The future often happens sooner than seems possible but not as soon as we might hope, and I think nano-engineering fits into that category. I wouldn’t expect to see “living” architecture that morphs and modifies in my lifetime, not in any profound way, but there’s nothing theoretically impossible to prevent it happening at some indeterminate point. In 1956, Arthur C. Clarke, working from the theories of Richard Feynman, imagined a future full of buildings built and endlessly rebuilt by molecular engineering. From Darran Anderson’s excellent essay on the topic at Aeon:

Let’s elaborate Arthur C Clarke’s prophecy a little. Nanobots would create a programmable architecture that would change shape, function and style at command, in anticipation or even independently. Imagine an apartment where furniture fluidly morphs from the walls and floor, adapting to the inhabitants, an apartment that physically mutates into a Sukiya-zukuri tea-room or an Ottoman pleasure palace or something as yet unseen, while outside the entire skyline is continually rearranging itself. Architecture might become an art available to all.

The advantages of nanomaterials are already becoming apparent; consider the strength of graphene, the insulation of aerogel. The idea of a self-repairing, pollutant-neutralising, climate-adapting ‘living’ architecture no longer seems the preserve of fiction. Resistance to the idea of buildings that could grow (as in John Johansen’s forms) or liquefy (like William Katavolos’s designs) is almost as much a question of our conservatism as of technical limitations. But as the materials scientist Rachel Armstrong has observed, this vision of the city as a biological or ecological manifestation is not so much a leap into the unknown as a maturation of ancient Vitruvian ideals.

Every advance will have repercussions. The idea of walking through walls that simultaneously scan us for illnesses might sound promising – but what else will they monitor? Who will they answer to? What will it mean for human creativity, let alone employment, when there are buildings that can build themselves?•

Tags: , ,

Donald Trump, an airborne pathogen lodged in America’s small intestine continually forcing the country to violently go No. 2 in its pants, is apparently popular in the bellwether Vigo County of Indiana, at least based on research conducted by Adam Wren of Politico. The Terre Haute community is a place with eerily prescient abilities for selecting American Presidents Republican or Democrat, Dubya or Obama. According to the article, the county’s unbridled passion for the fascist fathead is based almost entirely on false assumptions about the GOP candidate. Trump as a good business person? Trump the self-made man? Holy fuck. 

If the people in Vigo really think the country is a disaster, which they seem to, it might behoove them to realize that since they’ve almost always picked the winning candidate, they’re as much to blame as anyone.

An excerpt:

The people gathered at Grand Traverse weren’t the political neophytes and gadflies often chalked up as Trump voters. They were the kind of people who scuttled their Thursday night plans to come to a two-hour event organized by a low-key Republican county chairman. And if the Republican primary were held on this evening, and limited to Politics and Pies attendees, Trump would win, and handily.

Take Dick and Jane Ames, both 72, for example. The retired air traffic controller and insurance agent who met when they were in high school here are sold on Trump. “He said what I want to hear, and I believe him,” Jane said. “He’s such a good business person, and we need that.” (She did admit, though, that Rubio has a “a cute smile.”)

Dick said he’s not afraid to vote for a Democrat. He voted for Kennedy, after all.

“He voted for Jackie,” Jane said.

“I did,” Dick said.

But for Dick, 2016 is different. “Democrats don’t have anybody. One’s a communist, and Clinton should be in jail.”

And then there was 17-year-old Jared Potts, who wore gray contacts that turned his pupils into pinholes, who will turn 18 next September, and plans to vote for Trump in his first election in November. “He speaks his mind, and I think that might be what the country needs,” he said. “A lot of the presidents don’t really enforce what needs to happen, they just do whatever the country feels like. Other countries just say, ‘do this, do that.’ Trump is just like, ‘no, I want this.’ He doesn’t owe anybody anything. Marco Rubio is paid for. Donald Trump is a self-made person.”•

Tags: ,

dronedelivery7

The problem of widespread technological unemployment is, economically speaking, one of distribution, not scarcity, but a Universal Basic Income is far from a sure thing in America (to be implemented or to work), and not every last person can teach Zumba. What way forward then if the jobs run out? In a Pacific•Standard piece, a slate of technologists, academics and journalists assess the challenge of income by the year 2035. The opening:

DEAN BAKER
“The corruption of United States politics may be so great that corporations will be able to use new technologies to undermine labor laws on an ever-larger scale as the government pursues macroeconomic policies that are intended to leave much of the labor force unemployed and most of the employed with little bargaining power. This is indeed a very bleak scenario for the future, but it is silly to blame the robots.”
—Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research

ANDREW SCHRANK
“When I think about the ‘jobless future’ predicted by so many observers, I’m reminded of the late Cambridge economist Joan Robinson, who famously quipped that ‘the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all.’ … One can thus envision a more auspicious future in which an increasingly educated and empowered global workforce confronts a somewhat chastened corporate elite on democratic terrain that is more favorable to the former.”
—Andrew Schrank is a professor of sociology at Brown University•

Tags: ,

PSM_V49_D195_Common_bullfrog

From the July 22, 1901 Brooklyn Daily Eagle:

bullfrogstomach7

Tags:

vintage-gas-masks22-e1332369998143

Midway through COP21 in Paris, it might be instructive to look back 41 years to Scottish landscape architect and planner Ian McHarg sounding all sorts of alarms about the environment to Joan Oliver in a 1974 People magazine piece. McHarg, who died in 2001, didn’t at all appreciate the greening effects of cities, but he certainly understood the fragility of our species and the desperate straits we were putting ourselves in.

An excerpt:

Question:

What’s happening to the environment these days?

Ian McHarg:

We are still screwing it up at a helluva rate. But we’re also diminishing our own lives, which is much the most important thing. I don’t think we have to worry about nature. The worst we could do—have an atomic cataclysm and wipe out mankind—would not wipe out all bacteria, viruses, plants. They would start again. But man is a different story. Man is ephemeral, unlikely and precarious.

Question:

Suppose we used intelligence in dealing with this business of energy. Far too much to hope for, but let’s operate on this assumption. What we ought to do is maximize energy sources which neither stress the environment nor stress human beings.

Ian McHarg:

Say we’ll get as much energy as we can by using solar power alone. It involves no new technology. The simplest scheme would be a bloody great water tank and glass on the roof. You could get all the heat you want in almost any part of the United States from direct sunlight, shining through glass panels into water which is circulated through the house. But besides heat we also would like to have television and other amenities which use electric power. So we simply cheapen NASA’s photovoltaic cells which transform sunlight into direct current. They’ve developed them for space, where you can’t send up an electrician to change a fitting. Why can’t we have a version that everybody can put on their roof?

Question:

Could this technique be put into production right away?

Ian McHarg:

Absolutely. If we could only get a lobby. You see our problem is that we have lobbies for oil, for coal, for gas and for the Atomic Energy Commission. We don’t have a lobby for solar energy. We need one. Also, where is our lobby for methane? For chicken dung?

Question:

What is your “grand plan”—your “National Ecological Inventory”?

Ian McHarg:

We’d like to find for every person, every institution, every industry the best environment. There should be a national environmental center with a group of scientists who represent all the sciences necessary to understand the total environment of the United States. They’d be required to make a model of that system so they could predict: if you put an atomic reactor here, if you do offshore drilling there, then these are the consequences. I would like to be part of such a dream.

Question:

Do you think America is ready for such visionary proposals?

Ian McHarg:

This sense of man apart from nature—this sense that he’s got to exercise dominion, subjugate—is a deep, deep sickness that’s got to be eradicated somehow. I am horrified by the assumption that the greatness of America is measured by commodity—by automobiles, or the amount of electricity consumed, or whether people jet all over the world. As far as I’m concerned, greatness is measured by compassion, by courage, by gentleness.•

 

Tags: ,

ulatrasonicbath1970 (1)

In an interesting Guardian article, Nicola Davis and Rachel David survey a large number of the smart-home technologies currently gestating in the hopes that they may one day quantify you within an inch of your life. The home of the future, even if a few of these tools should come to fruition, is a very helpful and very invasive thing. An excerpt about the bathroom of tomorrow:

Morning ablutions might seem a private affair, but that could all change as technology finds its way into the smallest room in the house.

Among those vying to keep an eye on your vital statistics is Withings, whoseSmart Body Analyzermakes your old nemesis – the bathroom scales – look positively friendly. Claiming to measure your weight, body fat, heart rate and BMI, it will not only terrorise your tiled floor, but take to your phone: an accompanying app tracks your activity and adjusts your calorie budget for the day to meet your health goals. Think that teatime biscuit looks good? Think again.

Even that most benign of bathroom essentials, the humble loo, is in for an upgrade. Smart toilets have already hit the stores, with American firm DXV anticipating what it somewhat alarmingly terms a “contemporary movement” through its heated seats, night lights and remote controls. But alternatives are already in the offing that can monitor your bodily extrusions better than an over-competitive parent. Japanese company Toto has unveiled its Flowsky toilet that keeps tabs on your rate of gush, while MIT SENSEeable City Lab is working on a loo that can not only recognise the be-throned, but analyse their excrement to shed light on the state of their health and microbiome.

The bathroom might well become the domain of Big Mother. Water-wasters will be chivvied by warning lights thanks to devices like Drop from Qonserve Technologies that displays a red light when the taps have been left running, while bathroom hoggers will be ousted by water pebbles” that can be programmed to flash red when bathtime’s up. Baths and showers too will be cleaning up their act, with Orbital Systems developing filters to recycle water as it is used and Nebia offering a water-saving shower based on an intense mist of water rather than a traditional deluge. And our towels might even be cleaned without H2O: designer Leobardo Armenta envisages a nifty device that eschews the washing machine for a doughnut-like contraption with a fan to dry the towel and UV light to kill bacteria.•

_______________________________

In 1967, Walter Cronkite looks at the living room, kitchen and home office of the future.

Tags: ,

brainwashing4

What interests me most about human consciousness is how we’re prone to extreme apostasies, completely abandoning one belief system (or narrative) for another that’s even dicier: cults, terrorist organizations, etc. While a single person can completely lose the thread of reality, two people can seemingly drive each other even further, and a tribe or state or nation further still.

But even on the granular level, even if we don’t go too far to recover and are only casually and temporarily abandoning minute pieces of our world view, we can be conned. Why? Because we want to believe, we want things to improve, we want to be better ourselves and we’d like the same out of others. In that sense, we’d all like to join a cult, different the one we’re already a part of, and those good intentions can end disastrously.

Maria Konnikova, author of The Confidence Game: Why We Fall For It … Every Time, has penned an excellent editorial on the topic in the New York Times. An excerpt:

Before humans learned how to make tools, how to farm or how to write, they were telling stories with a deeper purpose. The man who caught the beast wasn’t just strong. The spirit of the hunt was smiling. The rivers were plentiful because the river king was benevolent. In society after society, religious belief, in one form or another, has arisen spontaneously. Anything that cannot immediately be explained must be explained all the same, and the explanation often lies in something bigger than oneself.

The often-expressed view of modern science is that God resides in the cracks between knowledge. That is, as more of the world is explained — and ends up being not so divine after all — the gaps in what we know are where faith resides. Its home may have shrunk, but it will always exist so there will always be room for things that have to be taken on faith — and for faith itself.

Nobody thinks they are joining a cult, David Sullivan explains. “They join a group that’s going to promote peace and freedom throughout the world or that’s going to save animals, or they’re going to help orphans or something. But nobody joins a cult.” We don’t knowingly embraces false beliefs. We embrace something we think is as true as it gets. We don’t set out to be conned. We set out to become, in some way, better than we were before.

That is the true power of belief. It gives us hope.•

Tags: ,

giptypewriter6

 

10 search-engine keyphrase searches bringing traffic to Afflictor this week:

  1. brezhnev era
  2. will the moon be used as a trade route?
  3. steve wozniak on tesla autopilot
  4. deadwood south dakota
  5. who were the merry pranksters?
  6. donald trump daddy’s money finger painting
  7. nyt magazine article about ghost brands
  8. is emily ratajkowski a brand?
  9. model gia carangi
  10. bat masterson later life
bencarson909090

This week, Ben Carson not only pronounced “Hamas” as “hummus” when speaking to Jewish Republicans but also vowed to bomb “Al Cater.”

scared-man

 

  • Half of Japan’s jobs may be robotized in 20 years. Or not.
  • Barnes & Noble wants to reinvent itself as a “lifestyle brand.” Oy gevalt.

 

dempseysideshow

Jack Dempsey, boxing champion nearly a century ago, was not a fan of machines, except when they benefited him. The heavyweight fancied himself a John Henry, ready to reduce robots to so many buttons and bolts. In his own way, he was an Ur-Kasparov, believing no “mechanical man” could conquer him, and by extension, humanity. They were both fooling themselves, of course.

Dempsey was outraged that in the Industrial Age, work in mining and blacksmithing had been taken from humans by machines, supposedly softening men, making it impossible to nurture great fighters. He railed against “gymnasium” pugilists, though, of course, those establishments turned out better boxers than the coal industry ever did.

It was funny because Dempsey himself was dandified and softened by the rise of the machines, the recipient of a new nose courtesy of cosmetic surgery, which was intended to make his face more presentable to Hollywood’s motion picture cameras. In the dotage of his association with the sport, when he entered the ring as a celebrity referee rather than a principal, Dempsey voiced his bitter feelings to the Brooklyn Daily Eagle in an article on September 26, 1933.

dempseymachinacalage

Tags:

What’s the difference between wearing quantifying bracelets on wrists or ankles and temporary biotech tattoos directly on the skin? They both can track us and our vitals and can likewise be removed, yet…it feels like a new line is being crossed. Is it? Maybe not, but not for the reason you might expect. It’s not that we overreact to tattoo on skin but that we underreact to surveillance that seems at a remove. Each is equally boon and bane.

These new devices, whether hardware or software, will eventually bring a bounty of positive things (e.g., easy access to blood-sugar levels), but real-time medical data will be floating around the ether like so much of our lives right now. And health applications will just be the start of it: Soon enough, you’ll be a walking, talking credit card.

From Emily Reynolds at Wired UK:

Chaotic Moon‘s tattoos are currently in beta — nobody has one yet. But the company has high hopes for the Tech Tat. It could be used to track children in crowded places, they say, or for soldiers who need to have their condition monitored in detail. They could also be used for purchasing — just like Apple Pay. But will tech tattoos be replacing real tattoos any time soon? Unfortunately for tattooed tech-enthusiasts, Lamm thinks not.

“In theory they could work as real tattoos,” [CEO Ben] Lamm told Wired. “But when we embed into the dermal layer of our skin, a lot has to be considered. Conductivity is lost through the natural resistance of our skin, for example, and the materials we use to produce the circuit would probably have to be adapted.”

“I can see them working alongside real tattoos — I just don’t think they’ll augment or replace real tattoos”.

What Lamm does hope for is widespread adoption. And although many of the suggested uses of the tech are fairly extreme — military tracking being one example — he’s hopeful that they’ll become as omnipresent as the FitBit.

“We see these being used by everyone,” said Lamm. “The tech tattoo is a device that will just make everyone’s lives easier.”

“This kind of technology can work in complex situations as well as for home use. You could monitor your child’s temperature while they’re sick, or just monitor your own sleep patterns.”

“This kind of device has the potential to become another part of life, and to streamline your day-to-day interactions. They could potentially help you build a more quantified self.”•

Tags: ,

japanrobotface (1)

A lot of things that could happen don’t, not if the economics don’t makes sense. Since the 1960s, we’ve known how to automate fast-casual meals, but the cost has been prohibitive (though that seems to be changing now). So when I read that Japan could have half its jobs performed by robots in 20 years, that means it’s theoretically possible, not much more. Of course, with a graying and homogenous population desperately in need of labor replacement, Japan is a culture strongly incentivized to make the transition. 

From Andrew Tarantola at Endgadget:

Data analysts Nomura Research Institute (NRI), led by researcher Yumi Wakao, figure that within the next 20 years, nearly half of all jobs in Japan could be accomplished by robots. Working with Professor Michael Osborne from Oxford University, who had previously investigated the same matter in both the US and UK, the NRI team examined more than 600 jobs and found that “up to 49 percent of jobs could be replaced by computer systems,” according to Wakao.

The team looked at how likely each position could be automated, based on the degree of creativity required.•

Tags: ,

eternaltumblr_mwcgioJts41rmdlano1_400

It was nearly three years ago that then-Barnes & Noble CEO Mitchell Klipper (now retired) announced the chain would only have 450-500 stores in a decade, and coffee come flying out of my mouth and nose. Now there was an optimistic fellow. 

B&N’s current meshuganeh idea for survival in the face of megapower Amazon is to deemphasize books as its main mission and become a “lifestyle brand,” focusing on personal growth or something. Unfortunately, I believe Bezos’ operation also stocks some of those games, toys and electronics new CEO Ron Boire is banking on, except Amazon has cheaper prices and far greater stock.

From Alexandra Alter at the New York Times:

Mr. Boire, 54, the former chief executive of Sears Canada and a retail veteran who has worked at Brookstone, Best Buy and Toys “R” Us, is under pressure to reverse the fortunes of the beleaguered bookstore chain, which has been stung in recent years by the rise of Amazon, steep losses from its Nook e-reader division and a string of store closings.

To that end, Mr. Boire is leading a push to rebrand Barnes & Noble as more than just a bookstore by expanding its offerings of toys, games, gadgets and other gifts and reshaping the nation’s largest bookstore chain into a “lifestyle brand.”

“Everything we do around learning, personal growth and development fits our brand,” Mr. Boire said. “There’s a lot of opportunity.”

Facing spiraling losses from store closings, Barnes & Noble is searching for ways to increase foot traffic and drive sales. Last month, the chain held a coloring event at stores around the country, where it doled out sample sheets from coloring books and art supplies. It also recently held a national Mini Maker Faire promoting technology literacy at its stores, with coding and 3-D printing workshops.•

Tags:

gasstationline4

Fossil fuels work great, except for that one thing, the one where they might cause the extinction of our species. Peter Thiel and others agitate for nukes as a replacement, but clearly renewables would be a far safer alternative if they could be produced on a massive scale. Even if renewables are just a significant piece of the solution for the foreseeable future, they need to reach their tipping point soon. Will the Paris summit be that moment? One attendee, Prof. John Schellnhuber, tells Damian Carrington of the Guardian that an “induced implosion” of the fossil fuel industry must happen now, explaining how it can be provoked. An excerpt:

If a critical mass of big countries implement their pledges, he said in an interview with the Guardian, the move towards a global low-carbon economy would gain unstoppable momentum.

“If some countries really honour their pledges, including China, Brazil, South Africa, US and Europe, I think we will get a dynamic that will transform the development of the century. This is not sheer optimism – it is based on analysis of how incumbent systems implode.”

In July, Schellnhuber told a science conference in Paris that the world needed “an induced implosion of the carbon economy over the next 20-30 years. Otherwise we have no chance of avoiding dangerous, perhaps disastrous, climate change.”

“The avalanche will start because ultimately nothing can compete with renewables,” he told the Guardian. “If you invest at [large] scale, inevitably we will end up with much cheaper, much more reliable, much safer technologies in the energy system: wind, solar, biomass, tidal, hydropower. It is really a no-brainer, if you take away all the ideological debris and lobbying.”

India, for example, aims to deliver 350GW of renewable energy in the next 10 years, the equivalent to 300 nuclear power stations, he said. “That is mind boggling and would be the final nail in the coffin of coal-fired power stations,” Schellnhuber said. “If India delivers on that pledge, it will be a tipping point for that country.”•

Tags: ,

medicine

Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan, members of the 1% club no matter how you work out the door policy, have pledged to give away 99% of their Facebook stock. It’s a wonderfully generous thing, but not an easy one to pull off well, and of course the process will be heavily influenced by the worldview of the Facebook founder.

In the announcement of his intentions, Zuckerberg asked this question: “Can you learn and experience 100 times more than we do today?” Listen, I want the world to be 100 times smarter (or even 2 times smarter), but that sounds like he’s investing money in brain chips and VR gear, which is fascinating, sure, but not quite the Gates-ian antimalarial efforts some might have anticipated. In all fairness, the technologist also mentions disease prevention and eradication, but there’s an awful lot of sci-fi-esque wording about radical life extension and the like. A lot of progress may ultimately come from future-forward neuro- and bioengineering, or maybe it will be money spent poorly. Good intentions and good execution are not the same thing.

In a similar vein, a Daily Beast piece by Charlotte Lytton notes that 2015 was the year that Silicon Valley became something of an Immortality Industrial Complex, with the well-compensated wanting to live forever, or at least until their stock options run out. An excerpt:

Might it be more charitable, then, to use the billions being funneled through avoidance schemes into abiding by the law and helping to reverse the problems created by a deficit-laden economy you’ve willfully avoided paying money to for an extended period of time?

“It’s incredibly exciting and wonderful to be part of a species that dreams in a big way,” explained bioethicist Laurie Zoloth. “But I also want to be part of a species that takes care of the poor and the dying, and I’m worried that our attention is being drawn away to a glittery future world that is fantasy and not the world we live in.” 

Her sentiments were echoed by Bill Gates, the world’s second greatest philanthropist (after Warren Buffet), who expressed that “it seems pretty egocentric while we still have malaria and TB for rich people to fund things so they can live longer” in a Reddit AMA earlier this year.

In any case, whether significant progress of the ilk [Peter] Thiel and co. are searching for will ever be made remains a big “if.” But should one of these projects yield a major discovery, who will benefit? As we’ve gleaned from the plethora of “free” services made flesh (or screen) by these businessmen, there’s no such thing as something for nothing—and that something has largely been handing over our personal data.•

Tags: , , , , , ,

stolenkisses43

From the October 7, 1901 Brooklyn Daily Eagle:

stolenkisses1

Tags: ,

frankenstein1235 (2)

Understandable as it is that scientists worry that lay people like Transhumanists will use new gene-editing tools as home science kits, it’s going to happen, and the games will sometimes be messy and dangerous. I guess the bigger question is when will nations utilize them in a large-scale way, perhaps Russia “inventing” the perfect athlete or China trying to birth the greatest scientists ever? When will some babies come with designer labels?

From Alex Pearlman at Vice Motherboard:

Geneticists developing powerful genome editing tools are worried that transhumanists will try to use them on themselves before they’re deemed safe and effective for use in humans, which could undermine the future of technologies, such as CRISPR/Cas9, that allow for specific, targeted DNA editing.

Many of the biggest names in the field are at the International Summit on Human Gene Editing, where they are trying to reach a consensus on when, how, and for what purposes humans should edit their own DNA (or the DNA of an embryo).

CRISPR holds promise in the potential eradication of diseases like HIV, Huntington’s, and Alzheimer’s, and could be used to prevent children from being born mentally impaired. The scientific community seems to generally agree that using CRISPR to potentially prevent disease is ethically OK as long as the technology overall is deemed safe for use in humans. Things get sticky, however, when you consider that gene editing could theoretically be used down the line to create designer babies, to prevent premature aging, or to stimulate muscle growth, among myriad other applications.•

Tags:

321giphy (6)

Thinking deeply about the ethical and practical questions that attend AI development is very important, but not because we’ll dream up some guidelines to permanently steer our descendants. The long-term challenges and opportunities will be far different than the ones we now know, and the people of tomorrow can’t be fenced in by our reality, even if we’re making good decisions in the present. We can only hope that our example of trying to apply ethics to machine intelligence will inspire future citizens do the same in their time. The tradition, more than the particulars, is what’s most important. 

In a Wall Street Journal article, Amir Mizroch writes of Cambridge establishing the Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence to be led by Professor Huw Price. An excerpt:

In an interview, Price said part of the job would be to create an AI community with a common purpose of responsible innovation, and to update the current thinking about the opportunities and challenges posed by AI.

“Using memes from science fiction movies made decades ago –the case of 2001: A Space Odyssey — that was 50 years ago. Stanley Kubrick was a brilliant film director but we can do better than that now,” he said. The classic film features a sentient computer program called HAL-9000 on board a space ship. The computer kills the ship’s crew.

The new center will also collaborate with the Oxford Martin School at the University of Oxford, Imperial College London, and the University of California, Berkeley. A major focus of the collaboration would be around what Price called “the value alignment program,” where software programmers would team up with ethicists and philosophers on trying to write code that would govern the behavior of artificial intelligence programs.

“As a species, we need a successful transition to an era in which we share the planet with high-level, non-biological intelligence,” Price said. “We don’t know how far away that is, but we can be pretty confident that it’s in our future. Our challenge is to make sure that goes well.”

The new center in Cambridge joins others around the world set up recently to study the consequences of intelligent machines.•

Tags: ,

endlesscarsani

Big Auto certainly still maintains a gigantic present advantage over Silicon Valley car companies in the marketplace, as do fossil fuels over electric and human-operated over driverless. But things change. Over the next few decades, these competitions are going to alter the industry in a grand way, and it’ll be interesting to see where the edge ultimately rests. One point to keep in mind: 3D printers could play a big role in the race, possibly making it so that software startups in garages could become automobile startups there, which would be very fitting.

From “The Auto Industry Won’t Create the Future,” by David Pakman of Backchannel:

Perhaps the most significant shifting of the automotive tectonic plates is the move to software. The future of the automobile will largely be built by software developers. Yes, existing combustion engine cars have embedded systems with lots of code in them to handle everything from HVAC to automatic transmissions. In fact, the complexity in integrating these many layers of software together is causing lots of consternation at the traditional car companies, given this is not their main areas of expertise. In addition to this, future cars will utilize software in profoundly different ways.

Of course we know that Tesla (currently) and Apple (future) are trying to re-imagine the interface between the driver and car, and their dashboards are (likely to be) gorgeous and vastly improved over the mostly superfluous dials and gauges car manufacturers think we need to see (when was the last time you had to check your RPMs or engine temperature?). Good hardware, software and UX designers will be behind all of that. But future vehicles equipped with ADAS systems and eventually autonomous capabilities will need to make trillions of driving decisions based on lots of sensory data. Vision, LiDAR, sonor and other sensors will combine with real-time streams from the internet, from other vehicles and even from municipal environmental data sources (our portfolio company INRIX is one such data supplier). These inputs are analyzed in real-time, likely with a combination of local on-board and cloud-based compute resources to make driving decisions. Such complex AI systems will be adaptable machine learning systems which continuously refine their decision-making models.

Understanding this makes it less of a surprise that Google leads the way in autonomous vehicle development today. Google’s search engine is an at-scale example of just such a system and much of Google’s core development expertise is in cloud-based predictive systems.•

Tags:

05CRIMESCENE1-master180

The New York Times taken as a whole is an awesome thing, but it’s also special on a granular scale when you find certain writers there who you recognize are doing especially superlative work. I think about the first time I read the late, great David Carr and the brilliant obituarist Margalit Fox, how cool it was to “find” reporters turning out such copy. 

The crime writer Michael Wilson is another Times journalist operating on that special level. His last column was a fascinating piece about an otherwise bright man taken to the cleaners by psychics, when, of course, he should have known better, but we all should know better about so many things. Wilson follows that up with an amazing posthumous profile of jaw-dropping con man Michael Forman, a Zelig on the make, who crossed paths with Abbie Hoffman, Otto Preminger and Annie Leibovitz, among others, while committing crimes, lots of crimes. It’s a beauty.

The opening:

The woman on the telephone had news. Michael Forman was dead. She asked a reporter if there was any known next of kin.

Mr. Forman was a career criminal and con artist who had been in and out of prisons and jails as recently as last year at age 73. The woman, calling this month from the Brooklyn Center care facility, had come across columns about him in this space in her search for relatives, and asked if the reporter had known Mr. Forman very well.

No. But peeling back the layers of his life last week raised another question: Did anyone? Not his ex-wife and two children. Not his fellow admen of the 1960s. Not the promoters of Woodstock, working with him behind the scenes before the concert. Not scores of jailers. Not the woman whose picture he carried in recent years, telling friends and relatives she was his Russian ballerina girlfriend, less than half his age. Not his neighbors, near the end, in the Manhattan flophouse he called home. 

To take a pass at something like a life story of Michael Stephen Forman is to sift through a mix of strange-but-true fact and preposterous fiction, each constantly seeking to upstage the other. His journey from suburban executive to swindler is told by those close to him at one time or another, men and women alternately charmed and repulsed by the born salesman and, in their words, sociopath.•

 

Tags: ,

NEW_JERSEY_TURNPIKE_AT_LINDEN,_WITH_EXXON_OIL_REFINERY_IN_BACKGROUND_-_NARA_-_552002

Last week, Jeb Bush, the willing strangler of Baby Hitler, said this: “Perhaps the most ludicrous comment I’ve ever heard is that climate change is a bigger threat to our country than radical Islamic terrorism.” You would think such utter wrong-mindedness would catapult him to the top of the GOP polls in this clown car of an election season, but apparently even ludicrousness can’t save Jeb from himself. 

In a smart Conversation piece, Christopher Grainger calls for a Space Race initiative to combat climate change. He’s not the first to do so, but it clearly needs repeating. While a carbon tax is a very necessary measure, the writer doesn’t think it will necessarily birth solutions as much as contain badness. I think it might do some of both, the tax perhaps leading corporations and inventors to innovate to preclude paying the tax. Either way, it would be great to find out.

From Grainger:

Many influential economists such as Yale’s William Nordhaus or Harvard’s Gregory Mankiw, want to fight climate change with a carbon tax. The problem is taxes do a better job of preventing bad things than encouraging better replacements.

Standard economics simply considers greenhouse gas emissions as an “externality” – an economic consequence experienced by a party who did not choose to incur it. Negative side effects such as pollution can be addressed by putting a price on them and forcing those responsible to pay – if your factory produces emissions, it’ll cost you. This is the idea behind carbon taxes. It is assumed that, by making polluting technologies relatively more expensive, the market will adjust, generating low-carbon innovations.

But innovation isn’t as simple as this. In particular, the development and spread of new technologies depends on what has gone before and you can’t simply expect a jump into renewable energy, for instance, when everything is geared towards fossil fuels. This idea ofpath dependenceis fundamental to understanding technological change.•

Tags:

robot-congo (2)

Transhumanist Party Presidential candidate Zoltan Istvan’s embrace of techno-fascism might be jarring in another election season, one without talk of Muslim databases and refugees being compared to “rabid dogs,” but it’s almost the least of many evils in 2015.

Well, I certainly don’t want to totalitarianism of any type, carbon or silicon, but Istvan hopes for a day when (kindly) machine overlords are an option. He discusses that possibility, increasing robotization, universal basic income and more in a smart article by Tim Maughan of BBC Future. An excerpt that begins with reference to alt-politician’s sci-fi novel:

The Transhumanist Wager tells the story of Jethro Knights, a philosopher who rails against democratic politics and becomes a revolutionary that seizes control of the world in order to enforce a global authoritarian transhuman regime. It sounds a little like the neoreactionary movement, I suggest, the far-right philosophical movement that believes democracy has failed, and that nations should once again be run by hereditary monarchies. Isn’t that perhaps a worrying storyline from someone running as president?

“I’m distancing myself, I have been, from the book now for a whole year,” he says. “I know the neoreactionary movement really well. I really dislike some of their policies, especially on women… But that said, I do subscribe to some of their strong monarchy ideas where if you actually have a benevolent dictator that could be great for the country.”

I’m a little surprised to hear a presidential candidate openly suggesting this. But that, as it turns out, is very typical for Istvan; he’s not finished. There’s always another angle, some other philosophical surprise up his sleeve.

“In fact it’s one of the reasons why I’ve advocated for an artificial intelligence to become president one day. If we had a truly altruistic entity that was after the best interests of society maybe giving up at least some freedoms would be beneficial if that was truly in our best interests. What’s happened in the past is we’ve had dictators who are selfish, and they’ve done an absolutely terrible job of running countries. But what if you actually had somebody who really was after your best interests, wouldn’t you want him on your team?”•

Tags: ,

tireturningani (2)

There has, of course, been plenty of pushback against Clayton Christensen’s theory of disruption (most notably in Jill Lepore’s 2014 New Yorker takedown), but in a Washington Post editorial, Vivek Wadhwa suggests we don’t even concern ourselves about disproving such a thing when the ground has so significantly shifted in the last 20 years that it can’t possibly be applicable anymore.

Saying Uber isn’t truly disruptive, as Christensen does, because it doesn’t neatly fit within the strictures of his theory, is silliness. Ridesharing + driverless could be the most disruptive economic event of our times, regardless of what a classic model says about it. That new normal will be good and bad, a boon and bane all at once, requiring not just free-market solutions but political ones as well.

From Wadhwa:

Christensen says that Uber and Tesla Motors aren’t genuinely disruptive, not fitting the tenets of his theory of disruptive innovation. In that, the competition comes from the lower end or an unserved part of a market and then migrates upward to the mainstream market. He says that Uber has gone in exactly the opposite direction by building a position in the mainstream market and then addressing historically overlooked segments.  And Tesla Motors can’t be disruptive because it is tackling the high end of the car market.  “If disruption theory is correct, Tesla’s future holds either acquisition by a much larger incumbent or a years-long and hard-fought battle for market significance,” say Christensen and his co-authors in the paper.

Christensen’s disruption theory is not correct. The competition no longer comes from the lower end of a market; it comes from other, completely different, industries.  For the taxi industry, Uber came out of nowhere. At first Uber tried competing with high-end limousines. Then it launched UberX to offer cheap taxi service. Now it wants it all.  Through UberFresh, it is piloting same-day grocery delivery; through UberEats, it promises lunch in 10 minutes. Uber is challenging supermarkets, Amazon.com, and the catering industry — all at the same time. With UberHealth, it is planning to bring flu shots to people in need. When Uber finishes writing the software for its self-driving cars, it will create a genuine tsunami of disruption in every industry that depends upon transportation.

Tesla has already proven the superiority of its electric cars. Now it is changing their economics.•

Tags: ,

hunter-s-thompson-typewriter (1)

paddyc (1)

joan-didion_typewriter (1)

Kevin Kelly is correct when his says that our tools and technologies have historically not gone extinct, even when replaced by better ones they just experience an enduring obsolescence. I would guess this ultimately won’t be true, it just seems to be a permanent situation because we don’t mark our time in long enough swaths.

Decades ago the bold and bleeding-edge left behind the manual and pioneered the digital. Now that the “land” has been surveyed, overpopulated, some are retreating from the smartphone to the typewriter, partly driven by surveillance concerns but not solely for the reason. I wouldn’t expect the withdrawal to be much more than a physical and philosophical niche, but it’s a pretty normal reaction.

From Rebecca Rego Barry at the Guardian:

At the Miami Book Fair earlier this month, Richard Polt arrived equipped with both a PowerPoint presentation and a Groma Kolibri, his vintage “laptop typewriter” made in East Germany in 1956. The antique machine – incidentally, the same model preferred by the writer Will Self – is stylish and durable, less of a prop than a symbol of an insurgency aided and abetted by Polt, author of The Typewriter Revolution: A Typist’s Companion for the 21st Century.

You’d never guess that the mild-mannered professor of philosophy at Xavier University in Cincinnati, Ohio, is a radical. Yet, his book opens with a manifesto that asserts the right to “resist the paradigm” and “escape the data stream.”

Polt typed that original declaration in 2012, motivated by an irritation with digital life and the knowledge that lots of young people were doing interesting things with typewriters. “The fact is that they’re turning to something non-digital for something that’s usually done digitally,” he pointed out during an interview prior to the book fair.

Having collected typewriters for more than 20 years, Polt decided to join the “typosphere” and start “typecasting”. Simply put, he uses a typewriter to capture his thoughts, then scans the page and uploads it to his blog. (He maintains two websites: The Classic Typewriter and The Typewriter Revolution.)

He also began attending and hosting type-ins, which he describes in his book as “public acts of typewriting.”•

Tags: ,

sleep22 (2)

In a Guardian piece, Killian Fox and Joanne O’Connor look at the future of employment, that increasingly shaky thing, from a variety of angles: robotics, workplace surveillance, the end of retirement, etc. One segment focuses on the “human cloud,” which outsources tasks into the ether, perhaps flattening the world a little but definitely flattening wages. An excerpt:

In the past decade cloud computing has radically altered the way we work, but it’s the growth of the “human cloud” – a vast global pool of freelancers who are available to work on demand from remote locations on a mind-boggling array of digital tasks – which is really set to shake up the world of work.

The past five years have seen a proliferation of online platforms that match employers (known in cloud-speak as “requesters”) with freelancers (often referred to as “taskers”), inviting them to bid for each task. Two of the biggest sites are Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, which lays claim to 500,000 “turkers” from 190 countries at any given time, and Upwork, which estimates that it has 10 million freelancers from 180 countries on its database. They compete for approximately 3m tasks or projects each year, which can range from tagging photos to writing code. The market is evolving so quickly that it’s hard to pin down exactly how many people are using these sites worldwide, but management consultants McKinsey estimate that by 2025 some 540 million workers will have used one of these platforms to find work.

The benefits for companies using these sites are obvious: instant access to a pool of cheap, willing talent, without having to go through lengthy recruitment processes. And no need to pay overheads and holiday or sick pay. For the “taskers” the benefits are less clear cut. Champions of the crowdsourcing model claim that it’s a powerful force for the redistribution of wealth, bringing a fresh stream of income and flexible work into emerging economies such as India and the Philippines (two of the biggest markets for these platforms). But herein lies the problem, as far as critics are concerned. By inviting people to bid for work, sites such as Upwork inevitably trigger a “race to the bottom”, with workers in Mumbai or Manila able to undercut their peers in Geneva or London thanks to their lower living costs.

“It’s a factor in driving down real wages and increasing inequality,” says Guy Standing, professor of economics at SOAS, University of London. He has written two books on the “precariat”, which he defines as an emerging global class with no financial security, job stability or prospect of career progression. He argues that falling wages in this sector, with workers often willing to complete tasks for as little as $1 an hour, will eventually have a knock-on effect on the wages of traditional employees and contribute to the growth of the precariat. “And it’s not just unskilled labour that’s being done online,” says Standing. “It goes all the way up: legal services, medical diagnosis, architectural services, accounting – it’s affecting the whole spectrum.”

Love it or loathe it, the human cloud is here to stay.•

Tags: ,

« Older entries § Newer entries »