Hello,

More of my philosophy of why i am more positive about our world..

I am a white arab from Morocco, and i think i am smart since i have also
invented many scalable algorithms and algorithms..

I am more positive about our world since and i am explaining why
by posting my following writing and thoughts, you can read them
in the following web links:

More of my philosophy about capitalism and innovation..

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/cf3Wa4z8Xmc

And here:

More of my philosophy about the future of humanity..

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/0X024jfzNvM

And here:

More of my philosophy about artificial intelligence and neuroevolution
and common sense and more..

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.culture.morocco/c/awfCypJ9iRE

Also read my following thoughts and writing about our Era of
democratization of technology and democratization of information and
democratization of finance so that to be more positive:

More about "democratization" of finance..

This "democratization" of finance is also for Research and Development
(R&D))..

And look at the following "democratization" of finance so that to
understand:

The 4 tools making capital more abundant than it’s ever been

Read more here:

https://singularityhub.com/2018/07/19/the-4-tools-making-capital-more-abundant-than-its-ever-been/

About democratization of digital technology and technology and Research
and Development (R&D) investment

This is also why i said the following:

Look at the following interesting video:

Can South Korea lead global innovation in Fourth Industrial Era?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUw8gCShEcI

But i think that this minister of education, science and technology
of south Korea looks somewhat archaic since he is not taking correctly
into account the democratization of digital technology and Technology
that permits you to economically grow very rapidly and much cheaply than
using "expensive" Research and Development (R&D) investment, so i think
that he is not correctly adapting to the realities, because the economic
realities have very much changed, since also our era of globalization
has been characterized by the democratization of technology,
democratization of finance, and democratization of information.

Here is more proof of what i am saying:

2. Question: What do you mean by “Democratizing Innovation”?

Eric von Hippel:

The tools for designing high-quality innovations are getting so cheap
and so ubiquitous that individuals can innovate for themselves at a
steadily higher quality and at a steadily decreasing cost. These
sophisticated modern tools are computer-based, and require relatively
little training and practice. As a result, even hobbyist users find they
can use them to design new products and services.

Read more here:

Democratizing Innovation: The Shift of Innovation to Users

https://www.ideaconnection.com/interviews/00010-Democratizing-Innovation-The-Shift-of-Innovation.html

And read my following thoughts of my philosophy so that to understand more:

More of my philosophy about the smart IQ tests and the scalable
algorithms and algorithms..

Bonita Montero a software engineer has just written to me the following
about my new invention below:

> Multiple reader, exlusive writer locks are *never*
> starvation-free. Readers can hold the lock infinitely
> and writers as well,

And i have just answered the following:

>> But i think she is not right, since this holding
>> the lock infinitely is not counted, since you have
>> just to use it correctly and avoid this case, so I
>> think she is making a mistake and she is not
>> understanding what is that a Multiple-Readers-Exclusive-Writer
>> Lock is starvation-free, so what i mean by starvation-free
>> is that in my invention of my algorithm the readers don't
>> starve the writers and the writers don't starve the readers,
>> and the writers don't starve and readers don't starve, it
>> is what we call starvation-free, and i think my invention is
>> scalable and starvation-free and fair.

And Branimir Maksimovic answered me the following:

>>> If used correctly you don't need any lock :P
>>> Locks are for synchronization, which is not
>>> good thing :P

Please read here:

https://groups.google.com/g/comp.programming.threads/c/NOJrZoQ3-qk

But I think my answer is correct and i think i am really smart, and here
is my explanation:

Since my answer is like a smart IQ test, and it is that my answer is
first that you to know how the: "you have just to use it correctly" is
logically in "relation" with the "avoid this case" in my sentence,
so if what i mean in my answer is that the: "you have just to use it
correctly" of my sentence is not the cause of the: "avoid this case"
of my sentence, so you are failing the smart IQ test of my answer,
since you are just thinking the case where: "you have just to use it
correctly" is the cause of the "avoid this case", and the second case
is if we say: "you have to use it correctly", it also mean that you have
to use it in the right environment, so if it is not, so it doesn't just
mean don't use it, but it also mean change the environment that is
causing the Multiple-Readers-Exclusive-Writer Lock to wait indefinitely.
So you are again failing the smart IQ test.

More of my philosophy about the effects of a commercial society based on
the pursuit of self-interest..

I think that we have to understand the work of the philosopher and
economist Adam Smith about economic Liberalism, i think the defect of
his theory or work is that he is for example saying the following:

"Human egoism is the engine of the properity and happiness of nations"

But i think i am a philosopher that is not in accordance with
the philosopher and economist Adam Smith, since you have to understand
that Adam Smith says about his economic Liberalism that self-interest is
most of the time regulated by competition to not lead to corruption,
fraud, price-gouging, and cheating, and self-interest and competition is
the engine of the properity and happiness of nations described the
opposing, but complementary forces of self-interest and competition as
the invisible hand, it means that while producers and consumers are not
acting with the intent of serving the needs of others or society, they
do, since when you work, your goal is to earn money, but in the process
you provide a valuable good or service that benefits others and society,
so it is the basis of the following saying of Adam Smith: "Human egoism
is the engine of the properity and happiness of nations", but i think
that the most important defect of economic Liberalism of Adam Smith is
the following: How to bring the positive or the much more positive
spirit since the way of egoism and competition of economic Liberalism
of Adam Smith brings a negative spirit that causes disorder and violence
? Also i think that a much more positive or positive spirit is better
for economy, this is why my new model that i call coopetition that is a
well balance between cooperation and competition is better, this is why
i am sharing a number of my inventions of scalable algorithms and
algorithms and softwares with the public or people so that to bring the
positive or the much more positive spirit(and you can find all of them
here in my website: https://sites.google.com/site/scalable68/), and i
think that this positive spirit or much more positive spirit is good for
economy, but you have to play it "smartly", and i give you a proverb of
mine that shows how it is important:

"We can ask of from where comes the attachment of Love between
a mother and her son ? so i think i am smart and i will say
that it comes from the fact that it is like a reward, that the son
is loving or is being the son and the mother is giving a good reward
like giving him more security or giving him food to eat, so as you are
noticing that this rule can be applied to consumerism, since
you can use the same rule with your consumers in a smart
way, for example by giving the impression to your consumers that
you take care of there security by learning them with easy or the like,
and then the consumers will love you much more and will be attracted by
you."

I think i am smart, and notice how i am talking about
how we have not to have a narrow view of what is smartness, and notice
how i am talking about the distributed smartness as rules etc. so i
think i can logically infer from my below thoughts the other way of
solving the greatly complex systems that is not by like "planning" the
whole system from a centralized government, but by emergence of a higher
level intelligence from distributing like the rules or.. into the small
parts of the system that will solve the greatly complex system, it looks
like the evolutionary design and planning, and it looks like the way of
the higher level smartness from an Ant colony, since in an Ant colony
there is no central government, but there is a distributed intelligence
that needs a kind of diversity of genetics of the members of the colony
and it needs like a distributed rules that the members have to follow
that will make emerge a higher level of intelligence. And of course it
looks like evolutionary algorithms in artificial intelligence, since the
advantage of evolutionary algorithms in artificial intelligence is that
they don't plan in advance but they search by like following some
distributed rules, and of course they need some "randomness" so that to
not get stuck in a local optimum, this is why i am talking below about
how to make our civilization that is a complex system much more
resilient by learning how to learn to humans with like a set
of rules like in an Ant colony by saying the following and notice
that the learning how to learn can be an efficient abstraction that
helps a lot: