The Boring Wine Inn (3 @MichelinGuides stars)

Maybe the relevance of Michelin stars, and accompanying guide, would increase if,
Apart from losing the numbing down, bland-isation of any food innovation by chefs to a style that is either Boring in itself already or a quick to wear off gimmick, that obtaining or even striving for a star(s) often turns into, just to please the judges and don’t forget a bucket of salt (yes, don’t lie to me)
The wine list were innovative, too. By which I don’t mean that the wine list couldn’t have some classics but where the all but most insanely priced items (all tend to sit at some 4-8 times cost anyway, extortionistly – bring that down to 2-3x and your profits go throught the roof all the same) have something new. Fresh, beyond the well-trodden paths. The latter, being the average+ quality (if one’s lucky) of the go-with-the-flow (of up to and including last year’s fashion) appelations – with too many New World ones that are so cheap to get. Or from secondary regions of the Old World where the top can still be had at below-top priced – but still with according interestingness of taste. All from the mid-size to big merchants that don’t care anymore about their products and just want to shove as many boxes as they can at incumbent-tied-in margins. Their tell: Aggression towards any that want to offer something off the wine menu for connaisseurs.
As if the chef’s innovation that once was, is enough to stay at the level that once was, qua quality and freshness one wants from top rated places. News flash: The wines can add to the experience. Big time. If one doesn’t see that, well, off you go.
And it also goes for the wine pairing / selection by the glass; how better to showcase one’s innovative wine choices in perfect matches per course ..?
Why not feel free to ask customers for their wine sophistication and preferences? Only a handful of sommeliers seem to understand. Almost all, at the true top places, without food stars.
[One notable exception encountered, in a long life of many attempts…]
[Edited to add, elsewhere: this place. A drain on your balance, but then …! What great (9) dishes, what excellent wine choices and pairing, even in the ‘simple’ recommended wine pairing.]

So that in the end we may see the return of the true relevance of stars, and see less overhyped craze over joints that suddenly get overbooked way too long in advance and start to double their prices – for nothing of the new but only the already mundane that satisfies only those running after Keeping Up With The Jones’ (“Do you know this-and-that [ill-pronounced] wine maker? Isn’t he great oh we once tasted his [name a random year], I’m on a personal basis with him because I was at the camping on the mudfield next to his’.” – no joke, heard too often in literal or similar ways…) places. Ruining it for true believers from the humble beginnings.

Oh well, and:
[If you know where, you know what I mean. Wink wink and all. Bourgogne yes but which Clos’ ?]

Man talks about Innovation


By Harold Jacobson

In Long Beach, a man talked about innovation. The man was of indeterminate age (thirty-five or something), wore a jacket and was slightly sweaty on the forehead. He stressed the importance of innovation: “Innovation.”

The man had made a ‘Roadmap Innovation and Innovation’ (RI&I). In the RI&I, there was something on the theme of ‘innovation’. The man said we are in the midst of an innovation revolution that may eventually lead to an innovation transition. According to the man, fear is not the right motivator but innovation is. Hence, we may come out stronger, if only we innovate.

The man was adamant we should have an ‘Integrative Innovation Cluster’ (IIC), as he already had in his RI&I. Because of the democratization of innovation, he said, changes are on order in the economy at large, like innovative initiatives.

According to the man, we may miss the boat if we don’t innovate. Therefore, for the boat we need an Investment Programme with Scenarios, Action Paradigms and Projects in the general area of Innovation (IPSAPPI). ‘Innovation’, as the man stressed.

[Original, in Dutch, on the Speld; translated with permission]

Watson’s ID

Does Watson have an identity? Because, when it (sic; why not ‘she’ ..?) is intelligent enough to make its own decisions, it may want to, or know ways to obtain, or be bestowed with, personhood of some sorts. To which it may need an identity, and according ID.
But that all hinges on the construct of a single, identifyable instance of <something>. And all sorts of fancy dancy press announcements — where one might ask ‘Where you’ve been to come to the show only now’ — regarding deploying ‘Watson’ in some confined business context seem to start to fly around; mostly with corporates having a dire need to blow over the news of their atrocious lack of morals — but what is it they use?
Most probably only a time share (think S/36 style) or copied-instance or copied-engine of the concept / most elaborately trained instance available.
Do we have a criminal / misdemeanour system in place already for such non-human persons? No, I don’t mean the sorely failed ‘corporate’ personhood approach as that’s a hoax. People still are in charge of corporates, and are punishable per (Board!) capita for anything that anyone does on behalf of their employer XOR they are fundamentally not allowed to act independently in any society.

Only now do we have new entities coming aboard that behave like individuals but have none behind them to cover for accountability … or they aren’t individual operators. So, no choice. But as yet, no legal system to operate in. Conundrum!

On a somewhat tangential (is it?) node: Yes, AlphaGo has beaten a human a couple of times, and the other way around now, too, but that doesn’t mean the game is lost (its interest); see Chess. And, ‘who’ has beaten the human player? Is it a ‘who’ or is it (not only) an ‘it’ or not even that, is it too abstract to say that a ‘robot’ that is in fact an ‘information system somewhere out there dispersed in place, maybe even in time’ has beaten a human..? AGI has no power plug, people!

The Church
[“The” Church, Ronchamps]

Jobba… Niche or disruptor ..?

Was dealing with the other day. The site of which, well.., still has that β feel to it, which made me wonder: Is this the UX of a disruptor ..?
Since, ‘local’ recruiters seem to move back and forth on the margins they can rob off clients (either side), pointing at pendulums between monopolies (e.g., by having blanket contracts with buyers even when thaht defeats the purpose) and open competition (when the Professionals don’t even want to work with middle men b/c of lack of effectiveness).

And now, the same, but much lighter on the go-between parts and more transparent hence (sic) more efficient. Though maybe a slight bit less glitzy — but those are the characteristics of Disruptors, right ..? Yeah, causation can’t me mirrored (A Or Not B isn’t B Or Not A) but still.

Why am I tipping you on this as you might compete ..? B/c I don’t think your profile will be like mine; you might (big if) compete on the Want side but hardly on the Can side …

So I don’t care. And:
[Wouldn’t mind this as work location, either — minus the trampling tourists]

Your enhancement needed, again

Yes, enhancement needed and you are in the same sentence. Because in the back of your head, you know you need it.
And, in particular, you know you need it for the below post, which is a plain repost of an earlier one here. But that’s because I am serious about the elaboration of the ideas depicted (huh, not much more than that, yet!) into a sort of mapping thing by which one can categorise new developments but also point at pitfalls, roadblocks (not yet in the pics), et al., by which one can track developments in areas, sectors etc., to see where they’re heading.

The post on which I ask for your serious comments, then:

I have a number of pics for you… As it stands, I haven’t been able to find sufficient time to write out all that I wanted to have depicted… Meaning you’ll have to do the interpretation yourself. Like, e.g., after reading Chris Anderson’s Makers. Or, see where blockchain’s DACs will strike.
Or, I will return to describe the bits and pieces in detail.

But for those worth their salt, the interpretation of the grand overall pic will be a trifle, and the same to comment. The keyboard is yours …
[Being the full overview mentioned]

[Starting (!) with the big corp world that domimates the business press]

[And some things about the battle in the middle, with all the pressures from all sides]

[Plus of course the small-scale stuff from Makers — not all hosanna]

[The kicker, on the joblessness]

Chronology of the birth of the information society ..?

A shout-out for pointers; as Chris Anderson noted in Makers, Western society had a breakthrough in the … 18th ..? century when patents were invented.
As they signified the realization that intellectual ideas, innovations, are actually things in themselves, existing outside of physical reality. As first step on the road to Singularity. [Oh, philosophers already had the nous idea and maths; but those alien ideas didn’t get the societal traction that inventions did … (?)]
Notwithstanding (heh: ) that patents might go the way of the scaffolding under an arch: once the keystone is placed, the scaffolding can go. Once the Information Society stands on its own, patents may go ..!?
And, there’s a separate? line from ‘programming’ labour into machines powered by humans through implementation of tools etc. (spears and onwards) via ‘programming’ through implementation of machines proper, to programmable machines, to general purpose programmable ‘computers’ and now in some catch-up wave, taking all of IoT on board and moving waaay past, into programmable human minds (psychology-as-a-science driven brainwashing; was around since the dawn of time, now can be done still buggy, somewhat (sic) reliably), past humans into Watson And Friends. With such brain (sic) power, who needs friends ..?

But this all was just some ad lib rambling. What I am looking for, is actual studies into these phenomena, preferably not Hegel-oriented… Any ideas, pointers?

And this:
[Oh the days of Machine… Amsterdam]

Growth / disruption

I have a number of pics for you… As it stands, I haven’t been able to find sufficient time to write out all that I wanted to have depicted… Meaning you’ll have to do the interpretation yourself. Like, e.g., after reading Chris Anderson’s Makers. Or, see where blockchain’s DACs will strike.
Or, I will return to describe the bits and pieces in detail.

But for those worth their salt, the interpretation of the grand overall pic will be a trifle, and the same to comment. The keyboard is yours …
[Being the full overview mentioned]

[Starting (!) with the big corp world that domimates the business press]

[And some things about the battle in the middle, with all the pressures from all sides]

[Plus of course the small-scale stuff from Makers — not all hosanna]

[The kicker, on the joblessness]

Aggregation is stripping noise; close to emergence but …

Still tinkering with the troubles of the aggregation chasm (as in this here previous post) and the hardly visible but still probably most fundamentally related concept of emergent properties (as in this, on Information), when some dawn of insight crept in.
First, this:
[Somewhere IL, IN, OH; anyone has definitive bearings? JustASearchAway found it. WI]

Because I’ve dabbled with Ortega y Gasset’s stupidity of the masses for a long time. Whether they constitute Mob Rule, or are (mentally to action) captives of the (or other!) 0.1%, or what. My ‘solution’ had been to seek the societal equivalent of the Common Denominator – No! That may be in common parlance but what is meant here, much more precise, is the Greatest Common Divisor.

Since that is at work when ‘adding’ people into groups: Through stripping differences (as individuals have an urge to join groups and be recognized as members, they’ll shed those) and Anchoring around what some Evil Minds may have (consciously or not) set as GCD-equivalent idea, the GCD will reinforce itself ever more (immoral spiral of self-reinforcement), mathematically inherent through adding more elements to the group for GCD establishment and (not ‘strictly’) lowering. [The only difference being the possibility of a pre-set GCD to center around; just make it attractive enough so the mass will assemble, then shift it to need ..!] Where the still-conscious may not want to give up too much of their individuality but may have to dive under in their compliance coping cabanas just to survive (!?).

So, aggregation leads to the stripping of ground noise which may lead to patterns having been pervasively present but covered by that noise, to emerge. Like statistically, a high R2 but with a low β – but still with this β being larger than any of the others if at all present. This may be behind the ‘pattern recognition’ capabilities of Big Data: Throw in enough data and use some sophisticated methods to ensure that major subclasses will be stratified into clusters and be noise to the equation. [That GMDH, by the way, was the ground breaking method by which I showed anomalous patterns in leader/follower stock price behavior (Shipping index significantly 2-day leading one specific chemicals company; right…) in my thesis research/write-up back in 1994, on a, mind you, all hard-core coding in C on a virtual 16-core chip from mathematics down to load distribution. Eat that, recent-fancy-dancy-big-data-tool-using n00bs..!]

By which all the patterns that were under the radar will suddenly appear as patterns in Extremistan DisruptiveLand would; staying under the radar until exploding out of control through that barrier (but note this). As emergent.

But just as metadata is not Information but still only Data, the Emergent isn’t, really. Darn! Close, but no Cuban.
As the pattern is floundering on the research bed when the noise around it dries up, it is not necessarily part of every element in the data pool and potentially can only exist (be visible) at aggregate level. But can and ex-ante very much more probable be part in one or some or many elements of the pool, which would be methodologically excluded from the definition of Emergence / Emergent Characteristics (is it?). And, if the noise is quiet enough, would already be visible in the murky pool in the first place as characteristic not ‘only’ as emergent as the definition of that would have it.

So, concluding… a worthwhile thought experiment, sandblasting some unclarity, but still, little progress on understanding, felling-through-and-through, how Emergence works; what brings it about. But we should! It is that Holy Grail of jumping from mere Data to Information ..!
Joe Cocker just died a couple of weeks ago. Fulfill his request, and little help this friend here, with your additional thoughts, please…

HTTP status 418 against unpersonation

Though we’re halfway towards granting legal person rights to animals (as this and this show), and you know a lot of co-workers for whom this presents a nice little bit of progress, I’d say we have also moved great strides in the opposite direction.
Which is far more dangerous.

It all started, throughout the ages over and over again, with the already-responsibility-deprived weasels (a.k.a. ‘mere employees’ and ‘leaders’) wiggling out from under the burden of guilt for, e.g. most recently, the Sony hack, the financial crisis; you name it. With excuses ranging all the way from “I wasn’t important enough to had been able to make any noticeable difference anyway” to “If I hadn’t done it, someone else would have and at least now it was me with still some consciousness that did it” – where one’s character speaks through one’s actions …
Which in sum total, through a particularly nefarious twist of aggregation and emergence (read back this little badly unnoticed gem and you’ll get it) leads to … dehumanization of these speakers, and corporations seeking personhood as well.
Which is far more dangerous.

All of you that behave this way: You’re not underestimating the dystopian version of the Singularity, but actively bringing it on … by degrading your own independence, freedom (of mind and action!), identity, humanity, and value. By suppressing any questioning of the Überbureaucracy, actively, by frowning of much worse on those that want to remain human and social (i.e., exchange ideas). Etc. To no end.
To the end of letting the force of nature, the beast within, to explode out through the most deviant, unthinkably inhumane, behavior in particularly with the ones that were most and first in line with ratio, bureaucratic petty rules, i.e., the ones holding sway over all others including you. With the explosion hitting you, too – and you have no answer either now or then…

Complexity, of the world, of societies, of your immediate environments (Sloterdijk’s spheres, yes), of yourself, is no excuse to shut down. It should be a wake-up call, a call to arms, a sacrifice … not to ritually celebrate past developments, but to progress out of the complexity …!
My fabourite option: a healthy dose of status code 418 for all, not always, but every now and then, here and there. Life is too important to always take seriously!

Well, I’m off to some very dense prose, where mere text lines are ever more narrow in their description of the richness of the ideas and constructs to be discussed. Hence will part ways, with:
[Bam! Out explodes the force of nature]

Predictions 2015

So… The End is Nigh. Hence, my predictions for beyond it.

As 2015 is about to kick off, herewith my predictions of what happen in Internet / IT land, as notable in the global society, being part of my mind frame. Or so.
To not make things too difficult to understand, I’ve assembled a mixed bag of abstract notions and concrete(ly noticeable) stuff that will happen, interlaced with all sorts of fancy graphs and dull pictures – to make you think not applaud sheepishly. Think, think first, deeply, and then still agree with the clairvoyance of:

  1. A first easy start: The development of Appl. [censored] stock as a systemic risk to the (financial and other) world. As the 1 trillion dollar mark approaches, how much would a stock need to corner the market in terms of risk ..? In particular when it will turn out to not be hip anymore somewhere during the next year:
  2. Another of this kind: Docker. As explained before on this site, this underpinning of cloud-to-cloud portability, now backed by all the major brands and a bunch of others as well – those not in, to fall off the bandwagon, hard! –, will surface as a big-time hype catchphrase and will even get implemented quite extensively. Though the latter will remain under the surface for most outcrowd.
  3. Aie oh Tee. Yes, as it rallied to the fore already in 2014, but will now burst out in earnest. After Kurzweil’s agenda, despite Carr’s, and beyond the nerdy early innovators’ adoptions. For the various directions that IoT will develop in, see this here earlier post. These streams will become more distinct next year.
    • At least, the ‘domotics’ / wearables markets will come to full steam, in particular as retrofitting becomes easy and invisible.
    • Security and audit (vendors racing to lead the former, you may thank and reward me in advance for the latter) over IoT of all kinds, will rapidly improve. See below.
    • AI will get integrated. Because reasons. Being:
      [Useful if not when you understand what’s going on here, both (!) story lines]

  4. Disruptions: In particular the unsettling decentralization ones. Like:
    Where grassroots sharing on either the supply side, the demand side, or both, will rule.
    OR the Amazonian style of Big Corp obliterating the defenseless old, may intervene.
  5. AI. A big, very big one in 2015 – whether you like it or not, the Kurzweillian happy go lucky augmented-humanoid buds will come to fuller bloom next year.
    • E.g., the above trolley problem and similar ethical and philosophical questions will be discussed profusely, hopefully delivering some twists and turns that settle parts of the problems. All of them, probably cannot be resolved once and for all; the Gödelian knots in them, are systemic and no re-definition of the problems may prevent that. FACT. But progress is there.
    • And/or, there will be many snap-to-make-sense solutions coming out. Partly or fully automated [visual|speech]-to-[text|interpretation]-to-[information|action] will arrive on any device. Take this article as example of early stages; using spreadsheets – how Old School! but still pervasive ..!
    • And many more applications. Like this. Big G’s X Labs is at full speed. And will come with many breakthroughs…
    • Oh, even before this post aired, this here interesting development…

  6. XYZCoin will continue to develop in the next year. Structures will emerge. Look for development in all the main sectors:
    • Sorting of all the sorts of coins. Zippcoin may flourish. Litecoin, maybe. Others?
    • Wallets (software wallets, and web/mobile wallets);
    • Payment processors (payment service providers, and payment networks);
    • Exchanges (xyzCoin exchanges, spot/forward exchanges, and stock exchanges);
    • Borrowing and lending (peer to peer borrowing and lending, and bank-like borrowing and lending);
    • Hardware and equipment development (for mining and ATMs);
    • Investment vehicles (ETFs, trusts, venture funds);
    • Other (binary options, casinos, microworks sites);
    • Secondary and tertiary systems of cryptographic(‘ally provable’) unicity of IDs. This actually will be the Big One. As Zippcoin delivers a Basic Income in the economists’ sense. As DACs will do all sorts of strange things, hard to understand by most, easy to reel off in dangerous directions similar to quants having been ill-understood (at a deep, fundamental understanding/meaning level) in the financial derivatives world… And as explained here and here in its systems details.
      But then, if you’d claim to understand already, the following would be easypeasy for you to explain, right?

  7. Security. Finally, something closer to home. Here, a natural modesty may cloud the actual vast progress. Like in:
    • The spread of OSSTMM. More a gaining of ground. But from there, anything goes. ISO27k1:2013 may still go around, and will indeed have a major impact on the efficacy of InfoSec implementations – now, hopefully, where applied correctly (one fears in a precious few places only; the rest performing dismally), optimizing visibly and efficiently for maximum effect. But still, it will have to be augmented with OSSTMM(-style) concrete InfoSec business. Even when the compliance/certification Totalitarian-Bureaucrat mumbo-jumbo will continue.
    • IoT security. Vendors are onto this now, mainly in the B-Internal and B2B markets (explained in these posts).
    • Encryption of data by default, throughout. Quite an example of InfoSec basics spreading under the radar. Even socmed tools will incorporate this. Effectiveness (security levels achieved) may vary widely, but the attention is good. Very good.

OK. So far, so good. First, let’s celebrate the end of the year commemorative days, in a solemn and thankful, humble way. Then, party like it’s 2015 all the way. And, I’ll leave you with:
[Not oft seen, at Viana do Castelo]

[Edited to add: I’ve upgraded the predictions a bit, and turned them into a PPT. Yeah, I can do More Slick but this: ISACA Zuid 2015 01 21 (in Dutch but you get it) is how it is…:]

Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord