Failure in those Corporation Thingies

"Product failure is deceptively difficult to understand. It depends not just on how customers use a product but on the intrinsic properties of each part- what it's made of and how those materials respond to wildly varying conditions. Estimating a product's lifespan is an art that even the most sophisticated manufacturers still struggle with. And it's getting harder. In our Moore's law-driven age, we expect devices to continuously be getting smaller, lighter, more powerful, and more efficient. This thinking has seeped into our expectations about lots of product categories: Cars must get better gas mileage. Bicycles must get lighter. Washing machines need to get clothes cleaner with less water. Almost every industry is expected to make major advances every year. To do this they are constantly reaching for new materials and design techniques. All this is great for innovation, but it's terrible for reliability."

 Super interesting article from Wired on how failure affects the large companies that try to control it.

The Truest Thing Known to Man

 

Thanks Doghouse Diaries.

I Don't Think I Understand Art Anymore

Apparently there's a new work out in New York at the Park Avenue Armory called "WS" (White Snow). (See: GalleristNY or Gothamist reviews here.) It's a big deal because it's seen as an official symbol of departure from the type of "safe" works that usually are put on display and focuses solely on the more controversial types of art that can only come when you're really "cutting edge".

People are angry about this because Paul McCarthy has asked that this installment be rated NC-17. That's right, no one under the age of 17 is allowed into this exhibit. People argue that things that have age ratings shouldn't be funded with government funds. The curator argues that art has dark sides, and, like all art, this type of exhibit will (essentially) be in the eye of the beholder. Just because it's darker doesn't mean its not art or that it's not valid. Although all involved agree that it's a "rough" exhibit (read: a man masturbating to orgasm, violent, staged murder scenes, strong implications of strongly--bacchanalian? behavior), the museum will definitely have a lot to explain-- and defend.

NSFV: Not Suitable for the Valley

“We reached a tipping point, where the value of having user data rose beyond the cost of storing it,” said Dan Auerbach, a technology analyst with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an electronic privacy group in San Francisco. “Now we have an incentive to keep it forever.” 

Project Chess? Prism? I'm not even mad about all of this spying stuff-- I'm just mad that they had so much creativity to give it such awesome names when I have to deal with stuff like the USCIS to get an FOIA to find out information about my only family. Just sayin'.

Maybe people just have spying on the brain, but the most recent Times Article: Web's Reach Binds NSA and Silicon Valley Leaders, hints that the rebellious, anti-establishment valley that we once knew might not be what we thought it was.

Did you know that the chief security officer for Facebook left and joined the NSA? That Skype had eavesdropping capabilities even before it left and became part of Microsoft? That maybe these companies are targeting foreigners and using their treasure troves of information in order to spy on people of interest? It's entirely possible that all of these accusations are entirely overblown, but in a world where everyone pays (in one way or another) for information, has data become king?

As consumers, did we give up this right as we bought more and more into the services that these companies offered us? Music, email, file sharing and apps? Is that what we traded our freedom for? Is it even that big of a deal? I have a very biased opinion, being born in a generation where this type of "privacy" didn't matter-- like they said during the Obama eavesdropping fiasco, "If you don't have anything to hide, then this shouldn't matter to you!", to which millions of angry Americans yelled, "I don't have anything to hide but I still don't want to tell you what I'm not hiding!". So the argument goes. I, personally, am not that worried about them knowing that I talked to my best friend about her new job or my inability to grow grass (it's really hard, ok?) in my front lawn. I happily trade that for email, music and apps, but my feelings shouldn't be the rule.

From one perspective, the government is a heavy investor to Silicon Valley companies-- by all accounts they might be the reason why these companies have the money to have cutting edge technology. On the other hand, the consumer could just be a victim in this weird love relationship. Joe Shmoe didn't sign up for the government to listen to his conversations! Jane Doe didn't sign up for the government to watch her while she sent emails to her friends! But, harking back to the technologist's words-- we reached a point where having user data rose above the cost of storing it. What will make another tipping point?

Why Security Isn't Secure

I read an interesting article in Wired the other day called "Kill the Password: Why a String of Characters Can't Protect Us Anymore". It was terrifying. I feel like I just can't trust anyone anymore. In it, author Mat Honan talked about how in a matter of days, his entire life was erased by a hacker that got access to his Twitter, Gmail, Facebook and more. He also posted a really terrifying chat transcript with Applecare where in under 20 lines, he got the Applecare representative to give him access to have a new password and changed the password.

His basic argument is pretty easy actually-- terrifyingly so. Start with basic information about someone, plug that into any one of many shady sites where I can acquire social security numbers for next to no money, combine that with publicly known information (address, phone number, first car, hometown, high school mascot) and you're pretty much in. If someone uses the same password for multiple platforms, your job is done! If not, you can definitely use a hacked gmail account to change passwords/gain access to other applications just by clicking "forgot password". Terrifying.

The one thing that this made me realize is how tenuous our relationship with "security" is, and actually, why we still think that we're so secure. Do we really think that those 6-8 alphanumeric characters are really going to keep our bank accounts safe? Especially in light of all the information that we're freely publishing on Facebook and Twitter? Maybe those Luddites had it right when they decided not to get involved in that hullabaloo altogether. Also, do I care if someone hacks into my Facebook (apparently someone hacked into his social media accounts and started posting hate speech) if it's obviously not me? (I'm a lover, not a fighter.) Also, why do people do this? (The answer is that they're kids pretty much who are doing it, and they're doing it because...well, why not?) More terrifying.

Excuse me while I go change every single application that I own.

This is the Face of Future Crime

He's so bored with you he can't even keep his eyes open.

No, I'm kidding. So there was a recent news story about how one man went and stole thousands of dollars due to mobile banking. I clicked on it, imagining the terrible things that were going to happen in the near future-- the apocalyptic near-- because someone had finally figured out a way to crack the system and bring reality to those fears we all had about criminals stealing all of our hard earned money using the very same technology that we all have learned to use and trust.

What I got was a little bit of a different story. Basically, this guy went and ordered Western Union money orders, deposited them using QuickDeposit, and then would go into grocery stores and cash them in person, essentially cashing them twice. This, I would like to point out, is a problem with the lagging refresh rate of back end systems, not really a problem with mobile. I repeat, this is not something that we can blame on mobile. Just want to point that out.

Crisis averted people. Go about your business. Nothing to see here.

Performance Play

I know I talk about my school a lot, but I swear, it's not because I'm on some weird propaganda play. It's really just because my school releases some interesting research (and is filled with really...interesting..people) and so the stories abound. I came across this article in my Economist about how you motivate people ("Making Pay Work"). This was interesting to me for two reasons: I like to be motivated, preferably by a happy, warm fuzzy feeling or, more commonly through financial means. I also like to motivate people. I've been chosen at school to be a LEAD Facilitator. This means I'm one of a group of second years that will be one of the first to welcome our 1st years to school in the fall, and we'll also moderate a class for these first years (called LEAD for Leadership Effectiveness and Development) that's basically a leadership class. For obvious reasons, motivation is really important in this case.

In the article, they cite that you can have a system of punishment and rewards (catch more criminals if you increase the probability that they will get caught and the severity of punishment once caught) and that you can also incentivize through money or intrinsic motivation. So they did an experiment where two groups were given a 3D puzzle and asked to create a variety of shapes. Because the puzzle was challenging and mentally taxing, intrinsic motivation was high. One group left alone worked hard. The other group was monitored and given a $1 reward for each shape they completed successfully. And then...."This payment was later withdrawn with the result that the second group now put in less effort than the first. Its members switched off, turning instead to Playboy or the New Yorker."  Now what type of experiment offers Playboy and the New Yorker? And were there any men in this study? They preferred to solve puzzles than look at Playboy in spare time? What kind of weird, inaccurate experiment was this?!

I also learned (about myself) that I'm one of those people they claim as motivated by fairness. On one hand, I have a strong desire to help those I find helpful. On the flip side, I have a desire to punish those I don't find helpful. So there's that.

Ultimately, the article concludes that one should monitor harshly or not monitor at all, because the middle ground (that most favored by scientists) actually have strong drawbacks, whereas the extremes have fewer draw backs. Better get to hardcore slacking off then.

I'd Gladly Pay You Tomorrow...for a Burger Today

I love this. So.... going to Booth, we talk a lot about the economy because apparently there's been a lot of people who went to my school that were into that sort of thing. I suppose it's kind of important or something so they've developed a lot of algorithms, equations, general theories and sometimes interpretive dances to measure, quantify, analyze, track or gauge the way the economy is moving, trending, changing, increasing and decreasing. It's been an exhausting tenure for the economists at my school-- they've been busy.

But the problem is, I've learned, that the economy doesn't really like being measured. I mean, there's a lot of variables! You have to look an employment (or lack thereof as the case has been recently), population (we're not a 100% on how to measure this yet-- is it working age? All? How do we count for people who've moved back home to their parents? How about the parents that are now living with their kids? It depends who you ask apparently), how we define the poverty line, where in the nation or the globe the people are located, and how we define "standard of living".

One tried and true measure that has been used for a long time is the CPI (Consumer Price Index) which is basically a baselined measure of how much stuff (predetermined, set, unchanging stuff) people can buy with a set amount of money. This supposedly helps us benchmark so we can figure out inflation in a more accurate way. We recently changed the way we define it, but that's another story. There's a lot of qualms about why the CPI is inaccurate , but we really didn't have anything better. Until now.

So The Economist (I'm catching up on my back copies of The Economist, ok? Don't judge me, I just finished my finals and I had a lot of Bones to catch up on) made up their own index that they call the Big Mac Index. Follow me. Also, if you don't know who the guy above is, you really need to get out more. Or less. Or live in the 50s. Whatever, you're choice.

The Economist made it real easy. They based it on a symbol of Americana-- a global behemoth that's expanded to the far reaches of the world-- that can be found anywhere if you're hungry enough. The Big Mac Index is actually based on something real (!!)-- the PPP (theory of Purchasing Power Parity) according to which prices and exchange rates should adjust over the long run, so that identical baskets of tradable goods cost the same across countries. Their "basket of goods" in essence is only one thing-- a big mac. So for those that are worried about currency wars (countries purposely downplaying their currencies to give their exporters a boost in a world anxious about recovery), rest assured knowing that a Canadian burger costs $5.39 compared to the average price of about $4.37 in the US. In Mexico, it's only $2.90, suggesting the peso is 33% below its long run value relative to the dollar. The index actually suggests that currencies are overvalued in Norway, Switzerland and Brazil. The euro, in contrast, is now around 12% too expensive relative to the dollar, which could be dangerous as an indication of minimal boosting the ailing euro area. Compare this to China, which has barely moved toward fair market value, most likely due to meddling by government/banks and government banks who rely on exports as their lifeline. Big Macs can't be wrong!! Mac attack anyone?

Brave New Machines

In the recent economist article, "The Age of Smart Machines", they spotlight two management theorists (Is that even a thing? Is this real? Is that like a consultant for consultants? Because this is getting real meta real fast, and I don't know if I feel comfortable with that. Just sayin'.) from MIT Sloan who are apparently real gung-ho about the possibility of humans making themselves obsolete.

They call them "smart machines", and they really are all around us-- I mean Google's making a car that drives itself, my phone tells me when to wake up and what I have to do every day, every search engine in the world can suggest things for me to buy based on what other things I've bought in the past, and there's wristbands that you can wear to tell you how fast (or slow) you're losing weight. Is this the brave new world that we'd always hoped for?

Apparently these consultant consultants both agree that "knowledge workers" (yup, that's a term now-- it really just means "people who are white collar workers" or "people who are in the service industry" on a very fundamental level but it doesn't make them feel degraded) are on their way out. Backed up by the McKinsey Global Institute (they also go by the cool acronym MGI to feel more like super spies), they point to machine learning, voice recognition and nantotechnology as the drivers that are making this new universe possible. MGI, on a more uplifting note, argues that this evolution is a good thing-- by being spared relatively undemanding tasks, knowledge workers can focus on the more complex ones, making them ultimately more productive. The downside, championed by (Erik Brynjolfson and Andrew McAfee from MIT Sloan-- the consultant consultants), is a little bleaker, and foresees that modern technologies will widen inequality, increase social exclusion and provoke a backlash.

I don't want to be a Luddite or anything, but I want everyone just to hold on to their pants for one quick second. Just because things are modernizing doesn't mean that we're all going to lose our minds and miraculously leap into this new world and allow robots to take over my house (though, if they do the laundry then I'll consider it). What I'm saying is that things will probably be gradual (first of all). Second of all, even after adoption occurs, a tool is really only as good as the person using it. I mean, in a super tangential example, we really could use all of the guns in the world as really small planters if we wanted. (Hey, I'm not saying that we're super efficient in this hypothetical alter universe, I'm just saying we have options.) So although this article is interesting, I feel like taking sides this early in the game is a little premature. We don't know what's going to happen because we don't know how these new changes are going to be adopted in our society. Would we have a different world if we had a network of self-driving cars where special preference was given to emergency vehicles? How would that compare if we these self-driving cars were priced at $180,000 each? What if we created it to fill in the gaps that public transportation left behind? What would P2P car sharing look like then? All I'm saying is that, in this big land of unknowns, let's not start pointing directional fingers until we know how much stuff costs. Or at least if it's going to do my laundry.