A fantastic TED presentation by Jamie Oliver discussing the effects of poor diet/food choices on children in most of the western world. His solution: teach every child about food. Some enlightening facts and figures about the issues as well as an overall engaging discussion.
Interesting thoughts from Brian Eno on the impact art and culture diversity and availability is having on society. I share his hope that this will translate into advances in politics and other attitudes as well.
We’re living in a stylistic tropics. There’s a whole generation of people able to access almost anything from almost anywhere, and they don’t have the same localised stylistic sense that my generation grew up with. It’s all alive, all “now,” in an ever-expanding present, be it Hildegard of Bingen or a Bollywood soundtrack. The idea that something is uncool because it’s old or foreign has left the collective consciousness.
Apparently, in their haste to produce an even more controversial followup to the first book, the authors of Freakonomics get the facts colossally wrong (from the New Yorker):
Given their emphasis on cold, hard numbers, it’s noteworthy that Levitt and Dubner ignore what are, by now, whole libraries’ worth of data on global warming. Indeed, just about everything they have to say on the topic is, factually speaking, wrong. Among the many matters they misrepresent are: the significance of carbon emissions as a climate-forcing agent, the mechanics of climate modeling, the temperature record of the past decade, and the climate history of the past several hundred thousand years. Raymond T. Pierrehumbert is a climatologist who, like Levitt, teaches at the University of Chicago. In a particularly scathing critique, he composed an open letter to Levitt, which he posted on the blog RealClimate.
“The problem wasn’t necessarily that you talked to the wrong experts or talked to too few of them,” he observes. “The problem was that you failed to do the most elementary thinking.” Pierrehumbert carefully dissects one of the arguments that Levitt and Dubner seem to subscribe to—that solar cells, because they are dark, actually contribute to global warming—and shows it to be fallacious. “Really simple arithmetic, which you could not be bothered to do, would have been enough to tell you,” he writes, that this claim “is complete and utter nonsense.”
I thought this was an interesting clip showing a smartphone UI ‘concept’ that “Puts the ‘Friend’ in User-Friendly“.
Though the implementation has a slightly too childish feel to appeal to many potential users, it does expose the current crop of Apple, Palm, Nokia and Android UIs as catering to the look-and-feel of glossy futuristic, nay sci-fi-esque gadgets. And while that’s resulted in some sleek technology, it may be missing out on the softer, more human side of human-gadget interactions, rather than “putting people first…”
Food for thought, but I think it also needs to be balanced with the lessons learned from the VRML/Virtual World interfaces that cropped up in the 90s: Cute to look at, frustrating to use and ultimately limited in what can be expressed in a purely visual interface metaphor.
Technorati Tags:
ideas, innovation, mobile, nokia, ui, usability
After listening to the rapacious credit card industry whine and cry and hew over the prospect of some regulation that will reel them back from their semi-usarous ways, I was struck by a thought. One so obvious that I don’t know why there is no media discussion of it.
During the artificial price spike in gas last Spring and Summer, pundits were going on about how ‘high gas prices are a good thing’ because they change consumer behavior. By the same logic, why aren’t high credit card interest rates a good thing, because they should prevent consumers from over spending? If credit card companies what to react to regulation buy jacking up rates and fees, so be it. There will always be one or two who won’t and that is were consumers will take their business.
Of course, credit card companies have already proven that they don’t operate on a rational basis anyway. Personal example: I had a credit card with CapitalOne for over 20 years, used it regularly, paid it off every month with great consistency. My reward for that was that they first changed my fixed rate to a variable rate (effectively doubling it), then doubled it again while simultaneously shortening the payment period to 15 days. All of these changes were though no actions of my own. When I called a CapitalOne rep to ask why the changes were made the response was ‘I am sure it was done for a good reason’. When I pressed the matter, her supervisor basically said ‘if you disagree with the changes you can always stop using your card — would you like me to cancel it now for you?’ Thank you for your years of patronage, shall I poke your other eye out, now?
To answer my own question, the reason why high credit card rates won’t have the same effect is because the impact is deferred. The purchase is made and the balance goes up on next month’s bill, with very little friction. However, at the pump, it is very real as you watch the numbers click by for you $100 fuel up — do that twice a week and it really drives it home.
I wanted to riff a bit on a theme that a collegue of mine touched on earlier in the year regarding the relative importance that some people place on ultimately arbitrary dates. Why do people put so much emphasis on making resolutions at the start of a new year? or a new month for that matter? Is it simply the need for a ‘clean’ boundary to demarcate things?
The interesting thing is, people seem to find these significant dates all over the place. Recently, there was a modicum of apocryphal hysteria in the tech community because the representation of time in computers was going to be 1234567890 last week. And, to add surety to that, that same day was Friday the 13th, that assuredly unlucky day for all. *GASP*. Yet, somehow, the date passed without incident (as far as I am aware).
What of other dates that are supposed to have such significance? As was previously pointed out, even the concept of ‘what day it is’ is a bit of a made up construct depending upon which calendar system you happen to choose (Gregorian, Julian, Islamic, Hebrew, or Chinese, etc).
What of these ’special’ dates themselves? It appears that over the years they have just multiplied (seemingly at the whim of the greeting card industry). We now how Teacher’s Day, Grandparent’s Day, Student’s Day, Administrative Assistant’s Day, Valentines Day, Earth Day, Groundhog Day, Arbor Day and the list goes on and on. In many cases these ‘holidays’ are celebrated on different days in different countries; in some cases they aren’t celebrated at all. My point is, why can’t you be nice to these people on every day? Why is a ’special’ day needed to take action? Is something that happened (or didn’t) on Earth Day, really more special than if it happened (or didn’t) on any other day?
I fear that such relative value placed on arbitrary days can be the source of resentment and disappointment for some. For sure, some dates, such as anniversaries should be noted and commemorated accordingly (birthday and wedding celebrations and more solemn remembrances of those no longer with us). These are tied to actual events on actual days and (if one chooses) have actual significance. No need to wait for the first of the month to celebrate or for the next greeting card holiday.
I recently rediscovered these quotes; both of which relate back to this whole theme:
“I conceive that the great part of the miseries of mankind are brought upon them by false
estimates that they have made of the value of things.”
— Benjamin Franklin
and
“We live in an age when unnecessary things are our only necessities.”
– Oscar Wilde
I guess this is my long, rattling way to say “make the best of every day, express your gratitude and recognize, that, after all, good or bad, it is just another day”.
The Register rather mercilessly skewers Malcolm Gladwell in a recent posting. I’ll grant them that some of his grand proclamations turn out to be a bit hollow (discussed previously) but is that enough to conclude that he has nothing to say?
I recently purchased Gladwell’s new book Outliers. Hopefully I’ll have time to read it and draw my own conclusions as most of the comments in the Register’s posting refer to statements he has made in public presentations/discussions.
Auto makers: instead of going, hat in hand (fresh from your private jet) to the government and asking tax payers for a bailout, why not go to your biggest benefactor: the oil companies? You have tacitly been in their service for the last thirty years if not more, cranking out bigger and less fuel efficient cars that serve to line their pockets with more and more cash.
Why does a minivan need to have an engine in it that is bigger than what was in a ‘muscle car’ back in the 60s? Do you really need a 2.5 ton pickup truck to drive down to the wings place and pick up a case of beer on the way home? ‘No’ to both.
So there you go: ChrysForGM can consolidate and be the demand side for the oil companies who will continue to pay them for their wasteful services. After all, the oil companies are flush with cash and government is still giving them corporate welfare checks. Please don’t let it be American taxpayers. Again.
From Counterintuitive physics may help everyone drive home quicker
If you’re trying to drive to a destination as quickly as possible, you might think that knowing the traffic conditions would help you choose the quickest route for yourself. Traffic reports and new GPS technologies that provide traffic data are based on this assumption – but scientists have found that knowing this information may do more harm than good.
A recent study has investigated just how much time is lost due to individuals opting for strategies that maximize their own personal utility rather than the social optimum, which often aren’t the same. Physicists Hyejin Youn and Hawoong Jeong from the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology in Daejeon, Korea, and computer scientist Michael Gastner from the Santa Fe Institute and the University of New Mexico in the US, call this lost time “the price of anarchy” (POA) that society must pay for the lack of individual coordination.
This would appear to be another demonstration that acting for a greater good rather than for individual gain actually benefits the individual as well. Check out Robert Axelrod’s excellent book The Evolution of Cooperation for more on this topic.
Another study shows that people come up with more creative solutions to problems by using simple paper and pencil than they do by using a computer. Fundamentally, the difference seems to be between a constrained environment (the computer) and an unconstrained one (pencil and paper).
This mirrors my own experience in computer programming and other areas. When I first started programming over twenty years ago, I felt I came up with a much better solution by sketching out the overall flow of the app and the different sub-routines and modules on paper first. Now it seems the first instinct of most developers is to reach for google and copy and paste some code rather than think through the problem themselves and come up with an approach.
Technorati Tags:
cognition, creativity, ideas, technology
Keep this in mind when you hear the often repeated falsehood that the reason why the price at the pump is soaring is because of increased demand from China and India. Maybe a factor, but perhaps we should address the fact that the state of California uses more gasoline and diesel than China. That’s right, California has ~2.8% of China’s population but manages to consume more that an entire country of 1.3 billion.
Technorati Tags:
badideas, energy, ideas, propaganda
If you can abide the annoying gratuitous flash interface, there is some interesting stuff you can get a glimpse of on the web site for the Design and the Elastic Mind exhibit that recently wrapped up at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City.
Technorati Tags:
creativity, ideas, moma
Or so the famously non-oil and electricity consuming Amish in Ohio are discovering.
It is also notable that they are reluctant to pass the increased costs onto their customers.
“I feel embarrassed to raise prices,” he said.
Bread at his market just went up 25 cents a loaf.
But the price of flour – based on increasingly expensive wheat and raised, harvested and milled by gas-guzzling machines – has nearly doubled.
“I can’t justify raising it more than a quarter,” Miller said. “We’ll just have to get by.”
Getting by goes hand-in-hand with the legendary self-sufficiency of the Amish.
You’re doing a great job, Georgie.
Tom Friedman wrote “The World is Flat”, suggesting that globalization had leveled the playing field between industrial and emerging countries. Jeff Rubin of CIBC World Markets suggests that this is perhaps changing because of the cost of fuel.
The cost of shipping a 40 foot container from Shanghai to the east coast of North America has gone from $3,000 in 2000 to $8,000 because of the cost of fuel, and for many products, the Asian cost advantage has virtually disappeared.
Maybe the end result of this will be foreign companies opening up plants in the US (much as the Japanese have done with auto manufacture) to largely escape the sea-based shipping costs altogether.
Someone wearing a scarf of middle eastern origin is support for terrorism? Someone had better tell the Israelis, US and other troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What next? People who wear hoodies are supporting the unabomber? People who don’t wear lapel pins are unpatriotic? Oh, wait, this isn’t the first time this has been made into a (non)issue.
Until this country can get back to reasoned discourse there is going to be trouble. Turn off Fox News and shout radio and get your news from a number of outlets. And think about it. And decide for yourself.
If the people of the US can be distracted by shrill hysterics about clothing items how will we ever focus on what is important?
Technorati Tags:
crap, news, propaganda
I am getting dizzy from constantly rolling my eyes at pundits who keep trying to spin high gas prices as a good thing. Well, good thing if you are raking in record profits as an oil company — not so much for everyone else not profiting from it.
For a different perspective on high gas, look at it through the lens of the US health care system. Has the high cost of health care in this country caused people to become more healthy to avoid having to pay for health care? No. It has just produced a widening gap of those who can afford care and those who can’t.
The same is true for the recently bandied about factoid pointing to reduced miles driven since gas shot up. Great, seems like a positive thing, but it is probably comparable to the number of pills dispensed or office visits in the health care scenario. People aren’t going to the doctor less because they are healthier, it’s because they can’t afford to. Just as people aren’t driving less because they are suddenly eco-friendly, it’s because they can’t afford to drive. In either case, the economy ultimately suffers.
Then there is the rosy predictions about it forcing alternative fuels and/or electric cars. Right. I am old enough to have heard similar empty claims back in the 1970’s. ‘If oil ever reaches $50 a barrel, we’re gonna…’ liquefy coal, boost solar, improve battery technology, etc, etc, etc. Apparently a few efficient electric car was created, tested and proven, then collected an destroyed en masse in the desert. Yep, that’s how serious we are about this problem. I can only imagine the efficiencies that we would have gained by actively tweaking that technology over the last decade or so.
Next myth is that this high gas prices will spur the development of mass transit. Uh-huh. In Cincinnati, they would rather spend hundreds of millions of dollars building sport stadiums for losing teams than spend a dime on improving public transportation. I was floored when money was actually approved to put in the beginnings of a street car system, though with all the squabbling going on over that I have my doubts that it will be much more successful than Cincinnati’s subway system. And don’t get me started on how we could be spending the trillions of dollars not on a failed war to grab foreign oil resources, but on funding infrastructure development in the US.
Come on folks; wake up to the fact that when Bush was installed in office gas was selling at a quarter of the price it is right now. Cheney claimed that all of the USA’s woes were due to not having an ‘effective energy policy’. Apparently, the solution to that was to have closed door (illegal) sessions with the oil companies to drive the price at the pump as high as it will go. And while we are at it, lets do nothing to stop the dollar from going into a free fall; after all big oil and global corporations benefit from a weak dollar while the citizenry gets screwed. Let’s maintain ridiculously lax CAFE standards for autos, especially SUVs. Let’s provide no tax incentives to people to by hybrids or to use available public transportation. Lets encourage people to buy McMansions that they can’t afford further and further away from where they work.
Let’s recover money from the war profiteering that has been going on for the last eight years and channel it into improving public transportation and funding research for alternative fuels, etc. There is still time to return this country to a representative form of government where those being represented are the people and not select business interests.
It feels like the tech industry is still trying to work out what the optimal mobile user experience should be. And it also feels like we have been down this road before. Like when we went from a comfortable desktop (client server) design/development paradigm to a browser-based one it took a while to figure out that they weren’t the same and how to exploit the differences.
Think about it. At the time of the browser shift the desktop development mentality was around using Visual Basic and a huge palette of visual components (most of which were just fluffy eye candy). So the first impulse of the industry was to try to replicate that (admittedly hideous) component heavy user experience/development model inside of the relatively austere HTML model. This gave birth to the loathsome Java Applet and the even more vile ActiveX control. The industry had completely missed the boat by treating the browser as a heavy desktop application delivery mechanism rather than exploiting the lightweight, largely device independent model that HTTP/HTML provided.
It took about ten years time before HTML/CSS/Javascript and related standards support in browsers made it possible to have truly rich interactions within the browser without having to assume a pretty heavyweight underlying infrastructure for most in the industry. It is worth noting that both Microsoft (.net) and Adobe (AIR) continue to flog this decade-old failed development/delivery model. Any technology that assumes that there is several gigabytes of code on the (lightweight) client is not a proper technology for developing browser-based applications (nor mobile ones for that matter).
Now it feels like we are in the same place with mobile development and user experience — far too many people look at mobile devices as if they are just a desktop browser/computer with a smaller monitor attached to it. But for the mobile experience to be successful, applications need to be designed to address the constrains that are on most mobile devices not try to force them to be mini-desktops. This includes not forcing mobile users to endure your useless Flash-only sites, popups, gratuitous CSS layers, plugins, requiring too much typing and browser specific markup.
To some extent, Apple is leading the way with changing ideas about mobile development with the iPhone SDK (and all of its constraints and limitations). The difficultly with this is that what Apple defines is okay for Apple, not necessarily for the rest of the mobile industry. This can lead to something else we have seen in the past — a ghettoization of the mobile experience between sites ‘optimized for iPhone’ (eg IE) and what everyone else gets.
I am no expert, but it feels like we have the basis for a successful, flexible implementation on mobile devices in the guise of XHTML/CSS/Javascript. Flash and other desktop legacy apps just won’t cut it. Combine that with microformats to facilitate data sharing (and potentially reduce keying) and ‘designed for mobile’ interfaces and we have a fighting chance.
Note: I subsequently found this posting on The Web Beyond The Desktop that does and excellent job of both reinforcing and expanding some of the points that I was making.
Technorati Tags:
adobe, browser, design, development, flash, innovation, iphone, javascript, microformats, mobile, technology, ubiquitousdata, webdev
The source of the title of this posting comes from a document that I was reviewing recently. The author was going on and on with buzzword-laden run-on sentences in which he proudly proclaimed how he had revolutionized development at a company through the application of ‘agile mythodology’. I laughed out loud and decided that typo was a keeper because it expresses some of my feelings about and experiences with agile.
Don’t get me wrong, I have seen agile work very, very well when it is used to structure the execution of the development phase and/or when agile design and modeling approaches are well understood and applied. Where agile absolutely falls apart is when it is twisted into the ‘I don’t have to design or document anything — I just make it up as I go along’ approach that many proponents advocate. Agile delivery is not a substitute for proper design and documentation. This is the mythology part: that you can create quality software by fiat. It is easy to pick out the agile mythologists; listen for their disdain for ‘architecture’ and ‘documentation’ and ’standards’ while all the while no producing any acceptable code.
I recall being asked to do an architectural review of an ‘agile’ project. When I asked for the standard project documentation I got the asinine response: ‘The code is the most accurate documentation for the system’. Really. So show me in the code what the security requirements are and how they were approved by corporate security or where the scope and objectives are (and on and on). I wasn’t about to accept the ‘trust me I coded what the customer wanted; oh and by the way, you have no way of verifying that’ BS.
Agile-boy eventually came back with a link to a wiki (cus’ wikis’ is agile-cool) that had a handful of paragraphs on it and some links to a few UML diagrams (several of which had nothing to do with the project at hand — but I wasn’t supposed to be smart enough to figure that out). Needless to say the project was shaping up to be a disaster and was saved only when a proper design and more ‘traditional’ development approaches were hastily put into place.
Technorati Tags:
agile, architecture, development, dubious, ideas, , mythodologysoftware
Interesting paper on In-Car GPS Navigation: Engagement with and Disengagement from the Environment.
In a way it confirms what I have already suspected, that GPS serves as yet another distraction for the driver (along with mobile phones, etc) from doing the one thing that is most important at the time: paying attention to traffic and driving.
One of the findings is that people under the influence of GPS no longer pay attention to landmarks as a way of orienting themselves and finding locations. Nope, just blindly listen and follow whatever the GPS tells you. Cases of people getting horribly lost doing this are all over the internet. Reminds me of an experiment that was done back in the 80s that showed that people would rely on the results of a calculator that was programed to give the wrong answer even when they knew it was wrong because, well, of course the ‘machine’ knew better!
And I hope you have never had the unsettling experience of riding with someone who spends more time looking at the GPS screen than out the windshield. It is almost like they think the GPS is some video game in which they are driving a car rather than actually driving the car in the real world.
I have about half a dozen news sites of which I consume the RSS/Atom feeds. Most all of them suck. Hard. The chief point of suckage is the amount of duplicates that they present in a given refresh. Typically, the duplicates are just that — redundant; as they don’t reflect any update to the underlying posting. In some cases you get the same posting with slightly different titles.
Perhaps one the most egregious I have encountered is the feed from the Cincinnati Enquirer’s site. In a given one hour refresh, it is not uncommon to see the same article 4-5 times, sometimes with slightly different titles, sometimes with a summary, sometimes with just the title (annoying in general). All of them point at the exact same article — so why all of the duplication? Judging from the horrid layout and extreme usability issues of the site in general, I would say that the answer is general incompetence of the people running the site.
