# thoughts.
A collection of random nonsense that I've accumulated over time (oPiNiOnS aRe My OwN).

## Decoupling concurrency models from programming languages
Every programming language has a different concurrency model. This means that there is an inherent coupling between programming languages and concurrency models, which in turn means that developing a new concurrency model means developing a new programming language. Consequently, switching concurrency models means switching programming languages. Switching programming languages means rewriting the entire codebase. Is there a way to modularize concurrency models and develop a common interface that application developers can use to choose their preferred concurrency model?

## Setting the right incentives in scientific journals
As of right now, an author that wants his paper to be published in a conference will share just enough about the authors work to get accepted into the paper. If an author were to give away more information, this would only increase the probability that another researcher will overtake the author with the next paper in this field of work. How can we incentivize researchers to distribute all of their knowledge?

## Open patient-symptom-associative database for diseases
A database (and search engine) that captures specific patients' entire health profile and maps it to successful treatment of a given disease. Such a database could be used to treat new patients similarly to past patients with similar health profiles that have been treated successfully for a particular disease. The idea behind such a database is that most chronic diseases have been treated successfully by luck rather than by expertise. We just do not have enough information about our body, and in particular about a patients body to be able to rationally choose one treatment over others. Today, most doctors just rely on their experience and do not take into account a patients individual case because it is infeasable if not impossible to do so.

## Big Pharma and the alleged need of monopolies
Research and Development is costly. An incentive is needed to drive innovation. Without intellectual property rights, generic challengers could easily analyze a given drug, make a replica and drive the original company out of the market by avoiding R&D and its associated cost. We reward innovators by artificially creating a (temporary) monopoly for the company with respect to their innovation. In other words, we (temporarily) give companies monopolistic rights so that they can cover their past R&D expenses... except that we don't care how much the R&D process actually cost, or how much of a profit the companies are making because of their monopolistic rights. How can this (seemingly broken) system be improved upon?

## Counteracting cognitive biases whilst researching
There is no such thing as a definitive truth. All we can do is observe, document and experiment, this is all that science is about. When researching a topic, we want to get as close to the truth as possible. At the same time, we unconsciously want our assumptions to be correct. We want to be right and don't like to be proven wrong. Therefore, we need guidance when researching a topic. How can this guidance be achieved?

## Auctioning platform for leaks
We need to find a way of financially incentivising leaking of information that is relevant for the general public and find a mechanism which ensures that a) the information is indeed of public relevance and b) the information is made publicy available by the purchaser. Such a platform could elevate the _potency_ of the 'fourth power' of democracy, the press, and as such help ensure that political agendas are aligned to their public _pãˈdã_.

## Mallorca
Die Linke ist gegen eine CO2-Steuer, weil der Mittelstand dann nicht mehr jedes Jahr nach Mallorca fliegen kann. Die Welt hatte für einige Jahrzehnte eine billige Energiequelle. Diese Quelle fällt nun weg. Jährlich Mallorca ist jetzt ein Luxus, den sich die Mittelschicht nicht mehr leisten kann. Den Preis hat bisher die Erde gezahlt. Das kann so nicht weitergehen.

## Disrupting industries
One should not always try to improve upon existing ideas. In fact, way more can be achieved by finding the stupidity in them and unforgivingly penalizing those responsible.

## Fassungs(un)vermögen
Das Unvermögen, Gedanken in Worte zu fassen, ist das größte Trübsal der Menschheitsgeschichte.

## AMAB
All men are bastards.

## Depressionsprävention
Es gibt nur eine funktionierende Art der Depressionsprävention: So viel um die Ohren zu haben, dass man keine Zeit hat, über sein Leben nachzudenken.

## Sharing is
caring examining the probability of a net positive payoff and acting accordingly.

## Li-nearly funny
Our origin is the root of all vectors evil.

## Intoxication and dreams
Dreaming feels just like being intoxicated. You can't and don't think clearly, things just happen. I wonder if there's a connection.

## Gun Control
Is the liberty to own a gun necessary to protect oneself from a tyrant institution i.e. in the event of the government turning into an authoritarian regime? Is the right to own a gun helping to distribute power so that the military and law enforcement can't abuse theirs? Is this not analogous to the discussion about free software? Where does free speech fit in? Am I a hypocrite if I advocate free software and do not advocate gun liberty rights? Why do I not advocate gun liberty rights? Can a society exist if everybody had this kind of responsibility? What would happen if some groups started hating each other? Is that plausible, or even likely?

## Alcohol
What do we drink it for? When I think about what we do while being drunk, it feels like alcohol just makes boring things not so boring. That feels like fighting symptoms. Isn't the real problem that we are doing boring things in the first place?

## Collective Journalism
Nobody has the time nor the energy to research all the facts about every single issue in the world. We heavily rely on the newspapers and the press to get to all the truths of the world. This does only work in the free, liberal and democratic societies of the world. It does not work in china, it does not work in russia. Hell, it even stopped working in the arguably most liberal society on earth, in the United States of America. People started distrusting the press, which they have every right (and I would even say obligation) to do. The dumb one is the one that does not distrust. This is one of the things that most people do not seem to understand, I suspect this is because they simply have not put enough thought into this issue, albeit it being one of the most pressing (ha, pun intended!) ones of our times.
So people rightfully do not trust the news, but how is one supposed to find truth? The distrustful people in the US simply switched their dogmatic belief system. They now trust the 'alternative media' instead of the mainstream media, that is the reason for this catastrophic social fragmentation. There are two behemoths on the playing field, each of them ringing for dogmtic believers. How can we reduce this level of dogmatism and turn this into a mixture of trust and individual research? My proposition is collective journalism.
The whole idea is that you do not need to trust strangers, institutions or companies. You mereley need social connections and people that you trust. My whole idea is built onto mankinds biggest accomplishment: social life. You and your social contacts build one humongous journalism construct. Everyone does research on one particular subject which everyone can debate about and -in turn- try to dismantle. One idea might be that of gamification. If the winner of one such debate gets points, then people will try to find weakness or wrongness in other's investigations in order to win the debate and get points. This seems like a hard thing to do in practice because most issues in the world are not black and white, but one can argue that there will always be one 'most true' argumentation or investigation in such a debate.

## Communism
To reach true communism, we need to dismantle the possibility of corruption at the state of socialism. It is (may be) necessary to think of humans as being inherently evil, in the sense that they will exploit the possibility of corruption if they ever get the chance to. Technology could close that gap of trust and consequently diminish the possibilty of corruption. (This should be true for all political ideologies, not only for socialism or communism)