I would generalize your observation as a logical consequence of Greenspun's tenth rule and conclude that we will eventually get a hosted lisp for any sufficiently relevant programing language.
I'm confused by AR weave. You buy an investment and dividends from that investment are paid to people who store your data? What exactly is that investment going into?
The foundation of PageRank is counting incoming links to a website. Linking from your website to another website is largely a human decision and PageRank aggregates all these decisions across the Web.
You can either optimize a search engine for a specific vertical or you can try to build features that generalize across the Web no matter the existing verticals or future ones.
While Google is certainly looking at the problem as an algorithmic one, it very much relies on human input to decide what is important and relevant.
There's also PeerReview: Practical Accountability for Distributed Systems [1] published in 2007:
PeerReview ensures that
Byzantine faults whose effects are observed by a correct node
are eventually detected and irrefutably linked to a faulty
node. At the same time, PeerReview ensures that a correct node can always defend itself against false accusations.
Author here.
Yes, PeerReview is the most important piece of literature for us. We use a lot of similar concepts. Difference is that we're working for the past 18 years on getting this fully working, and deployed. Science is slowly making progress towards an "Internet-of-Trust".
- PeerReview assumes full network knowledge which is unrealistic in open p2p networks.
- PeerReview is built for full protocol replay and replication whereas TrustChain selectively replicates relevant information in the network. This significantly reduces storage and communication overhead, at the cost of fraud cases staying under the radar.
Consider an example. LCCA value for rooftop solar varies hugely across the U.S. If the installation helps displace a low-efficiency gas turbine in California, then LCCA is only $60 per metric ton of CO2 avoided. If it replaces a high-efficiency gas plant in New Jersey, then LCCA is $320 per metric ton instead. Following this logic, each dollar provided in federal tax credits to incentivize rooftop solar—which is currently given out uniformly across the U.S.—goes much further in cutting carbon in California than in New Jersey. In effect, if LCCA were the only metric and cutting greenhouse gases the main goal, then perhaps California should get more federal support for rooftop solar than New Jersey.
...
Still, LCCA provides insight into what can bring the greatest amount of carbon reduction for the same price. It gives us a framework to make a more apples-to-apples comparison of policy or portfolio options to decide which will be the most effective in cutting greenhouses gases, and thus which will have the biggest impact in addressing climate change.
I would generalize your observation as a logical consequence of Greenspun's tenth rule and conclude that we will eventually get a hosted lisp for any sufficiently relevant programing language.