❤️ to issue 13 of GitHub project “hacienda”

👍 to issue 13 of GitHub project “hacienda”

↳ In reply to a comment on issue 163 of GitHub project “AB-public” > Should we just close this issue then?

No, because this issue as named is to “integrate” which is still a pending task separate from the Team task of “updated proposal”.

> just a reminder to the Team to keep things in sync as needed

No, that is missing half the point of this issue. By “in both directions” (per issue description) I believe it means that the chair/editor of the Vision have explicit work to do in the direction of incorporating content into the Vision document.

I disagree with “Candidate to Close” and do not think it needs AB time to discuss closing at this time, thus am removing that label.

If you believe this issue needs explicit sync-discussion by the AB at this time, please add “Agenda+” instead with your goals for discussion.

👍 to a comment on pull request 3 to GitHub project “potential-charters”

👍 to a comment on pull request 3 to GitHub project “potential-charters”

👍 to a comment on pull request 3 to GitHub project “potential-charters”

👍 to pull request 3 to GitHub project “potential-charters”

👍 to a comment on issue 113 of GitHub project “AB-public”

↳ In reply to issue 64 of GitHub project “AB-public” Closing with editorial change (https://github.com/w3c/AB-public/pull/175) merged to include "and the Vision Task Force" per Vision Task Force resolution: https://www.w3.org/2024/09/25-vision-minutes.html#r03

↳ In reply to issue 13 of GitHub project “AB-public” Removing "needed for Statement" label but leave issue open for further iterative improvements per Vision Task Force resolution:
https://www.w3.org/2024/09/25-vision-minutes.html#r04

↳ In reply to issue 126 of GitHub project “AB-public” It has been a while since the most recent discussions on this issue.

Since then, I will note that I have heard anecdotal experience from the Team and others regarding using the W3C Vision Note in their decision-making and they have found it quite useful, in everything from chartering, to resolving objections (often amciably), to recruiting.

Thus I propose that we close this issue as complete or complete enough to proceed to Statement.

If we get new information or new experiences (where people tried to use the Vision to make hard decisions and found it lacking), then we should open new issue(s) for those specific opportunities for improvement.

↳ In reply to issue 163 of GitHub project “AB-public” The editor and chair of the Vision Task Force met with W3C team members working on a proposed update to the W3C mission statement and we (VisionTF) are currently waiting on an updated proposal for presentation to the Task Force. We hope to see this proposed update sometime this month or next month.

↳ In reply to a comment on issue 87 of GitHub project “tpac2024-breakouts” @github.com/plehegar regarding: “Will the Social Web charter part of the scope of this breakout?”

I support discussing next steps on a Social Web WG charter in this breakout, in particular, using the discussion and links in https://github.com/w3c/strategy/issues/435 to help us make forward progress.

↳ In reply to a comment on issue 435 of GitHub project “strategy” @github.com/plehegar regarding:
> Can we turn the proposal (https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialCG/WG_Charter_Discussion) into a charter?

I think that proposal made good progress on some sections of a potential future Social Web WG charter as of meetings and discussions 6-12 months ago.

However, given the CG/WG Proposal Stages you linked us to above, I think it would be worth splitting the large table of Deliverables into two tables for consideration:
* Specs published by the prior Social Web WG — for necessary maintenance
* New proposals or draft specs - for working through stages

Without objection, I can do the wiki-table editing to split up that draft table of deliverables so it matches better with the CG/WG Proposal Stages proposal.

(Please thumbs-up as encouragement if you support this)

↳ In reply to a comment on issue 435 of GitHub project “strategy” @github.com/plehegar I read that FedID CG/WG Proposal Stages proposal (https://github.com/w3c-fedid/Administration/blob/main/proposals-CG-WG.md) and it makes a lot of sense to me as a thoughtful and rational methodology to incubate ideas and proposals in a CG through levels and when to uplift a proposal into the corresponding WG. I support it.

I think this would work well for numerous technical proposals being discussed in the Social Web CG to help them evolve and advance iteratively, and provide a more explicit way to evaluate them (independent of their specific topic or technology) for taking up by a potential future Social Web WG.

👍 to a comment on issue 87 of GitHub project “tpac2024-breakouts”

👍 to issue 87 of GitHub project “tpac2024-breakouts”

👍 to a comment on issue 435 of GitHub project “strategy”

👍 to a comment on issue 435 of GitHub project “strategy”

👍 to a comment on issue 435 of GitHub project “strategy”

👍 to a comment on issue 435 of GitHub project “strategy”

Dear Creative Commons (@creativecommons.org @creativecommons@mastodon.social @creativecommons@x.com),

Can we have CC-NT licenses for no-training (ML/LLM, GenAI in general), just like we have CC-NC for non-commercial?

My previous post¹ reminded me that I’ve been creating, writing, inventing, and then sharing things with #CreativeCommons (CC) #licenses for a long time (I have to see if I can dig up my first use of CC licenses.)

I’ve used and recommended a variety of CC licenses for decades, e.g.
* CC0 — for standards work, e.g. I drove and wrote up https://wiki.mozilla.org/Standards/licensing (with help from lawyers)
* CC-BY — aforementioned blog post (and other snippets of #openSource)
* CC-BY-NC — photos on Flickr (dozens of which have been used in publications²)
* CC-SA — for CASSIS³, which I still consider experimental enough that I chose "share-alike" to deliberately slow its spread, and hopefully reduce mutations (while allowing ports of its functions to other languages)

So I have some idea of what I’m talking about.

There have been LOTS of discussions of the challenges, downsides, and disagreements with sweeping use of copyrighted content to train generated artificial intelligence AKA #genAI software and services, sometimes also called #machineLearning. The most common examples being Large Language Models AKA #LLM, but also models for generating images and video. Smart, intelligent, and well-intentioned people disagree on who has rights to do what, or even who should do what in this regard.

There have been many proposals for new standards, or updates to existing standards like robots.txt etc. but I have not really seen them make noticeable progress. There are also lots of techniques published that attempt to block the spiders and bots being used to crawl and collect content for GenAI, an arms race that ends up damaging well-established popular uses such as web search engines (or making it harder to build a new one).

The brilliant innovation of Creative Commons was to look at the use-cases and intentions of creators publishing on the web in the 2000s and capture them in a small handful of clear licenses with human readable summaries.

Creatives are clamoring for a simple way to opt-out of their publicly published content from being used to train GenAI. New Creative Commons licenses solve this.

This seems like an obvious thing to me. If you can write a license that forbids “commercial use”, then you should be able to write a license that forbids use in “training models”, which respectful / well-written crawlers should (hopefully) respect, in as much as they respect existing CC licenses.

I saw that Creative Commons published a position paper⁴ for for an IETF workshop on this topic, and it unfortunately in my opinion has an overly cautious and pessimistic (outright conservative one could say) outlook, one that frankly I believe the founders of Creative Commons (who dared to boldly create something new) would probably be disappointed in.

First, there is no Creative Commons license on the Creative Commons position paper. Why?

Second, there are no names of authors on the Creative Commons position paper. Why?

Lots of people similarly (to the position paper) said the original Creative Commons licenses were a bad idea, or would not be used, or would be ignored, or would otherwise not work as intended. They were wrong.

If I were a lawyer I would fork those existing licenses and produce such “CC-NT” (for “no-training”) variants (though likely prefix them with something else since "CC" means Creative Commons) just to show it could be done, a proof of concept as it were that creators could use.

Or perhaps a few of us could collect funds to pay an intellectual property lawyer to do so, and of course donate all the work produced to the commons, so that Creative Commons (or someone else) could take it, re-use it, build upon it.

Someone needs to take such a bold step, just as Creative Commons itself took a bold step when they dared to create portable re-usable content licenses that any creator could use (a huge innovation at the time, for content, inspired in no doubt by portable re-usable open source licenses⁵).

References:

¹ https://tantek.com/2024/263/t1/20-years-undohtml-css-resets
² https://flickr.com/search/?user_id=tantek&tags=press&view_all=1
³ https://tantek.com/github/cassis
⁴ Creative Commons Position Paper on Preference Signals, https://www.ietf.org/slides/slides-aicontrolws-creative-commons-position-paper-on-preference-signals-00.pdf
⁵ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses

20 years and two weeks ago, I came up with undohtml.css and unknowingly invented the mechanism of CSS Resets (AKA reboot or reset style sheets¹) which spawned numerous variants, many still in broad use on the web today.

https://tantek.com/log/2004/09.html#d06t2354

A one sentence problem description, and a short paragraph describing my problem-solving, actions, license, link to less than 300 bytes of code (not counting comments), and a few future thoughts.

The rest of that blog post was about “debug scaffolding”, the part I thought was more interesting at the time.

Eric Meyer (@meyerweb.com @meyerweb@mastodon.social) followed up ~10 days afterwards with his thinking and improvements:
* https://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2004/09/15/emreallyem-undoing-htmlcss/
where he mentioned “resetting” in passing, but not actually calling it a "reset".

~2.5 years later Eric published “Reset Styles” with further reasoning and improvements:
* http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2007/04/12/reset-styles/
describing them as: “reset” or “baseline” set of styles.

Subsequently he iterated in several more blog posts:
* http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2007/04/14/reworked-reset/
* http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2007/04/18/reset-reasoning/ — this is Eric’s first post where he explicitly calls them “reset styles”, which I believe is the origin of the eventual phrase “CSS Reset” and “reset style sheets”
* http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2007/05/01/reset-reloaded/ (yes a Matrix: Reloaded reference)

~6 months later Eric published his evergreen resource “CSS Tools: Reset CSS”
* https://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/css/reset/
which, as you see within the URL: “css/reset”, is perhaps where the phrase “CSS Reset” comes from, and it’s also the label (link text) he gives that page in his UI about-page² and the first content link in his 404 page³.

My technology invention takeaways from all this:

1. if you find yourself repeatedly solving the same (especially annoying) problem, create a re-usable solution that works for you
2. write up your problem statement / use-case in only one sentence
3. publish your solution (on your personal site⁴), name it something short, with only a short paragraph description, and re-use/remix friendly license (like Creative Commons)

And things not to worry about (that may get in your way to publishing):

1. perfecting or making your solution “big enough” or “the right size”. does it solve your problem? then it’s already the right size.
2. coming up with the perfect name. instead, name it what it does. someone might come up with a better name weeks, months, or years later. let them run with it!
3. waiting to blog multiple things. I could have blogged undohtml.css by itself, probably should have, and instead lumped it into a blog post with another CSS thing I came up with.

Further reading and resources for CSS Resets:

* More history: https://css-tricks.com/reboot-resets-reasoning/
* Large collection: https://perishablepress.com/a-killer-collection-of-global-css-reset-styles/

References:

¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reset_style_sheet
² https://meyerweb.com/ui/about.html
³ https://meyerweb.com/404
⁴ https://indieweb.org/

#undoHTML #undoHTMLCSS #reset #CSSreset #resetstyles #webdesign #technology #invention #indieweb

Happy #8bitday — 256th day of the year! Here’s some reasons to celebrate:

bit = portmanteau of binary digit

8 binary digits can represent 256 different numerical values

8 bits are also a byte, the fundamental unit of computer storage — 'B' is for byte in 'GB' or 'TB' as an amount of memory (e.g. 24GB) or disk space (e.g. 2TB).

The '8' in UTF-8 also stands for 8 bits.

Beyond computer connections, there’s lots of 8-bit music and other forms of art.

Previously, previously, previously:
* https://tantek.com/2015/256/t2/happy-8bitday-this-year-konamicode
* https://tantek.com/2014/256/b1/happy-8-bit-day-8bitday
* https://tantek.com/2013/256/t1/happy-8-bit-day
* https://tantek.com/2012/256/t2/portland-xoxo-happy-8bitday
* https://tantek.com/2010/256/b1/happy-8-bit-day
* https://twitter.com/t/status/3960099908

Glossary

8-bit music
  https://tantek.com/w/8bitday#Music
bit
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit
byte
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte
Gigabyte (GB)
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabyte
UTF-8
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-8

Came up with and tried a three phase pomodoro technique yesterday for working thru tasks and projects.

This three phase pomodoro cycle repeats and resyncs hourly. The three phases I came up with:
* physical tidying/cleaning
* physical processing
* digital processing

This worked quite well and I got a lot of things done, tasks completed or significantly advanced in ~6 hours.

Many of these were “annoying” or “boring” but often not immediately “necessary” tasks that I had left undone (procrastinated) for many weeks, especially with all the travel I have had in the past two months nevermind first two-thirds of this year.

I took the basic idea of a pomodoro 20-minute timebox¹, figured three of those fit into an hour, and picked three things that were cognitively different enough that switching from one to the other would use different cognitive skills (perhaps different parts of my brain), thus allowing a form of cognitive rest (rather than fatigue, and giving one part of my brain a chance to rest, while using others).

This eliminated the need to take “pomodoro breaks”, whether 5 minutes or 20-30 minutes and it felt nearly effortless (actually fun at times) to cycle through the three phases, repeatedly, for hours on end. Before I knew it six hours had gone by and many tasks had been completed.

The three 20 minute phases have the advantage of quickly determining at any time which phase you should be in by checking your watch/phone for :00-:20, :20-:40, :40-:00. If you happened to be “out of phase”, e.g. “run over” because you were finishing something up, rather than stressing about it, switch to the in-progress phase and pick-up a new task accordingly.

A 20 minute timebox also has the advantage that tasks are less annoying or boring when you know that in less than 20 minutes you will be able to set them down and switch to something else.

There was an iterative sense of expectation of novelty. The expectation of even only a little novelty was enough to make things go more quickly in the present, and even provide a game-like encouragement of see how far I can get with this boring or annoying task in the little time remaining. Could I even complete this one task in less than 20 minutes?

I think repeating three phase pomodoro cycles worked particularly well on a Saturday afternoon when I had very few external interrupts. I think that was key. It gave a sense of momentum, if actual flow², that itself felt like it gave me a source of energy to keep going. I’m not sure it would work during normal work hours in any highly or even partially collaborative environment.

Interruptions for physical needs, moving around, drinking, eating etc. were something that I allowed at any time, and that removed any stress about those too.

I rarely set any count-down timers. A few times when I recognized I was starting or picking up a task that I might get absolutely lost in (such as many digital processing tasks like email), I set an explicit count-down timer for the end of the phase. These timer alarms certainly helped to give me permission to put down that task (for now) and switch, rather than feeling compelled to “complete” it which I know from experience can often take much longer, and leave me feeling more tired, perhaps even too tired to do anything else.

There was also a sense of relief in knowing that even if I didn’t finish a particular task by the end of a phase, I would have the opportunity to pick it right back up in 40 minutes. Or maybe by then I would have decided to work on a different task in that phase.

This three phase pomodoro technique worked well for tasks that are not very cognitively engaging (hence boring or annoying). Such tasks have low context, and thus low context-switching costs, but still benefit from taking mental breaks and resets.

In contrast, any deeply cognitively engaging, thinking, or creative tasks, like inventing, coding, writing, typically have a much higher context-switching costs, and in my experience work better when you can set aside a longer block of time to allow yourself build up all the context and then joyfully explore the depths of whatever it is you’re creating.

That being said, I think some creative tasks (depending on the person) could benefit from time-boxing. Like having a constraint to write a short blog post in the morning before a workout or breakfast. Worth trying such one-off timeboxes or even formal pomodoros and seeing if they help complete some creative tasks faster (or more often) over time.

#productivity #pomodoro #pomodoroTechnique #gtd #gettingThingsDone #Saturday

References:

¹ Apparently I misremembered 20 minutes instead of the typical pomodoro 25 minutes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomodoro_Technique
² https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)

Tip: use the W3C Link Checker and fix any errors before federating with Bridgy Fed.

https://validator.w3.org/checklink

If you are using Bridgy Fed to federate your posts from your personal site, I highly recommend you first run the W3C Link Checker on a post, and verify there are no “red” errors (or fix any you find), before pinging Bridgy Fed to federate the post.

The reason is that if your post contains broken links, especially broken https: links as part of an @-mention, a weird set of timeout interactions will occur between #BridgyFed and #Mastodon that will cause any Mastodon instances following your posts to drop your federated posts as if they had not been received.

Further, those instances will also ignore any UPDATES to that post.

More discussion here:
* https://chat.indieweb.org/dev/2024-09-04#t1725421768496000
More bug details here:
* https://github.com/snarfed/bridgy-fed/issues/884#issuecomment-2327861883

#IndieWeb #federate #fediverse #interoperability

This is post 22 of #100PostsOfIndieWeb. #100Posts

← https://tantek.com/2024/246/t1/adventures-indieweb-activitypub-bridgy-fed
→ 🔮

↳ In reply to hachyderm.io user thisismissem’s post @thisismissem@hachyderm.io we’ve tracked the bug down to one or more problems stemming from having a link in a post to an https: URL that fails to resolve or times out, in the context of an @-mention.

Bridgy Fed is attempting to fetch it and times out. When a #fediverse instance fetches the AS2 version of a post, and Bridgy Fed attempts to fetch that post’s links to construct the AS2 for the post, Bridgy Fed times out, which then likely times out the original AS2 request, so #Mastodon instances never get the requested AS2 post.

There are multiple possible problems:
* content authoring errors (including bad links, links going bad)
* Bridgy Fed attempting to retrieve every link in a post in order to construct the AS2 for a post, possibly with too long timeouts, so the overall AS2 construction takes too long
* Mastodon timing out when requesting the AS2 for a post, then giving up and never trying again (e.g. even when it receives an UPDATE for the post)

More discussion here:
* https://chat.indieweb.org/dev/2024-09-04#t1725421768496000
More details here:
* https://github.com/snarfed/bridgy-fed/issues/884#issuecomment-2327861883

#BridgyFed #atMention #ActivityStreams2