg’s manifesto has nothing to do with Facebook or Zuckerberg; I suspect that we agree on more political goals than not. Rather, my discomfort arises from my strong belief that centralized power is both inefficient and dangerous: no one person, or company, can figure out optimal solutions for everyone on their own, and history is riddled with examples of central planners ostensibly acting with the best of intentions — at least in their own minds — resulting in the most horrific of consequences; those consequences sometimes take the form of overt costs, both economic and humanitarian, and sometimes those costs are foregone opportunities and innovations. Usually it’s both.

    Facebook’s stated reasoning for this change only heightens these contradictions: if indeed Facebook as-is harms some users, fixing that is a good thing. And yet the same criticism becomes even more urgent: should the personal welfare of 2 billion people be Mark Zuckerberg’s personal responsibility?
    https://stratechery.com/2018/facebooks-motivations
    Voting 0
  3. If you were a delivery van driver searching for a new job any time between the years of 2010 and 2013, chances are, you wouldn’t have found many businesses competing for your services. In Selma, Alabama, there was, on average, just one company posting help wanted ads for those drivers on the nation’s biggest job board. In all of Orlando, Florida, there were about nine. Nationwide the average was about two.

    The situation for telemarketers wasn’t great either. In any given city or town, approximately three companies were trying to hire for their services. Accountants only had it a little better: Roughly four businesses were posting jobs for them.
    A lack of competition among employers gives businesses outsize power over workers, including the ability to tamp down on pay.

    Those numbers are based on the findings of a new research paper that may help unlock the mystery of why Americans can’t seem to get a decent raise. Economists have struggled over that question for years now, as wage growth has stagnated and more of the nation’s income has shifted from the pockets of workers into the bank accounts of business owners. Since 1979, inflation-adjusted hourly pay is up just 3.41 percent for the middle 20 percent of Americans while labor’s overall share of national income has declined sharply since the early 2000s. There are lots of possible explanations for why this is, from long-term factors like the rise of automation and decline of organized labor, to short-term ones, such as the lingering weakness in the job market left over from the great recession. But a recent study by a group of labor economists introduces an interesting theory into the mix: Workers’ pay may be lagging because the U.S. is suffering from a shortage of employers.
    https://slate.com/business/2018/01/a-...r-why-americans-cant-get-a-raise.html
    Voting 0
  4. After the first communication to the PMO, which set the ball rolling, he was informed that the system had rejected his enrolment since his fingerprints partially matched with not one, but seven registered citizens, all from Surpur taluk in Yadgir district.

    “I tracked them and presented them physically before the officials,” he said, to establish that there was no duplication. His number was finally generated at the Aadhaar Adalat at Yadgir recently. Of the seven with whom his fingerprints had partially matched included a child and an 86-year-old. “How could my fingerprints match with seven persons, and yet they got Aadhaar?” he asked.

    UIDAI sources say the problem began for Mr. Gurikar after he, in the past, tried to help those who came to the enrolment centres. “While helping people get their biometrics right, even his fingerprints had been partially captured in seven cases. Though Aadhaar had been generated for the seven, their numbers had been deactivated by the system automatically.” Sources said the fingerprints of the seven were recaptured and their Aadhaar numbers enabled. This helped Mr. Gurikar get Aadhaar.
    http://www.thehindu.com/news/national...atch-seven-others/article22466491.ece
    Tags: , , , by M. Fioretti (2018-01-19)
    Voting 0
  5. "Continueremo a lavorare con le autorità francesi per garantire che gli utenti comprendano quali informazioni vengono raccolte e come vengono utilizzate", ha affermato WhatsApp in una dichiarazione inviata per posta elettronica. "Ci impegniamo a risolvere le diverse e talvolta contraddittorie preoccupazioni che hanno sollevato le autorità per la protezione dei dati, con un approccio comune a livello europeo prima che nuove norme sulla protezione dei dati a livello di blocco entrino in vigore nel maggio 2018".

    I trasferimenti di dati da WhatsApp a Facebook avvengono in parte senza il consenso dell'utente, ha ribadito l'ente francese che ha anche respinto le argomentazioni di WhatsApp secondo le quali l'azienda sarebbe soggetta solo alla legge degli Stati Uniti. Il monito francese, è "un avviso formale, non una sanzione", ma il colosso dei messaggi rischierebbe di incorrere in multe in una fase successiva.
    http://www.repubblica.it/tecnologia/2...ncia_il_garante_fb_whatsapp-184580045
    Voting 0
  6. -
    https://github.com/scripting/feedsForJournalists/blob/master/list.txt
    Tags: by M. Fioretti (2018-01-17)
    Voting 0
  7. There has been a lot of debate about the real benefits of local production, especially that last-mile delivery is more harmful to the environment than the benefits it brings. In your experience, what is the ecological footprint of a product that has been globally designed and locally manufactured?

    Any production that is not hyperlocal ie. from materials sourced within a very short supply chain, has to find its way to the consumer somehow. With respect to environmental concern, the ‘last mile’ is a question of the existing production paradigm finding the most efficient and low carbon way to achieve its objective. I’m not sure that the last mile debate concerning the most carbon-efficient delivery by a globalised supply system can be compared to local production. Local production will have ‘last miles’ (and more energy used in transportation, depending on where the materials were sourced for the production), but in general, I’d be less worried about lots of last miles from local production, than many more tens of thousands of miles of transportation required with ‘remote’ production.

    It’s also worth noting that shipping is responsible for 17% of global emissions, but neither shipping and aviation are accounted for in international climate change negotiations due to the difficulty in allocating emissions ie. do they belong to the producing or consuming country? In general, local has many benefits, but it’s simplistic to assume local always equals ‘good’. It depends on so many things, for example, is the activity occurring in a water-scarce environment? How intensive is the production? Is the power source for the products generated from renewable energy?

    Life-cycle analysis (LCA) is one way of assessing the ecological cost-benefit of different methods of production, but it can get quite complicated. Descriptions can offer a sense of the impacts, however, measuring these and making the trade-offs is less clear and requires not only a lot of data but a lot of consideration and interpretation.


    Before even considering ecological footprints of production, one of the first things cities could do is look into ‘boomerang trade’ – the new economics foundation produced a report on this activity in the UK, where similar goods are being traded and transported across continents, or across the globe. There are also ridiculous examples, such as what I have dubbed ‘frequent flyer prawns’ – shrimp being flown to Thailand from Scotland, and then back because the labour needed to shell them is cheaper in Thailand.

    Trade used to be about genuine comparative advantage. If economics is supposed to be about the efficient allocation of resources, and this is what our systems of economics are incentivising, then we need new economics.


    Cosmo localism, or ‘design global, manufacture local’, certainly has some overlap with ‘glocalisation’, or the adaptation of globally marketed products to local culture, in that a shared global design can be replicated (or adapted then produced) locally. But by whom, and how?

    Glocalisation is about the top-down marketing of consumer products designed remotely, in a centralised way and then tweaked for local culture. Cosmolocalism, or Design Global Manufacture Local (DG-ML) is based on a different production logic, as explained by Jose Ramos and Chris Giotitsas in ‘A New Model of Production for a New Economy’:

    Traditionally corporate enterprises have solely owned the intellectual property (IP) they employ in the production of goods. They source the materials for the goods through national or global supply chains. They manufacture those goods using economies of scale in a set number of manufacturing centres, whereupon those finished goods are delivered nationally or globally.

    DG-ML is an inversion of this production logic. First of all, the IP is open, whether open source or creative commons or copy fair, so it can be used by anyone. Secondly, manufacturing and production can be done independently of the IP, by any community or enterprise around the world that wants to.
    http://magazine.ouishare.net/2017/11/...ducing-locally-really-save-our-planet
    Voting 0
  8. The study examined data collected from 40 municipal broadband providers and private throughout 2015 and 2016. Pricing data was collected predominately by visiting carrier websites, where pricing is (quite intentionally) often hidden behind prequalification walls, since pricing varies dramatically based on regional competition.

    In many markets, analysts couldn’t make direct comparisons with a private ISP, either because the ISP failed to meet the FCC’s 25 Mbps down, 3 Mbps up standard definition of broadband (a problem for countless telcos who refuse to upgrade aging DSL lines), or because the ISP prequalification website terms of service “deterred or prohibited” data collection.

    But out of the 27 markets where they could make direct comparisons, researchers found that in 23 cases, the community-owned ISPs’ pricing was lower when the service costs and fees were averaged over four years.
    https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/ar...-terrified-of-community-run-broadband
    Tags: , , , by M. Fioretti (2018-01-17)
    Voting 0
  9. Now that Bangladesh is becoming a middle-income country, our widespread software piracy is unlikely to be permitted for much longer. Bangladeshi law already makes software piracy illegal.

    Enforcement of the law has been overlooked until now, but will not continue forever. Especially with Bangladesh continuously lobbying US trade authorities for lower duties and tariffs for the exports of its ready-made garment factories, it is only a matter of time before American companies, such as Microsoft, insist that their intellectual property rights be enforced as a prerequisite for better trade access.
    http://www.dhakatribune.com/opinion/2...1/15/barcelona-moving-linux-not-dhaka
    Voting 0
  10. Here’s how this golden age of speech actually works: In the 21st century, the capacity to spread ideas and reach an audience is no longer limited by access to expensive, centralized broadcasting infrastructure. It’s limited instead by one’s ability to garner and distribute attention. And right now, the flow of the world’s attention is structured, to a vast and overwhelming degree, by just a few digital platforms: Facebook, Google (which owns YouTube), and, to a lesser extent, Twitter.

    These companies—which love to hold themselves up as monuments of free expression—have attained a scale unlike anything the world has ever seen; they’ve come to dominate media


    Not to put too fine a point on it, but all of this invalidates much of what we think about free speech—conceptually, legally, and ethically.

    The most effective forms of censorship today involve meddling with trust and attention, not muzzling speech itself.

    What’s more, all this online speech is no longer public in any traditional sense. Sure, Facebook and Twitter sometimes feel like places where masses of people experience things together simultaneously. But in reality, posts are targeted and delivered privately, screen by screen by screen.
    https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-issue-tech-turmoil-new-censorship
    Voting 0

Top of the page

First / Previous / Next / Last / Page 2 of 1824 Online Bookmarks of M. Fioretti: My Bookmarks

About - Propulsed by SemanticScuttle