This is my second-to-last newsletter of the year. If you’ve enjoyed the last ~6 months of free content, consider getting a friend or colleague to sign up.

Subscribe now

Sometimes, innovation and tradition look the same. The nonnas and poppas of the world have known for a long time that hiking is healthy. Today, we call it Zone 2 cardio and use fancy terms like “lactate thresholds” and “fat oxidization”. Tried and tested, but with a new paint job.

This past summer, I did a metric ton of research on the evolution of coal mine safety. Definitely not a cutting-edge thesis topic. But the essay resonated with an unlikely group – the people working on the Ethereum protocol. 

It’s remarkable to me that the developers of a potentially revolutionary digital economy related to the dangers faced by those whom Orwell called “poor drudges underground, blackened to the eyes, with their throats full of coal dust, driving their shovels forward with arms and belly muscles of steel”.

How did a niche story of safety, health, and risk become so universal? I think it’s because it was written in a certain language which is simultaneously novel and ancient. Protocols are a concept that has been around for a long time, but one that has lost none of its usefulness. In fact, I expect that protocol studies will retain this chimeric quality because protocols live longer than humans and tend to fade into the background over time. They become – literally and metaphorically – pieces of infrastructure. Muted, but available for rediscovery through both efforts to progress and conserve. 

Each component of the Summer of Protocols (SoP) program shared this relatability. I think this speaks to the power of protocols as a lens and hints at their power as tools to bend the future. There are protocol-ish patterns all around us, beneath our feet and behind our eyes. Finding them is just the first step.

Blood, sweat, and carbon were spilled in the creation of the Protocol Kit, which launched last week. It compromises the first applications of a new school of thought across a bunch of different domains, including standards, architecture, memory, time, society, and computation… honestly, a mind-boggling amount of ground is covered.

It’s hard (read: impossible) to offer a TLDR of the 400+ pages of essays and artifacts in the Kit. Fortunately, each item will be made available free online over the next few months. Like any good non-fiction piece, there is no need to read it in order. Jump in. Follow your nose.

For those who want to get their hands on a hard copy, there are two options. First, there’s a limited-run print of 512 copies. It’s not going to be printed again. You can (and should) request a free kit at this link. If you miss the initial meatspace drop, I encourage you to pursue Option 2: bootlegging your own binder of your favorite protocol studies essays and artifacts using the online PDFs available, like David Lang’s Standards Make the World. 

One of my recent icks has been the phrase “technological literacy”, or “tech literacy” for short. The idea is that people have varying levels of ability to use technology. In my opinion, this is true, but doesn’t lead to many useful conversations beyond how to make a user interface more intuitive.

It’s a poor term because it’s never used in reference to a specific piece of technology. Saying someone is illiterate means that they don’t know how to read any language. Saying someone is tech illiterate doesn’t exclude them being a great mechanic, carpenter, or machine operator. There is no standard for technological literacy like there is for reading and writing literacy. 

For example, I’m a Microsoft Office whiz but can’t operate a forklift. I know people who can operate a forklift with their teeth but would offer nothing but a blank look if you said “pivot table”. 

Maybe one day we’ll have standards for tech literacy, but we’re certainly not there yet. As technology continues to become more complex, the average person becomes less capable of achieving “tech literacy”. I don’t know how my the physical architecture of my computer works, but my grandma still knows how to repair her sewing machine. 

If you’re ever frustrated with someone else’s lack of tech-savviness, remember that you might be a Luddite of equal proportions.

The problem of “tech literacy” is one of many problems that we don’t have a good language with which to discuss solutions. In 2023, the lines became increasingly blurred between computers and persons. The former is a new technology, whereas humans are antediluvian; old and not typically considered technology. The unifying nature of protocol studies makes it a strong candidate for a sensemaking framework in the next decade.

I saw a tweet from Luca Dellanna, one of my favorite Twitter accounts, asking the following question:

Chess, in itself, is not a game of chance. The rules and win conditions are strict constraints. Pieces cannot move in infinite ways. Both players have equal amounts of information about the game. Yet, even two equally-rated players won’t draw every game they play. They will exchange wins and losses. This is because uncertainty is injected into the game by the player-player matchup. Differences in which openings they’ve memorized (or not), which patterns they grok (or not), and other asymmetries create pockets of opportunity.

The luck, chance, or uncertainty in chess comes from not knowing what your opponent knows. Basically the best way to improve as a chess player is to increase your knowledge. This could be openings, tactics, endgames, etc. The more you know, the less likely it is that your opponent will know what you know.

Two lessons I’ve learned from chess. First, a surprising amount of complexity can emerge from a simple set of rules. Second, fortune favors the broadly prepared. Sorry for pulling a Garry Kasparov, but I couldn’t keep myself in check.

Article: A Camera, not an Engine (Link)

Podcast: Infinite Loops with Venkatesh Rao and Tim Beiko (Link)

Essay: Protocols Don’t Build Pyramids (Link)

Article: Why The Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid (Link)

Essay: The ETTO Principle (Link)

Essay: Maker’s Schedule, Manager’s Schedule (Link)