As a user of someone's work I don't need to care how it is implemented I just want some thing satisfied. Similar how computer programming interfaces work, I want to depend on someone else's implementation or work that they do and use it
Give people complete freedom how to decide how to solve some work purpose from time organisation to planning techniques.
Enforce a boundary of work completed and this boundary should not impose any rules or requirements how the work is to be done.
So if it was a sandwich shop, then the staff can decide how to organise their work per order. But they have the requirement to pass the information to the cashier or the cashier asks what they ordered.
This idea is that people are given an obnoxious number of free variables to define and how they work as long as if satisfies an inferface
Already done, already practiced by macromanagers.
// This idea is that people are given an obnoxious number of free variables to define and how they work as long as if satisfies an inferface
How would this "megamanagement" be different from what Wikipedia describes as "macromanagement"?
除了需要某種形式的信息系統來收集所需的結果之外，這實際上是一樣的。 Infinity family 已經是那種系統，好像沒有定義應該如何完成工作。
我還希望其他人實現我在無限家庭上創建的東西。我不會強加他們應該如何解決問題，只是他們產生問題。因此，我希望可擴展計算變得容易，並且可以分散計算和數據存儲，這可能由 CRDT 支持。
It's practically the same thing except there needs to be some form of information system to collect desired results. Infinity family is kind of that system already as if doesn't define how work should be done.
I also want other people to implement things I've created on infinity family. I don't impose how they should solve the problem only that they produce it. So I want scalable computing to be easy and spread out computation and data storage maybe backed by a CRDT.
It occurred to me that if I could place a bounty in an infinity puzzle or idea that would encourage people to start projects based on them.
It occurred to me that I could informally propose a stake or a bounty as a comment. Would you be opposed to this Mindey?
有一個版本的 Infinity 有“問題”獎，即每個問題都像一個基金一樣運作，人們在其中放置激勵措施。但是，從技術上講，每一個基金都是一個“公司”，所以，從本體上講，它屬於一個“項目”的特徵。爲了以適當的本體論方式實現這樣的功能，將許多公司（即“項目”）鏈接到一個問題（就像有許多非營利組織致力於解決一個問題一樣）。這些“項目”（組織）然後可以作爲解決問題的資金。但是，我們已經允許將多個項目鏈接到一個問題（概念/謎題）。這意味着，可以通過在項目中添加“is fund”類型，並在問題級別（概念/謎題）中添加適當的邏輯來實現資金問題的這一特徵，從而允許用戶通過項目將資金分配給問題那是他們的資金。
There was a version of Infinity with prizes for "Problems", i.e., each problem working like a fund, where people put incentives. However, technically, each fund is a "company", so, ontologically, it belongs to be a feature of a "project". To realize such feature in proper ontological fashion, would be linking many companies (i.e.., "Projects") to a single problem (just like there are many non-profit organizations working towards a single problem). These "Projects" (orgs) then can work as funds for the problem. However, we already allow to link multiple projects to a single problem (concept/puzzle). This implies, that this feature of funding problems could be realized by adding a type "is fund" to projects, and adding appropriate logic in the level of problems (concepts/puzzle), that allows users to allocate funds to the problem via the projects that are funds for them.