Deeper into the spin zone

This observation is hardly a blindingly new insight, but it struck me that the video above is a kind of landmark. Google was the company that was information focused, engineering focused – and pretty good at user experience (UX) and all that stuff even if not up to Apple’s standard. As someone who’s just swithed from Nexus to iPhone and regretted it, I’d say it’s overtaken Apple at UX.

Anyway I wanted a quick lock on what the new Nexus has to offer. And arrived at this video. Fifty seconds. Fifty seconds of almost complete bullshit, albeit glossy bullshit and bullshit I might enjoy if I was on the other side of the Gruen Transfer and wasn’t trying to find stuff out.

Irreducibility: the micro-foundations

I’ve written about what I call irreducibility at least twice before. Then along comes this nice article in the excellent new publication The Mandarin on the “19 reasons why agencies find it hard to hire technologists“. It’s a classic case of how top down systems don’t manage the irreducibility of work at the coalface. Anyway, I’ll leave the list below, though the further explanation of each point is in the original via the link. I also haven’t included all the reasons as they require explanation – which you can get from the original.

  1. You force developers to use tools designed for lawyers
  2. You distrust your employees
  3. You tether developers to their desk
  4. You prefer government-specific service providers
  5. You still see waterfall as a viable option [rather than agile development]
  6. You don’t place process on a pedestal
  7. You erect a moat between developers and servers
  8. New technologies are guilty until proven innocent
  9. You use open source as a verb
  10. Working in the open is a novelty, not a best practice
  11. Speaking at conferences is tightly controlled
  12. Geeks are the bottom of your food chain
  13. Culture only happens outside of your working hours
  14. You measure your hiring process in months
  15. Onboarding is an afterthought
  16. Recruitment is unheard of
  17. You block half the internet


More metadata musing

In answer to my post earlier today about the data retention bill, frequent commenter Patrick Fitzgerald made a rather important point about the data retention zeitgeist:

Embrace the panopticon Ken, buy yourself a webcam, attach it to your head and stream live 24×7. Plus for good measure get a fitbit with GPS and stream that live 24×7 too – that way at least your friends will know as much about you as your enemies, and you may kill at least one enemy through boredom ;)

As it was, I had already made pretty much the same point earlier in the day on Twitter in answer to a tweet from FOI guru Peter Timmins linking an article about the US situation regarding metadata retention.


Continue reading

Metaphor alert on data: should it be anyone’s property?

Prof. Dirk Helbing on the opportunities provided by big data: Will information become the key resource of this century? | T-SystemsMonday’s column in the Fin published as “Debate should be on best-use, not ownership of public data”

Data is in the news but we’re still working out how to think about it. Ladies and Gentlemen, we’ve got the Wrong Metaphor. Let me explain.

There’s endless argy-bargy about who ‘owns’ firms’ customer data – them or their customers? And the government wants access to stored ‘metadata’ on our internet activities – what sites we’ve been to, who we’ve communicated with. Then there’s all that data governments collect through the five yearly census – next due in 2016 – which the government recently wondered aloud whether to scrap. (Should it really cost the best part of half a billion when most citizens could be surveyed online?)

As governments gear up their surveillance armoury and we disgorge terabytes of data to Facebook and Google, we’re jealous of our privacy – as well we might be. In our commercialised age, this becomes a debate about who should ‘own’ data. Yet notions of property arose to help us think about and control physical things – like personal possessions and land. Subtle traps await those using the metaphor of property to deal with incorporeal things like ideas and data. Continue reading

Ratings on Airbnb

As readers will know, I’ve been a fan of the way in which the internet generates reputational information which greatly improves the efficiency of markets. Still it’s surprising how tricky these things are, something I’ve been pondering while using Airbnb for quite a few stays in Europe.  There are several major problems with Airbnb’s rating system, which are enough to have me much less keen to use it.

Firstly it seems that there’s a happy clappy vibe in collaborative consumption. Perhaps once people have met others they don’t want to reflect on them invidiously. Perhaps they are hyping the vibe of collaborative consumption and how luvvie duvvie it can be. Or perhaps they’re thinking of the incentives. I don’t like leaving bad reviews because when I’m seeking to rent a place, hosts can look up my previous reviews, and if they’re lower than others, they mightn’t want me to so review their place. Perhaps this drives grade inflation on the system.

And perhaps to prevent that, Airbnb do separate out streams of feedback including feedback for all, private feedback for the host and private feedback to Airbnb.

But there’s another problem. Airbnb’s survey is the kind of survey that irritates me when I get one from a hotel. It asks for five stars in various categories which make logical sense.

Accuracy, Communication, Cleanliness, Location, Check In, Value. The thing is, it remains quite possible to have a flat that is more or less uninhabitable whilst retaining a four and a half star rating. How do I know? Because I’v been staying in such a place in Barcelona. It gets four or more stars in all categories and a four and a half star rating overall. About half of the reviews are very positive. So on a quick squiz we booked. Four and a half stars overall? What could go wrong?  Here’s a not untypical review from the remaining reviews.

Jordi met us, and gave us a lot of great information about the neighborhood and the city. The location and price are excellent.

However… I must mention that this is the noisiest place I have ever stayed. The apartment is upstairs from Bar Mariatchi, which is open until at least 3am EVERY DAY, and which has loud music that you will hear through the walls, making sleep nearly impossible, even with earplugs. Plus, you can count on street noise–talking and yelling–until the wee hours EVERY DAY. The noise factor derailed our rest, pushed our sleeping to the “quiet” times (7am-noon), and thus rather derailed our daily sightseeing plans.

If it weren’t for this excessive noise factor, I would recommend this apartment wholeheartedly. As it is, I can only recommend it to those who plan to party into the wee hours every night and sleep the days away.

Note how people are at pains to be nice, even if their time has been effectively ruined. Yet the place keeps getting it’s four and a half plus ratings. Enough to swing my preferences back towards hotels I’m afraid.

Upcoming event- The 2014 Francis Gurry lecture: “IP in Transition: desperately seeking the Big Picture”



IPKats love a tweet

The lecture will be delivered (in Melbourne Sydney and Brisbane) by Jeremy Phillips. Jeremy (or more exactly a fictional andnotoriouscat: the IPKat) has three times, been named as one of IP’s  “Fifty Most Influential People “. The IPKat is widely read, wide ranging and fun.

The lectures Big Picture theme could be of interest to many:

In the face of accelerating changes in the make-up of the world’s economic, cultural and political structure, IP rights face a stress-test. Pulled back into the past by legislative intent and judicial precedent, they are propelled forwards by new technologies, increasingly specialised laws and creative business structures. And they are subject to the constants of the need for justice, the requirement of legal predictability and the demand of due process.  Is there a Big Picture: a vision that can be shared by legislators, IP owners and their lawyers and attorneys?  If so, what does it look like?


The lecture will  be streamed  , Mon 17/11/2014  at 6:15 PM – 7:45 PM.  Attendance  is free, but booking is required : Melbourne (12 November), Sydney (17 November) and Brisbane (18 November)

Happy 20th birthday to blogging!

Just a note to record the fact that blogging is 20 years old this month, maybe. New media legend Dave Winer, a rare combination of great writer and programmer, started posting at DaveNet on 7 October 1994, as Philip Greenspun points out. There was no announcement that Winer had invented a new genre, but I can’t really find anything that looks like a blog going back much earlier than that – though writer Jerry Pournelle’s Chaos Manor got started around the same time and Justin Hall was also getting busy.

DaveNet started as the web version of Winer’s email newsletter, but having found the web-based format was popular, he started pushing through classic weblog fodder – short thoughts, links, and reflections on stuff other people were saying.

Having invented the weblog, Winer then helped to develop RSS and co-invented podcasting, proselytised for proper web content management systems, built outliners and basically helped invent the media landscape we have today. What a guy.

As Greenspun puts it:

The standard HTTP/HTML Web was and is great for 3-30-page ideas. Winer was perhaps the first person to see that the world needed some different technical standards to deal with three-paragraph ideas.

People frequently see blogging as something completely new. In fact, though, it has quite a few media predecessors, notably the personal diary. From one perspective, a blog was simply a way of publishing your own diary to a mass audience. But it also had a number of new aspects: for instance, it frequently used links to exploit the availability of huge numbers of online media sources.

Blogging was also one of the first online media products to showcase online brevity. Facebook and Twitter* then came along and underlined this unexpected development. Indeed, for all the talk about the wonders to come from ultra-fast broadband, the big online media developments of the past two decades have to a surprising degree been about short written content.

* Fun online media “fact”: I read somewhere long ago – and perhaps it’s even true – that the average Victorian-era diary entry would fit comfortably within Twitter’s 140-character limit.

Smartphone use in meetings and impressing your boss

Distractions abound: In an image from the inauguration, the entire Obama family is seen using their smartphones.This post is mostly a note to self: Like I keep saying, there’s an ecology between public and private goods. This article asks whether smartphones should be used in meetings. That’s a question about a cultural rule. It’s a public good question. The article however seeks the answer to the question in private feelings and etiquette.

The closest it gets to considering whether the rule – or some more felicitous variant of the rule – is good is considering whether you (an underling) should use your smartphone. Well no you shouldn’t. Why? Because it might annoy your boss.

TalentSmart has tested the emotional intelligence of more than a million people worldwide and found that Millennials have the lowest self-awareness in the workplace, making them unlikely to see that their smartphone use in meetings is harming their careers.

There are certainly lots of circumstances in which one could agree. It can be annoying. Sometimes very annoying. As I understand it one of Kevin Rudd’s staffers early in his term wore earpieces attached to an iPhone in meetings.

Still the moment I saw Twitter being used at conferences I realised there were costs and benefits and there could be strong benefits. The costs were distraction and all that can entail. On the other hand the spoken word is a very time inefficient medium for getting across information. You can read these paragraphs a lot faster than you can listen to them, and if there’s a lot to the article, you can also skim stuff you think you don’t need to read. Not so with listening to someone on a platform talking at you and taking you through his slides. And the more people there are in the audience, the greater the gain for them as they tailor their attention to what is generating the best value for them at the time (OK, that’s the theory, some will just be distracting themselves, but lots won’t).

Smartphones can be a pain in meetings if they’re used by people who don’t’ acknowledge their duty to the group to pay attention and know what’s going on. On the other hand you can occasionally check email and even write back without losing track. If you manage that then we’ve got a productivity gain on our hands. Not only doesn’t this article even canvass this possibility. It’s whole world is the world of impressing your boss. Too bad if he’s a jerk and is only impressed by your dumb obedient silence – too bad for the public good that is – which in this case is the interests of the organisation he’s bossing you about in. Continue reading

Viewing the broadband future

The latest cost-benefit analysis of various Australian broadband proposals is out. It’s part of a report from an inquiry chaired by former Victorian Treasury head Mike Vertigan.

And it says in essence that Australia’s expected growth in demand for bandwidth is big enough to make the NBN viable, but small enough to make the government’s alternative look better.

I would have expected to hear the report’s authors out there defending it, but Mike Vertigan has never been keen to put himself forward in the public debate. So today much of the media I saw has been dominated by critics, and they’ve mostly been saying that a useful cost-benefit analysis is impossible, so we should just build the NBN. Paul Budde was making the claim this morning on ABC Radio, and lesser-known experts such as Sydney Uni’s Kai Riemer have been saying the same thing.

This claim – that we can’t usefully analyse the NBN’s costs and benefits – is hooey.

We can’t do a precise cost-benefit analysis, given how much Internet use is likely to change over the next decade or two. And whatever analysis we do should be up-front about how much guesswork is involved. But cost-benefit analyses are not just helpful; they’re also inevitable. Indeed, everyone who says “we should just build it” actually is doing a cost-benefit analysis. Typically they’re just doing a really sloppy cost-benefit analysis in their head, and setting their median estimate of the benefits at, approximately, Unimaginably Huge.

And Unimaginably Huge is almost certainly an overstatement.

“We can’t begin to imagine what people could do with upload speeds on an industrial scale,” Riemer told News Limited.

But of course we can begin to imagine that. Here’s how. Continue reading