Innovation (technologicallly driven) – Page 20

Reverse-Logic

Not reverse logic (“Bring your umbrella so it will not rain”) being mere (non-existent! you ontological dimwit) causation inversion, but time-inversed thinking. Like this article (shall we stop calling blog posts or long reads anything else than the thing they were before ARPAnet ..?) which has it the wrong way around from this one. Snicker smuck.

Oh, and:

[The Truth? It’s all cocktail pestles …! Stedelijk Amsterdam]

Fuzzy Vocabulary (Cross-)Boundaries

When discussing Risk …
There will always at some stage turn up a discussion (or multiple, if you’re Lucky; not) about the meaning of certain key words. Which is a pity, because … no, not because it distracts. Though it does, the main issue is that the secondary, meta, discussion about vocabularies is never / rarely resolved.
At strategic levels, talk is about risk appetite and risk tolerance, and foremost about business opportunities (of which the exitement is) spoiled by “risk managers” that point out the world might not be perfect and hence one is all but certain not to achieve the objectives. Smart business leaders push forward anyway, at best keeping the risks in the back of their heads while sanding off the rough edges of progress at that goes along all quite well. When strategies turn out to fail: Well, such is life as it has been since the dawn of humanity.
At tactical levels, talk is about risk portfolios and … not much, really; mostly project and program risks. Of the Boy Cried Wolf kind.
At operational levels, quasi-(sic!) quants do their stuff and come with all sorts of fabulous fables of formulas that wouldn’t stand scrutiny at the most basic of math levels. What idi.t would translate ‘High’ to ‘5’ and then multiply it with some other ‘4.5’ to arrive at a ‘22.5’ “risk” ..!? Heat maps are the reflection of the own moronic brain functioning onto what are supposed to be Managers’ levels of understanding. Though the outcome is correct, the origin of the reflection should be kept in mind instead of forgotten.

And all talk about ‘risk’ (‘operational risk’, even worse), ‘impact’, ‘High’, as though these were somewhat the same thing for all involved, disregarding most of time- and situation-variance or rather completely -determination. Right. Wrong. Just regurgitating definitions from ISO standards demonstrates to not understand the nature of the problem…

Any theoretical science logical-AND linguistics specialists that can help? And:

[Tinguley in a picture is quite different from the message of it …; Stedelijk Amsterdam]

The legacy of TDoS

So, we have the first little probes of TDoS attacks (DoS-by-IoT). ‘Refrigereddon’.
As if that wasn’t predictable, very much predictable, and predicted.
[Edited to add: And analysed correctly, as here.]

Predicted it was. What now? Because if we don’t change course, we’ll achieve ever worse infra. Yes, security can be baked into new products — that will be somewhat even more expensive so will not swarm the market — but for backward compatibility in all the chains out there already, cannot be relied upon plus there’s tons of legacy equipment out there already (see: Healthcare, and: Utilities). Even when introducing new, fully securable stuff, we’re heading into a future where the Legacy issue will grow for a long time and much worse than it already is, before (need to be) huge pressure will bring the problem down.

So… What to do ..? Well, at least get the fundamentals right, which so far we haven’t. Like this, and this and this and here plus here (after the intermission) and there…

Would anyone have an idea how to get this right, starting today, and all-in all-out..?

Plus:

[IRL art will Always trump online stuff… (?); at home]

Bring on the Future; it belongs to ME

Some say self-driving cars / autonomous vehicles will take over driving as if they will take over all driving. But the intermediate phase [where autonomous persons and autonomous masters with slave (!) persons] will see ‘driving’ turn into a pastime, a hobby, of thrill seeker persons. Yes, even with Insurance rates getting somewhat higher. Not much higher, let alone skyrocketing, because the lone drivers that hold out, will find more and more very defensively behaving autonomous tin cans opposite them, scaring the latter (to steer) off the road…! Hence, aggressive drivers will not (provably) cause many accidents, autonomous vehicles will in all their panic. Hence, autonomous humans will not have staggering Insurance rates

and will keep on driving because of the fun of it, the feeling of independence and self-control, the thrill sought and found…

After human chess players could no longer win against ‘computers’, humans still play chess. After humans were outpaced by cars of all kinds, humans still try to win gold medals at the very event. After humans lost Jeopardy against Watson, humans still compete on ‘intelligence’ everywhere; opportunistically retreating ever further on the definition of ‘intelligence’.
Hence, humans will not drive ‘cars’ en masse, in the near+ future. But they will upgrade the purpose of driving, and will drive.

I sure will, for fun. With so many ‘lectric autonomous thingies on the road moving the sheeple, I’ll have or get myself all the road space I need… The road will belong to ME ME ME ..!

And

[One perfect artist does NOT outdo others; Gemeentemuseum Den Haag]

Spinning Wheel — wait, for it: Clock or Counter-Clock ..?

Anyone noticed that IUs seem to make a thing of having replaced the clearly-archaic hourglass wait icon, with a spinning wheel — that was the Obvious part & mdash; but that the circle sometimes runs clockwise, sometimes counter-clockwise ..?
Part of the why is resolved, e.g., here, but the issue is that it seems to go all sorts of directions in/at all sorts of apps, sites, et al., as far as I can tell not seriously related to the linked explanation.

Yes, I’ve studied this here foundational theory, but also there, not much on directions. Didn’t even know Throbber was a thing.

Then, surely there’s an authoritative UX/GUI protocol (huh?) that has the definitive answers ..? Anyone ..? Oh well:

[Keeps on [ slipping, slipping, slipping | turning ], [ back to | into ] the ~~future~~ circles; Stedelijk Amsterdam]

Really Bad Life

The recent spat on (team, in particular) sports not being the character building they’re supposed to be, has a pendant in other realms of game as well. The former, here; the latter, here.

Where, similar to other areas of enticement (link and other posts on this blog), the idea of a level paying field not through the starting positions but through procedural justice, seems to want to jump over the weaving errors of our societies being the unevenness and inequality of the starting positions. Also eloquently explained (with a moral take-home) here. Typical in the RBC article above-linked, in the base (sic) of the great game of golf with its handicap system. But still; this doesn’t diminish the feelings of inequity, either on the non-compensated-for-bad-luck-starting-points side, or on the feeling-bad-for-having-lost-the-advantages-of-an-advantaged-starting-point side.

Wouldn’t wars be over and world peace break out when the problem that eluded some of the most eminent (economics- and others) thinkers, as here and certainly here and here, be solved ..? What transformation away from a bad one, would that require of the world society ..?

I’m seriously interested to hear any pointers and partial work already …

[On the edges of Nature and Appolonian order…, and perfection (in horizon balance) is boring; Ancy-le-Franc]

Peak Gulden

I’ve been dabbling in this pure-fiat money (sic) Gulden that is an attempt to indeed bring back the Dutch florin wink.
So far, I only put a toe into that water, and ’twas a profitable ride indeed. Should’ve moved all-in and retire…

Yes there’s all sorts of payment functionality but haven’t found a place to put that to use yet. Which made me think: Is there some sort of metric by which one can determine how ‘mature’ respective blockchain currencies are ..?

Like, some ratio that includes available volume, traded volume (exchange for (much longer) pre-existing traditional currencies), actual payments made for goods/services transactions, et al.
Or would anyone already have some (pointers to sufficiently secure-not-clickbait) sites that have such info and mdash; surely better factors and ratios than the above…?

TIA. And:

[Here, another mix of (not ‘chain but brick-‘n-mortar) architecture and finance; Troyes]

Needing trolley answers — NOW!

Needing your help on this. In two ways…:

How come all the ethicists dreaming up ever more complex versions of the Trolley Problem, but are only too gleefully snickering at n00bs-to-the-field that figure out the peculiarities as they are led through the many pitfalls in thinking — but never arrive at definitive answers themselves! and are just happy with ever further complicating the issues.
Question is: How to bang their heads long and hard enough or, to give them a last chance, lock them up without food and drink until they deliver definitive answers? Left or Right, Yes or No, with ‘or’ being absolute XOR not ‘and a bit “and”, too’.
How does System 1 thinking, or System 2, tie into these sort of discussions ..? As said problems call for immediate decision (no time to wait for decades of completely useless non-answers from ethicists…), System 1 would probably have it, System 2 being too slow. How does System 1 respond in this arena, then ..? Should be tractable.
[Of course you didn’t expect me to stick to even my own ‘two’ of the intro, did you?] Is System 1 inherently more tied to the hunter-gatherer life that humanity has evolved in for so much longer, than the agri-society of late (10k years) ..? If so, in what way could we use such connection(s) and ramifications (…) to improve our responses to the above, and to society’s ails in general..?

OK, enough questions, possibly though certainly not certainly not answerable in a simple Comment … Hence:

[Ah, the Classics, they would probably provide better, actual, solutions, wouldn’t they ..? Ancy-le-Franc encore]

All Your Data Are Belong To Us

Or, in the form of a question: When
a. One has to notify authorities of any (possible!) data leak, per law, in Europe and soon maybe also in the USofA,
b. Even BIOSses aren’t secure anymore, baked in from the word Go and onwards,
Shouldn’t all organisations declare all of their infrastructure and hence all their data, possibly compromised ..?

Just asking.

[Edited to add this. Also relevant; this one deeper (?)]

And:

[Calm, not private; Museumplein Amsterdam]

You're So Smart

In a reference to a song about me:
Most ab-original humans wouldn’t pass a serious Turing test.
Most serious AI trying to pass, would.

You, the select elite of my blog readers … Well, elite by numbers, mostly, or ..? And select, as in ‘clicked by error’..?

Just kidding, of course, off course.
What I meant was: as originally intended, Turing tests have become a hypothetical mind game ‘only’. Now that we’re approaching ‘intelligence’ of machines, like, graduating from ANI to AGI and on to ASI without a blink — not all of society will change at one instant to the next level, and then after some prep all of society will move to the next! Much more creepy stuff is out there without general (public its) knowledge than you can imagine (if anything) — suddenly we return to the thought experiment.
Acknowledging that we have never been able to give a sort-of extentional definition of ‘intelligence’, only an intentional one. Which may indeed suffice. Now that we’re accustomed, and into ethics discussions rather than did/did-not type of things (ex the laggerds who still can’t stand being surpassed by ‘dumb’ machines — calling them that, calls yourself ‘below’ (quod non) that…), we’ve seem to have made the question irrelevant. When a few still say that this sort of thing is impossible, others are already doing it and hardly anyone seems to care.

The latter part being the scary bit. Wait and see just will not be enough here, in particular RE settling the Ethics elements. It’s not only self-driving cars where momentum is out of human hands and into Technology’s… It’s everywhere.

To not be afraid — or to be but be brave and conquer your fears and Act, this:

[Still recognisable as VR trompe l’oeil; Rijks Amsterdam]