Tag: collaborative economy

DNA not so Determinant; there goes another piece of Evidence

[ Commemoration of the Dead, today in the Netherlands. Never forgotten. Never forget! ]

In the series of surrealisation of proof, in courts and elsewhere, turning anything into faker news than before – a trend that was under way already for a long time, maybe centuries but now speeding up enormously – after the most recent class of proof (yes don’t complain I’m clear, qua ‘class’!) we have even old (?) evidence classes being overthrown. Like, your DNA.
Somehow, we already knew that. Where the analogue of hash collisions happened IRL, with disastrous consequences for peoples’ lives, and that of their families, et al. Really, imagine yourself in the midst of it all: Ragnarök and the collapse of the foundations of society … I’m not joking any bit.

But now, again. What Evidence classes remain? When each and every class can be planted, fabricated (signatures, pictures; untraceably), coerced (‘rat out your partner or all of your family will be killed before your eyes’), etc., indeed nothing remains. Nothing non-repudiatory…

But flipside; Skynet is here. Like before.

And:
[Either way, you lose; Zuid-As Ams]

The Secret of Innovators — “Keep on trying harder!”

Recalling all those ‘motivational’ quotes about seriously too late, ridiculously over-aged to ever still start a unicorn eleven-somethings, you having to fail for the rest of your life or you’re a failure (right? If you don’t fail, you don’t learn or whatev’), or in conclusion, you’re not failing grossly enough if you don’t succeed – or was it the other way around ..?

Suddenly I realised: If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Then quit. There’s no point in being a damn fool about it. (W.C. Fields)
And: The above keep-on-trying train / ship of fools, is a perfect application of The Secret to innovation.

Yes, indeed, ‘perfect’ with the pejorative tone you carry throughout the day. And The Secret being that oh so rightfully discredited piece of paper (!) waste that even today some still believe in; would you believe it?
Yes, have a fresh look at the first line above: It’s the same as the book’s content.

On a less black-and-white note: Aren’t ‘Innovators’ typified as those that naïvely believe that one just have to deny very hard that anything might not work, just put in endless effort and hey presto you’ll succeed? If you fail, you didn’t deny hard enough.
[ Or you’re outright criminally breaking the law, then complain that the law needs to be changed to allow you to reap unethically large profits for just-above cold air, like the … U know who … Why am I not allowed to be a gun for hire!? I make good money out of it and the current system doesn’t get my opponents killed fast enough! Totally ineffective! but that’s beside the main line of this post…]

Where actual Innovators that win in the end, are (what you read in Originals plus) the ones seeking the highest-risk roadblocks and undo them when possible or evade them, believing that fortune will come your way when caring against ill fortune.

So no putting your life’s all into something and hope you’ll win life’s lottery of purely accidental unicorn success, but spread your bets, cut losses, etc. Less exiting a gamble maybe but less of your life at stake.

Plus:
[Down (to) the Tube(s); for no apparent reason and no reference to ‘Samsu’ in the background either, Vienna]

Common(s) as privacy and vice versa ..?

Remember from your econ class that concept of The Commons, and how problematic it was? Is?
There was this intriguing post recently, on how Free Speech might be considered and deliberated in terms of the commons being exhausted by undue over-use (abuse) — for its use alone ( → ). Leading to aversity of the concept not of the abuser or his (sic) apparent locally recognised but globally not, ‘valid’ reason(s) for over-use.

Which, as is my wont of the moment, driven by personal business interests, I took to be applicable to Privacy as well. Maybe not in the same way, but … This will need quite some discussion between me on the one hand, and peers and others on the other who would actually know what they’re talking about. Throwing in a bit of anglo-american data-isn’t-yours versus European (‘continental’ — will brexit – which starts to sound like a lame Benny Hill kind of joke ever more – change that ..??) data-is-datasubject’s-always divides, and some more factors here and there. Complicating matters, but hey life’s not perfect.

Waddayathink? In for a discussion ..? Let’s start!

And:
[Not so very common-s; Toronto]

Mastodon as a grassy patch

Just one of those things, questions, that swirl into my mind every so (too) often: What if, when, Mastodon is the Woodstock of social media ..? Wouldn’t that be grand. All pick your own Hendrix in this. Suggestion: him ;-|
On the serious side; the festival itself was hardly in mainstream news at the time, but (helped) triggered major societal changes. Let’s hope Big M (not with ac but on AC/DC) does the same, in these times of need. For such change.

Oh, and:
[No, this is not doctored or otherwise edited. Zuid-As, Ams]

FOMO as FOYA gone bad

The enslavement to socmed seems to be a generation- … less thing: Unfortunately, all too many seem to need to be connected — mistakenly, just liking things will not lead to a true connection; how many are there that actually grow into such? Only on apps that are specifically aimed to that –swipe-left– otherwise, not so much. Or hardly. Most socmed like-affiliations are a. for sheeple attaching themselves to some brand(s), indicating their lack of self-esteem by submitting themselves as consumer-onlies, b. for lack of dare to actually do something for a Good Cause but wanting to be associated with Successful-in-life people [i.e., actual do-somethings] nevertheless. No c. to think of, qua ‘most’.

What remains, is a hard to miss impression of the truth, being that socmed attachments (mostly to the worst-on-ethics corp behemoths rather than anything) are panicked FOMO symptoms to the world, signalling a much deeper problematic psyche, being the Fear Of Youself As-is; FOYA.
That’s right. Individualism having gone so far as to drive all those that subconsciously cling to group belonging much more than is societally acceptable ( or so it seems!), i.e., the vast majority (of Like-serfs), to seek ways to still attach to something that can slurp up their feeling of insecurity (on their own) and return a pat on the back for group support.

You get it. Can ramble on, but have little time. And:
[An affiliation choice!; Amsterdam]

On your own, or forever be weak

Just a note that ‘cyber’security vendors (that hate #ditchcyber) will not save you whatever their claims are. Because they live off the perpetuation of the problem, and will make you weaker by lack of upkeep of your strengths at whatever levels they were.
Just a note that this applies to ‘intelligent’ devices of whatever sorts, too. Like, The Shallows squared; Home voice-recognising butlering devices (is there a category name for those already? The Echo’s, Alexia’s, Home’s I mean) or the bots out there on the ‘net, self-driving cars, etc.etc.

So, ed-ju-cay-shun is still to be pursued, in all directions! And:
DSC_0711
[Yes art education as well, to not skew your persepctive…; DC sculpture garden]

Electing Coke

Haven’t seen too many comparisons between Coke’s notorious botched A/B testing New Coke on the one hand, and the oh so similar (are they) recent US elections on the other.
If any of you would have a pointer to such an analysis, I’d be glad to hear.

That’s all. And:

[Which side you’d choose ..? Who cares about you / your choice ..? Zuid-As Amsterdam]

Integrity it is / ain't the quote

Given the recent upswing in attention for integrity, it is not strange but unfortunate to see the phrase and concept being so warped it has become a newspeak pastiche.

Integrity … taken as zealously chasing the company’s apparent only purpose… Integrity, taken as the ‘more than compliance’ ideal, then (almost exclusively) pursued in ways that seek only meek compliance with integrity rules [note the irony of ‘integrity’ and ‘rules’ other than in opposition] to get rid of the Dutch Uncles that without fail (yes) fail their own lessons.

Stemming of course from the misconception or more straighforward, lie that employees are only as integer as they align their efforts with the company’s objectives (when push comes to shove, profit being the only one that matters, don’t lie to me or to yourself or to the world ..!).

But then, you miss the mark. Even those that pursue their bizarre political aims through shooting up / blowing up as many totally innocent and irrelevant strangers, claim their integrity … not with the things you’d consider defensible but they do; in their warped-beyond-repair mind they act sincerely and with integrity to their (idiotic) ideas and morale, ethics.

On a less damaging note, re-study Bruce, e.g., as holiday present to ask for (from yourself ;-), and see that integrity may not be what you’re after after all. Integrity being on the side of, and of, the employees individually, for themselves. If they sell their expertise to some company, it’s only that that they can reasonably be expected to deliver, not all and their soul …!

All this, combined with the ridicule in:

“Integrity is a muscle you have to train every day”.

Which points out that apparently, every day you have to separately train (how?) integrity whereas the pool of metrics to determine the efficacy of the training is a vast desert (as it should; all that is of value, is immeasurable and vice versa) — and do you really need that much training; apparently people will daily find so many more detractors …!?

Plus, those that still cling to the above illogic (mult.) about integrity, may need to train their lung muscles every day in similar vein. Or not. Yes, if you’d really understand integrity, you’d see that it is a similar body function.

Oh well, plus:
DSCN7008
[The aeons old fight of Order versus Chaos, often mistaken as Good versus Evil; Sevilla]

Nocial Media

… How did yesterday’s post know about what I type here now ..?

Too easy. Now for something real:
Nocial Media.
Which is about the distribution of socmed interactions.

Because, the best we have so far is stratified data, by country, age group / gender. Which totally misses that, my guess [hence: fact], a great many relations, either current/frequent or distant/loose, are distributed over a different set of classes. Like, a chunk will be global among peers of any sort (or several of such groups), but also the other chunk will be local, traditional, geo- or socially close like (well, F2F peers but they’re an in-between group) family, IRL colleagues, and association co-members.

Now, would any of you have data on such, probably exponential-in-many-directions, distributions ..? I’d love to hear, TIA.

Oh and on a side note; maybe worthwhile to have some sociology expert elucidate on this: What-how is our future when ‘kids these days’ use /Insta…/Snapch… etc. that leave so little trail; how will your future self be able to browse through old youth pics …? [Advertisers will … Be very sure of that…]

Plus:
DSCN8592
[What bin you’re in — Zuid-As Amsterdam]

Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord