#tech disruption

[unitedstatesrei]

Why Texas Is Ground Zero for Real Estate Tech Disruption

Key Takeaways Texas is quickly emerging as a central hub for real estate tech disruption due to a combination of tech hubs, skilled talent, and innovative PropTech startups. Blockchain technology is being utilized to make property deals more efficient, while smart-home tech is transforming living experiences. This tech-driven environment in Texas is poised to redefine financial freedom for many. The Shifting Landscape of Real Estate in Texas Did you know Texas is rapidly becoming the epicenter of real estate tech disruption? It's not just the friendly business climate—it's the fusion of thriving tech hubs, a surge of skilled talent, and a wave of innovative PropTech startups. Imagine harnessing blockchain to streamline property deals or smart-home tech transforming the way you live. Curious about how this setting could redefine your financial freedom? Let's uncover the secrets behind Texas's tech-driven real estate revolution. The Impact of Tech Industry Expansion on Real Estate When it comes to the tech industry expansion in Texas, you're at the forefront of a real estate revolution. High-paying jobs from giants like Apple and Tesla are drawing a wave of skilled workers to places like Austin. This influx is triggering a surge in housing demand, pushing median home values to around $536,565. You see young professionals and remote workers flocking to urban areas, keen for modern housing. But here’s the rub: this population migration is squeezing housing affordability, creating a supply-demand imbalance that drives up both home prices and rental rates. With Texas's real estate market characterized by high rental demand and a moderate rental supply holding steady, investors are poised to benefit from these dynamics. The ongoing situation in Texas parallels Manhattan's office space challenges, where remote work and workplace transformations are redefining market landscapes. As an investor or entrepreneur, understanding these dynamics is essential. You’re not just witnessing a housing market shift; you're part of a bold, new wave. The challenge is clear—finding innovative ways to address the affordability issue while tapping into the tech-driven demand. Your role? Harness these trends, leverage real estate tech, and ride this financial adventure. Infrastructure Development Driving Urban Connectivity You're standing at the crossroads of a thrilling real estate evolution, where the tech boom's ripple effects are meeting the dynamism of Texas's infrastructure overhaul. This state's unprecedented urban transit and infrastructure resilience investments are reshaping urban connectivity. With $148 billion earmarked over a decade, Texas is setting a new standard in infrastructure development. Texas faces a digital divide affecting nearly one-quarter of its population. Strategic investments and cross-functional collaboration are needed for improvement in broadband access, which is crucial for economic opportunities and connectivity. Investment Area Priority Focus Impact on Urban Connectivity Highways & Bridges Capacity expansion, modernization Reduced congestion Urban Transit Light rail, bus rapid transit Improved intra-city mobility Digital Infrastructure Smart traffic systems Real-time traffic management Airport Upgrades International connectivity Enhanced business ties Multi-modal Hubs Integrated transport options Seamless urban-suburban commutes You're witnessing a bold transformation. The integration of digital infrastructure into transportation projects enhances urban transit, ensuring infrastructure resilience. Texas's strategic investments are not just improving mobility; they're crafting a blueprint for the future of urban living. The Rise of PropTech Startups and Innovations Texas is rapidly becoming the epicenter of a PropTech revolution that's reshaping the real estate environment as you know it. With 125 PropTech firms, it's the third-largest PropTech hub in the U.S., led by Austin's thriving startup ecosystem.

Imagine powerful PropTech trends transforming diverse sectors—from leasing management and construction billing to digital property trading. Texas-based companies like Dottid and Tenant Cloud are revolutionizing leasing tools, while SwivelMeta explores the metaverse for innovative commercial real estate experiences. Another trend at the forefront is the use of AI-powered market analysis to provide investors with real-time insights and predictive analytics for more informed decision-making. You see, venture capital is the fuel driving these innovations. Texas ranks high for PropTech funding, with significant support for early-stage startups. In fact, Texas reported notable investments such as Bedrock Energy's $12 million Series A round, highlighting the state's prominence in the industry. This capital influx nurtures groundbreaking solutions like AI-enhanced platforms, digital home closings by Endpoint, and secure transaction systems from Closinglock. Welcome this wave of change; it's a golden opportunity to leverage cutting-edge tech for real estate success. Plunge into, and ride the PropTech tide boldly into the future. Economic and Regulatory Factors Favoring Disruption Envision this: Texas isn't just riding the wave of real estate disruption; it's shaping the very currents. The Lone Star State's economic environment is a powerhouse, with steady job growth and population increases driving robust demand. You're witnessing a market that thrives on urbanization, where the call for apartments and rentals fuels innovation. This dynamism is underpinned by economic diversification, making the market resilient against sector-specific downturns. Imagine regulatory flexibility that encourages development. Texas offers a framework that supports residential expansion to meet growing demand. It's a state where tax incentives create a fertile ground for investment, allowing you to capitalize on emerging opportunities. Even as tariffs introduce uncertainties, the increased inventory and new construction permits signal potential price relief. You're standing in a market ripe for tech integration, poised for disruption. With projected permits for 165,000 single-family units in 2025, Texas signals a commitment to expanding its housing market to meet the growing demand. By utilizing a 1031 exchange effectively, investors in Texas can further enhance their investment potential and fuel real estate growth. Texas isn't just a player; it's the field where the future of real estate unfolds. Sustainable Building Practices and Smart-Home Integration Envision this: You're standing at the forefront of a real estate revolution, where sustainable building practices and smart-home integration are redefining the boundaries of what's possible in Texas real estate. Picture smart building systems that harness energy efficiency by tailoring lighting and climate control to your lifestyle. Imagine advanced, sustainable materials with lower carbon footprints replacing outdated construction methods. These innovations, combined with solar panels and energy-efficient HVAC systems, are transforming Texas homes into eco-friendly powerhouses. Government policies promote the adoption of these eco-friendly technologies, providing incentives like tax breaks and grants to encourage sustainable development. Eco-friendly buildings often have higher property values, attracting quality tenants and benefiting investors. Your journey into this sustainable future is guided by certifications like LEED and Energy Star, which elevate property values and market desirability. As you adopt smart-home integration, think about controlling your home’s energy use with a tap on your phone. IoT devices enhance your experience while reducing waste and boosting efficiency. This tech transformation isn’t just about homes; it’s about creating healthier communities and seizing economic opportunities that Texas offers. Plunge into this and lead the charge! Assessment You're at the forefront of a real estate transformation in Texas, where innovation reigns supreme.

Did you catch that PropTech investments have skyrocketed by 300% in just the past year? This incredible growth spells huge opportunities for you. Dive into the tech-driven changes revolutionizing the property landscape, from blockchain to smart-home wonders. Don't just sit back and watch—be a leader in this movement. Use these trends to chart your path to financial independence. It's time to embrace the future, where real estate and tech brilliance come together.

[theblindmachine]

"# The Future of Content: Embracing Spatial Computing Originally published on Livestream.com on October 29, 2019, at 11:04 PM CDT, the dialogue surrounding "Spatial Computing and the Future of Content" has surged with an urgency that can no longer be ignored. As we stand on the precipice of a new era in technology, voices like those of Adaora Udoji, Debra Simmons, Dr. John Pavlik, and Ben Erwin resonate deeply, urging us to redefine our relationship with content and how we experience the world. Adaora Udoji, a media innovator with an uncanny ability to navigate the complexities of emerging tech and digital transformation, set the stage with her keen insights. She emphasized that spatial computing isn’t just about the technology that powers it, but about a fundamental shift in how we engage with content. Imagine glancing at a cityscape and instantly accessing layers of digital information superimposed on the physical world. This is not sci-fi; it's the near future that Udoji envisions, one where our environments become active participants in our education and interaction. Debra Simmons, founder and CEO of LEVER3, echoed this vision with her emphasis on inclusivity in technological advancements. Simmons underscored the need to empower diverse creators to shape the narratives within these burgeoning spaces. She boldly asserted that spatial computing must democratize content creation, spotlighting new voices and allowing them to thrive. This movement towards inclusivity isn’t just honorable; it’s essential in crafting a comprehensive narrative for our collective future. Meanwhile, Dr. John Pavlik of Rutgers School of Communication and Information provided a scholar's lens on the implications of our digital pivot. His insights connected the dots between the evolving media landscape and the fusion of content with immersive experiences—highlighting a future where virtual and augmented realities merge seamlessly with everyday life. As we analyze the trajectory of journalism and communication, Pavlik's predictions serve as a clarion call to embrace innovation while navigating the ethical implications of this spatial revolution. Ben Erwin, as Conference Director of Silicon Harlem, encapsulated the urgency of scalability in this new frontier. He challenged attendees to consider not only the ‘how’ but the ‘who’ in the deployment of spatial technologies. Erwin’s call to action emphasized that the future of content shouldn’t just be accessible but should also reflect the diversity of the communities engaged with it. As we push forward, our conversations must extend beyond the tech itself and consider long-term impacts on society at large. In summary, the October 2019 event sparked crucial discussions that go beyond mere technological advancements. It forced us to confront the narrative frameworks that define us and to consider how emerging technologies will change the way we connect, create, and consume content. As we continue to explore spatial computing, let’s ensure that the future we build is not only innovative but inclusive, thoughtful, and reflective of the diverse world we inhabit. The time to embrace this future is now. Let’s not just observe the transformation; let’s be a part of it."

[pier-carlo-universe]

La Rielezione di Trump e l'Alba di una Nuova Era di Caos Informativo

Negli ultimi anni, abbiamo assistito a un cambiamento radicale nel modo in cui l’informazione viene creata, condivisa e consumata. La prima fase di questa trasformazione digitale, guidata dai social media, è quasi al termine e la fase successiva promette una maggiore turbolenza. Con l’avvento dei giganti della tecnologia, il potere di pochi individui di plasmare il discorso pubblico globale è…

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Gandersauce

I'm on a 20+ city book tour for<p>placehold://://er </p> my new novel PICKS AND SHOVELS. Catch me in AUSTIN on MONDAY (Mar 10). I'm also appearing at SXSW and at many events around town, for Creative Commons and Fediverse House. More tour dates here.

It's true that capitalists by and large hate capitalism – given their druthers, entrepreneurs would like to attain a perch from which they get to set prices and wages and need not fear competitors. A market where everything is up for grabs is great – if you're the one doing the grabbing. Less so if you're the one whose profits, customers and workers are being grabbed at.

But while all capitalists hate all capitalism, a specific subset of capitalists really, really hate a specific kind of capitalism. The capitalists who hate capitalism the most are Big Tech bosses, and the capitalism they hate the most is techno-capitalism. Specifically, the techno-capitalism of the first decade of this century – the move fast/break things capitalism, the beg forgiveness, not permission capitalism, the blitzscaling capitalism.

The capitalism tech bosses hate most of all is disruptive capitalism, where a single technological intervention, often made by low-resourced individuals or small groups, can upend whole industries. That kind of disruption is only fun when you're the disruptor, but it's no fun for the disruptees.

Jeff Bezos's founding mantra for Amazon was "your margin is my opportunity." This is a classic disruption story: I'm willing to take a smaller profit than the established players in the industry. My lower prices will let me poach their customers, so I grow quickly and find more opportunities to cut margins but make it up in volume. Bezos described this as a flywheel that would spin faster and faster, rolling up more and more industries. It worked!

https://techcrunch.com/2016/09/10/at-amazon-the-flywheel-effect-drives-innovation/

The point of that flywheel wasn't the low prices, of course. Amazon is a paperclip-maximizing artificial intelligence, and the paperclip it wants to maximize is profits, and the path to maximum profits is to charge infinity dollars for things that cost you zero dollars. Infinite prices and nonexistent wages are Amazon's twin pole-stars. Amazon warehouse workers don't have to be injured at three times the industry average, but maiming workers is cheaper than keeping them in good health. Once Amazon vanquished its competitors and captured the majority of US consumers, it raised prices, and used its market dominance to force everyone else to raise their prices, too. Call it "bezosflation":

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/25/greedflation/#commissar-bezos

We could disrupt Amazon in lots of ways. We could scrape all of Amazon's "ASIN" identifiers and make browser plugins that let local sellers advertise when they have stock of the things you're about to buy on Amazon:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/07/10/view-a-sku/

We could hack the apps that monitor Amazon drivers, from their maneuvers to their eyeballs, so drivers had more autonomy and their bosses couldn't punish them for prioritizing their health and economic wellbeing over Amazon's. An Amazon delivery app mod could even let drivers earn extra money by delivering for Amazon's rivals while they're on their routes:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/12/algorithmic-wage-discrimination/#fishers-of-men

We could sell Amazon customers virtual PVRs that let them record and keep the shows they like, which would make it easier to quit Prime, and would kill Amazon's sleazy trick of making all the Christmas movies into extra-cost upsells from November to January:

https://www.amazonforum.com/s/question/0D54P00007nmv9XSAQ/why-arent-all-the-christmas-movies-available-through-prime-its-a-pandemic-we-are-stuck-at-home-please-add-the-oldies-but-goodies-to-prime

Rival audiobook stores could sell jailbreaking kits for Audible subscribers who want to move over to a competing audiobook platform, stripping Amazon's DRM off all their purchases and converting the files to play on a non-Amazon app:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/07/25/can-you-hear-me-now/#acx-ripoff

Jeff Bezos's margin could be someone else's opportunity…in theory. But Amazon has cloaked itself – and its apps and offerings – in "digital rights management" wrappers, which cannot be removed or tampered with under pain of huge fines and imprisonment:

https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/

Amazon loves to disrupt, talking a big game about "free markets and personal liberties" – but let someone attempt to do unto Amazon as Amazon did unto its forebears, and the company will go running to Big Government for a legal bailout, asking the state to enforce its business model:

https://apnews.com/article/washington-post-bezos-opinion-trump-market-liberty-97a7d8113d670ec6e643525fdf9f06de

You'll find this cowardice up and down the tech stack, wherever you look. Apple launched the App Store and the iTunes Store with all kinds of rhetoric about how markets – paying for things, rather than getting them free through ads – would correct the "market distortions." Markets, we were told, would produce superior allocations, thanks to price and demand signals being conveyed through the exchange of money for goods and services.

But Apple will not allow itself to be exposed to market forces. They won't even let independent repair shops compete with their centrally planned, monopoly service programs:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/05/22/apples-cement-overshoes/

Much less allow competitors to create rival app stores that compete for users and apps:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/06/spoil-the-bunch/#dma

They won't even refurbishers re-sell parts from phones and laptops that are beyond repair:

https://www.shacknews.com/article/108049/apple-repair-critic-louis-rossmann-takes-on-us-customs-counterfeit-battery-seizure

And they take the position that if you do manage to acquire a donor part from a dead phone or laptop, that it is a felony – under the same DRM laws that keep Amazon's racket intact – to install them in a busted device:

https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/27/24097042/right-to-repair-law-oregon-sb1596-parts-pairing-tina-kotek-signed

"Rip, mix, burn" is great when it's Apple doing the ripping, mixing and burning, but let anyone attempt to return the favor and the company turns crybaby, whining to Customs and Border Patrol and fed cops to protect itself from being done unto as it did.

Should we blame the paperclip-maximizing Slow AI corporations for attempting to escape disruptive capitalism's chaotic vortex? I don't think it matters: I don't deplore this whiny cowardice because it's hypocritical. I hate it because it's a ripoff that screws workers, customers and the environment.

But there is someone I do blame: the governments that pass the IP laws that allow Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft and other tech giants shut down anyone who wants to disrupt them. Those governments are supposed to work for us, and yet they passed laws – like Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act – that felonize reverse-engineering, modding and tinkering. These laws create an enshittogenic environment, which produces enshittification:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/24/record-scratch/#autoenshittification

Bad enough that the US passed these laws and exposed Americans to the predatory conduct of tech enshittifiers. But then the US Trade Representative went slithering all over the world, insisting that every country the US trades with pass their own versions of the laws, turning their citizens into an all-you-can-steal buffet for US tech gougers:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/07/31/hall-of-famer/#necensuraninadados

This system of global "felony contempt of business-model" statutes came into being because any country that wanted to export to the USA without facing tariffs had to pass a law banning reverse-engineering of tech products in order to get a deal. That's why farmers all over the world can't fix their tractors without paying John Deere hundreds of dollars for each repair the farmer makes to their own tractor:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/05/08/about-those-kill-switched-ukrainian-tractors/

But with Trump imposing tariffs on US trading partners, there is now zero reason to keep those laws on the books around the world, and every reason to get rid of them. Every country could have the kind of disruptors who start a business with just a little capital, aimed directly at the highest margins of these stupidly profitable, S&P500-leading US tech giants, treating those margins as opportunities. They could jailbreak HP printers so they take any ink-cartridge; jailbreak iPhones so they can run any app store; jailbreak tractors so farmers can fix them without paying rent to Deere; jailbreak every make and model of every car so that any mechanic can diagnose and fix it, with compatible parts from any manufacturer. These aren't just nice things to do for the people in your country's borders: they are businesses, massive investment opportunities. The first country that perfects the universal car diagnosing tool will sell one to every mechanic in the world – along with subscriptions that keep up with new cars and new manufacturer software updates. That country could have the relationship to car repairs that Finland had to mobile phones for a decade, when Nokia disrupted the markets of every landline carrier in the world:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/03/03/friedmanite/#oil-crisis-two-point-oh

The US companies that could be disrupted thanks to the Trump tariffs are directly implicated in the rise of Trumpism. Take Tesla: the company's insane valuation is a bet by the markets that Tesla will be able to charge monthly fees for subscription features and one-off fees for software upgrades, which will be wiped out when your car changes hands, triggering a fresh set of payments from the next owner.

That business model is entirely dependent on making it a crime to reverse-engineer and mod a Tesla. A move-fast-and-break-things disruptor who offered mechanics a tool that let them charge $50 (or €50!) to unlock every Tesla feature, forever, could treat Musk's margins as their opportunity – and what an opportunity it would be!

That's how you hurt Musk – not by being performatively aghast at his Nazi salutes. You kick that guy right in the dongle:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/02/26/ursula-franklin/#franklinite

The act of unilaterally intervening in a market, product or sector – that is, "moving fast and breaking things" – is not intrinsically amoral. There's plenty of stuff out there that needs breaking. The problem isn't disruption, per se. Don't weep for the collapse of long-distance telephone calls! The problem comes when the disruptor can declare an end to history, declare themselves to be eternal kings, and block anyone from disrupting them.

If Uber had been able to nuke the entire taxi medallion system – which was dominated by speculators who charged outrageous rents to drivers – and then been smashed by driver co-ops who modded gig-work apps to keep the fares for themselves, that would have been amazing:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/02/21/contra-nihilismum/#the-street-finds-its-own-use-for-things

The problem isn't disruption itself, but rather, the establishment of undisruptable, legally protected monopolies whose crybaby billionaire CEOs never have to face the same treatment they meted out to the incumbents who were on the scene when they were starting out.

We need some disruption! Their margins are your opportunity. It's high time we started moving fast and breaking US Big Tech!

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/03/08/turnabout/#is-fair-play

[idontknowiwasntlistening]

Legitimately Mincemeat made me fall back in love with theatre in a way that I haven't been in ages

[violent138]

Kind of want to see a panel or fic where the League shows up and helps Aquaman and Mera get a pod of stranded whales back into the sea. Between their powers and Aquaman's abilities, the whales actually make it to sea and survive.

[unpluggedfinancial]

Life in a Bubble: How Technological Revolutions Shape Society

Once upon a time, owning a television was an extraordinary luxury. Families gathered around small, grainy screens, captivated by black-and-white broadcasts that seemed magical at the time. Fast-forward to today, and we laugh at the thought of having just one screen—let alone one without color, HD, or streaming capabilities. Ever notice how every significant technological breakthrough feels monumental, only to become obsolete as soon as the next innovation arrives?

Understanding the Technological Bubble

Technological bubbles occur when groundbreaking innovations redefine societal norms, behaviors, and expectations. Each advancement creates its own bubble of influence—initially expanding as adoption grows, then ultimately bursting when a newer technology emerges.

Consider the evolution of televisions:

First Bubble: Black-and-white TVs revolutionized entertainment, bringing the world into living rooms for the first time.

Second Bubble: Color TVs popped the original bubble, making monochrome obsolete and setting a new standard.

Third Bubble: Flat-screen and HD televisions burst the color-TV bubble, making bulky sets feel like relics of the past.

Each bubble transformed society, influencing consumer behaviors, shifting economic landscapes, and altering our perception of normalcy.

Historical Echoes

Technological bubbles aren’t exclusive to televisions. They repeat throughout history, reshaping reality each time:

Communication: Letters → telephones → smartphones.

Music: Vinyl → cassettes → CDs → MP3 → streaming.

Internet: Dial-up → broadband → Wi-Fi → mobile connectivity.

Every bubble expanded rapidly, enveloping society in its new standards before bursting and being replaced by something even more revolutionary.

The Mother of All Bubbles

Today, we're living inside perhaps the largest technological bubble humanity has ever known: the global fiat monetary system and traditional finance. Like previous bubbles, this system feels unshakeable, inevitable, and everlasting. But like every bubble before it, it's ripe for disruption—this time, by decentralized technologies like Bitcoin.

Bitcoin isn't just a new type of money; it’s a radical departure from centralized financial control:

Decentralization vs. Centralization: Bitcoin puts financial power back into the hands of individuals.

Transparency vs. Secrecy: Blockchain technology makes financial transactions visible, verifiable, and resistant to manipulation.

Scarcity vs. Inflation: Unlike fiat currencies, Bitcoin has a capped supply, protecting against endless monetary inflation.

This next bubble is growing, quietly expanding in the shadows of mainstream finance, and it has the potential to burst the financial bubble we've lived in for generations.

What Happens When the Biggest Bubble Pops?

Imagine a world where financial control no longer rests in the hands of governments and banks, but with the people. When the fiat bubble bursts:

Financial Sovereignty: Individuals gain unprecedented financial autonomy and responsibility.

Power Redistribution: Central banks and financial institutions must adapt or risk obsolescence.

Societal Shifts: Our collective understanding of money, value, and community could be entirely redefined.

This transition won’t be without challenges. Initial instability and fierce resistance from established systems are inevitable. Yet, the opportunity for increased transparency, fairness, and efficiency makes this burst not just likely but necessary.

Preparing for the Pop

Every technological bubble eventually bursts. The question isn't if, but when. Understanding and recognizing this process enables us to position ourselves advantageously for the inevitable shift. Embracing the next technological wave means stepping beyond comfort zones and preparing to thrive in an evolved landscape.

Tick Tock Next Block.

Take Action Towards Financial Independence

If this article has sparked your interest in the transformative potential of Bitcoin, there’s so much more to explore! Dive deeper into the world of financial independence and revolutionize your understanding of money by following my blog and subscribing to my YouTube channel.

🌐 Blog: Unplugged Financial Blog Stay updated with insightful articles, detailed analyses, and practical advice on navigating the evolving financial landscape. Learn about the history of money, the flaws in our current financial systems, and how Bitcoin can offer a path to a more secure and independent financial future.

📺 YouTube Channel: Unplugged Financial Subscribe to our YouTube channel for engaging video content that breaks down complex financial topics into easy-to-understand segments. From in-depth discussions on monetary policies to the latest trends in cryptocurrency, our videos will equip you with the knowledge you need to make informed financial decisions.

👍 Like, subscribe, and hit the notification bell to stay updated with our latest content. Whether you’re a seasoned investor, a curious newcomer, or someone concerned about the future of your financial health, our community is here to support you on your journey to financial independence.

📚 Get the Book: The Day The Earth Stood Still 2.0 For those who want to take an even deeper dive, my book offers a transformative look at the financial revolution we’re living through. The Day The Earth Stood Still 2.0 explores the philosophy, history, and future of money, all while challenging the status quo and inspiring action toward true financial independence.

Support the Cause

If you enjoyed what you read and believe in the mission of spreading awareness about Bitcoin, I would greatly appreciate your support. Every little bit helps keep the content going and allows me to continue educating others about the future of finance.

Donate Bitcoin: 

bc1qpn98s4gtlvy686jne0sr8ccvfaxz646kk2tl8lu38zz4dvyyvflqgddylk

[lokiinmediasideblog]

Asgard heavily invests in the equivalent of Faraday cages for whatever electric infrastructure they use

[fennopunk]

Technically wearing headphones and using phones or tablets is against the rules at the workshop, but I'm allowed to do both because A. I literally need to because of ADHD and (possible) autism, so I have been given special permission, and B. I have been caught so many times reading something in the other direction while still crocheting at my normal speed (which apparently is FAST for others...), so they know for a fact that I can and will multitask 😂

[evermoredeluxe]

oh taylor’s in-ear were not working during anti-hero even though she literally got her mic pack replaced during lavender haze 💀 she literally just took them out of her ears

[leonhorn]

In 2056 What a Difference Power Makes (Nursery) | In 20xx Sci fi and Futurism by In 20xx Futurism In a bleak, stormy landscape where the remnants of civilization eke out their existence in deep, canyon-worn refuges, the story plunges readers into the lives of a resilient colony struggling against the decay of both infrastructure and hope. The narrative paints a vividly harsh world where power is scarce and survival depends on ingenuity—from salvaging precious batteries amid ruins to the daily ritual of powering essential systems with human effort. The reader is invited to witness not just the physical battles against nature, but also the emotional and communal struggles that tie the survivors together. At the heart of the tale are characters whose lives are interwoven with the very fabric of their battered environment. Whether it’s a determined tinkerer engineering life-saving devices, or a reluctant caretaker balancing memories of lost innocence with the present need to sustain life, each individual’s story illuminates both the burdens and unexpected moments of beauty in a transformed world. Their interactions blend sorrow with the spark of tenacity, hinting at deeper mysteries and a shared hope that even in the direst conditions, human spirit can prevail. With its immersive blend of gritty survival, inventive adaptation, and poignant reflections on what it means to be human, this story offers a rich, atmospheric journey into a future where the past’s losses and the promise of tomorrow collide. The narrative masterfully avoids clean resolutions, instead leaving readers to grapple with the moral ambiguities of existence in a world stripped to its bare essentials—a world where every innovation is a lifeline, and every moment is a testament to the courage required to simply keep going. batteries solar panels cooling units aeroponics system hand crank flywheel generator power sippers AR glasses BritLights cool suits microbe engineering equipment DNA writer sequencer incubators protein printer pedal-powered generator bike respirators quantum computer Bose-Einstein condensate gravity sensor Stirling engine heat pump air filters hand crank wand canal links GM microbe mix bug trap system battery recharge station mining robot plasma drill graphene tube wiring hydraulic cylinders from a blimp enzyme welder temp shielding aerogel carb-core disks camshafts composite beams quantum simulation radio transmitter hume linking devices mycelium fabric garments mycelium filter sheets Doppler cooling laser Many of the characters in this project appear in future episodes. Using storytelling to place you in a time period, this series takes you, year by year, into the future. From 2040 to 2195. If you like emerging tech, eco-tech, futurism, perma-culture, apocalyptic survival scenarios, and disruptive science, sit back and enjoy short stories that showcase my research into how the future may play out. The companion site is https://in20xx.com These are works of fiction. Characters and groups are made-up and influenced by current events but not reporting facts about people or groups in the real world. This project is speculative fiction. These episodes are not about revealing what will be, but they are to excited the listener's wonder about what may come to pass. Copyright © Cy Porter 2025. All rights reserved. Episode link: https://ift.tt/lRNrm3e (video made with https://ift.tt/y2aJR5Z) via YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9DtQoKQEUs

[pier-carlo-universe]

La Rielezione di Trump e l'Alba di una Nuova Era di Caos Informativo

Negli ultimi anni, abbiamo assistito a un cambiamento radicale nel modo in cui l’informazione viene creata, condivisa e consumata. La prima fase di questa trasformazione digitale, guidata dai social media, è quasi al termine e la fase successiva promette una maggiore turbolenza. Con l’avvento dei giganti della tecnologia, il potere di pochi individui di plasmare il discorso pubblico globale è…

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Big Tech disrupted disruption

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/08/permanent-overlords/#republicans-want-to-defund-the-police

Before "disruption" turned into a punchline, it was a genuinely exciting idea. Using technology, we could connect people to one another and allow them to collaborate, share, and cooperate to make great things happen.

It's easy (and valid) to dismiss the "disruption" of Uber, which "disrupted" taxis and transit by losing $31b worth of Saudi royal money in a bid to collapse the world's rival transportation system, while quietly promising its investors that it would someday have pricing power as a monopoly, and would attain profit through price-gouging and wage-theft.

Uber's disruption story was wreathed in bullshit: lies about the "independence" of its drivers, about the imminence of self-driving taxis, about the impact that replacing buses and subways with millions of circling, empty cars would have on traffic congestion. There were and are plenty of problems with traditional taxis and transit, but Uber magnified these problems, under cover of "disrupting" them away.

But there are other feats of high-tech disruption that were and are genuinely transformative – Wikipedia, GNU/Linux, RSS, and more. These disruptive technologies altered the balance of power between powerful institutions and the businesses, communities and individuals they dominated, in ways that have proven both beneficial and durable.

When we speak of commercial disruption today, we usually mean a tech company disrupting a non-tech company. Tinder disrupts singles bars. Netflix disrupts Blockbuster. Airbnb disrupts Marriott.

But the history of "disruption" features far more examples of tech companies disrupting other tech companies: DEC disrupts IBM. Netscape disrupts Microsoft. Google disrupts Yahoo. Nokia disrupts Kodak, sure – but then Apple disrupts Nokia. It's only natural that the businesses most vulnerable to digital disruption are other digital businesses.

And yet…disruption is nowhere to be seen when it comes to the tech sector itself. Five giant companies have been running the show for more than a decade. A couple of these companies (Apple, Microsoft) are Gen-Xers, having been born in the 70s, then there's a couple of Millennials (Amazon, Google), and that one Gen-Z kid (Facebook). Big Tech shows no sign of being disrupted, despite the continuous enshittification of their core products and services. How can this be? Has Big Tech disrupted disruption itself?

That's the contention of "Coopting Disruption," a new paper from two law profs: Mark Lemley (Stanford) and Matthew Wansley (Yeshiva U):

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4713845

The paper opens with a review of the literature on disruption. Big companies have some major advantages: they've got people and infrastructure they can leverage to bring new products to market more cheaply than startups. They've got existing relationships with suppliers, distributors and customers. People trust them.

Diversified, monopolistic companies are also able to capture "involuntary spillovers": when Google spends money on AI for image recognition, it can improve Google Photos, YouTube, Android, Search, Maps and many other products. A startup with just one product can't capitalize on these spillovers in the same way, so it doesn't have the same incentives to spend big on R&D.

Finally, big companies have access to cheap money. They get better credit terms from lenders, they can float bonds, they can tap the public markets, or just spend their own profits on R&D. They can also afford to take a long view, because they're not tied to VCs whose funds turn over every 5-10 years. Big companies get cheap money, play a long game, pay less to innovate and get more out of innovation.

But those advantages are swamped by the disadvantages of incumbency, all the various curses of bigness. Take Arrow's "replacement effect": new companies that compete with incumbents drive down the incumbents' prices and tempt their customers away. But an incumbent that buys a disruptive new company can just shut it down, and whittle down its ideas to "sustaining innovation" (small improvements to existing products), killing "disruptive innovation" (major changes that make the existing products obsolete).

Arrow's Replacement Effect also comes into play before a new product even exists. An incumbent that allows a rival to do R&D that would eventually disrupt its product is at risk; but if the incumbent buys this pre-product, R&D-heavy startup, it can turn the research to sustaining innovation and defund any disruptive innovation.

Arrow asks us to look at the innovation question from the point of view of the company as a whole. Clayton Christensen's "Innovator's Dilemma" looks at the motivations of individual decision-makers in large, successful companies. These individuals don't want to disrupt their own business, because that will render some part of their own company obsolete (perhaps their own division!). They also don't want to radically change their customers' businesses, because those customers would also face negative effects from disruption.

A startup, by contrast, has no existing successful divisions and no giant customers to safeguard. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain from disruption. Where a large company has no way for individual employees to initiate major changes in corporate strategy, a startup has fewer hops between employees and management. What's more, a startup that rewards an employee's good idea with a stock-grant ties that employee's future finances to the outcome of that idea – while a giant corporation's stock bonuses are only incidentally tied to the ideas of any individual worker.

Big companies are where good ideas go to die. If a big company passes on its employees' cool, disruptive ideas, that's the end of the story for that idea. But even if 100 VCs pass on a startup's cool idea and only one VC funds it, the startup still gets to pursue that idea. In startup land, a good idea gets lots of chances – in a big company, it only gets one.

Given how innately disruptable tech companies are, given how hard it is for big companies to innovate, and given how little innovation we've gotten from Big Tech, how is it that the tech giants haven't been disrupted?

The authors propose a four-step program for the would-be Tech Baron hoping to defend their turf from disruption.

First, gather information about startups that might develop disruptive technologies and steer them away from competing with you, by investing in them or partnering with them.

Second, cut off any would-be competitor's supply of resources they need to develop a disruptive product that challenges your own.

Third, convince the government to pass regulations that big, established companies can comply with but that are business-killing challenges for small competitors.

Finally, buy up any company that resists your steering, succeeds despite your resource war, and escapes the compliance moats of regulation that favors incumbents.

Then: kill those companies.

The authors proceed to show that all four tactics are in play today. Big Tech companies operate their own VC funds, which means they get a look at every promising company in the field, even if they don't want to invest in them. Big Tech companies are also awash in money and their "rival" VCs know it, and so financial VCs and Big Tech collude to fund potential disruptors and then sell them to Big Tech companies as "aqui-hires" that see the disruption neutralized.

On resources, the authors focus on data, and how companies like Facebook have explicit policies of only permitting companies they don't see as potential disruptors to access Facebook data. They reproduce internal Facebook strategy memos that divide potential platform users into "existing competitors, possible future competitors, [or] developers that we have alignment with on business models." These categories allow Facebook to decide which companies are capable of developing disruptive products and which ones aren't. For example, Amazon – which doesn't compete with Facebook – is allowed to access FB data to target shoppers. But Messageme, a startup, was cut off from Facebook as soon as management perceived them as a future rival. Ironically – but unsurprisingly – Facebook spins these policies as pro-privacy, not anti-competitive.

These data policies cast a long shadow. They don't just block existing companies from accessing the data they need to pursue disruptive offerings – they also "send a message" to would-be founders and investors, letting them know that if they try to disrupt a tech giant, they will have their market oxygen cut off before they can draw breath. The only way to build a product that challenges Facebook is as Facebook's partner, under Facebook's direction, with Facebook's veto.

Next, regulation. Starting in 2019, Facebook started publishing full-page newspaper ads calling for regulation. Someone ghost-wrote a Washington Post op-ed under Zuckerberg's byline, arguing the case for more tech regulation. Google, Apple, OpenAI other tech giants have all (selectively) lobbied in favor of many regulations. These rules covered a lot of ground, but they all share a characteristic: complying with them requires huge amounts of money – money that giant tech companies can spare, but potential disruptors lack.

Finally, there's predatory acquisitions. Mark Zuckerberg, working without the benefit of a ghost writer (or in-house counsel to review his statements for actionable intent) has repeatedly confessed to buying companies like Instagram to ensure that they never grow to be competitors. As he told one colleague, "I remember your internal post about how Instagram was our threat and not Google+. You were basically right. The thing about startups though is you can often acquire them.”

All the tech giants are acquisition factories. Every successful Google product, almost without exception, is a product they bought from someone else. By contrast, Google's own internal products typically crash and burn, from G+ to Reader to Google Videos. Apple, meanwhile, buys 90 companies per year – Tim Apple brings home a new company for his shareholders more often than you bring home a bag of groceries for your family. All the Big Tech companies' AI offerings are acquisitions, and Apple has bought more AI companies than any of them.

Big Tech claims to be innovating, but it's really just operationalizing. Any company that threatens to disrupt a tech giant is bought, its products stripped of any really innovative features, and the residue is added to existing products as a "sustaining innovation" – a dot-release feature that has all the innovative disruption of rounding the corners on a new mobile phone.

The authors present three case-studies of tech companies using this four-point strategy to forestall disruption in AI, VR and self-driving cars. I'm not excited about any of these three categories, but it's clear that the tech giants are worried about them, and the authors make a devastating case for these disruptions being disrupted by Big Tech.

What do to about it? If we like (some) disruption, and if Big Tech is enshittifying at speed without facing dethroning-by-disruption, how do we get the dynamism and innovation that gave us the best of tech?

The authors make four suggestions.

First, revive the authorities under existing antitrust law to ban executives from Big Tech companies from serving on the boards of startups. More broadly, kill interlocking boards altogether. Remember, these powers already exist in the lawbooks, so accomplishing this goal means a change in enforcement priorities, not a new act of Congress or rulemaking. What's more, interlocking boards between competing companies are illegal per se, meaning there's no expensive, difficult fact-finding needed to demonstrate that two companies are breaking the law by sharing directors.

Next: create a nondiscrimination policy that requires the largest tech companies that share data with some unaffiliated companies to offer data on the same terms to other companies, except when they are direct competitors. They argue that this rule will keep tech giants from choking off disruptive technologies that make them obsolete (rather than competing with them).

On the subject of regulation and compliance moats, they have less concrete advice. They counsel lawmakers to greet tech giants' demands to be regulated with suspicion, to proceed with caution when they do regulate, and to shape regulation so that it doesn't limit market entry, by keeping in mind the disproportionate burdens regulations put on established giants and small new companies. This is all good advice, but it's more a set of principles than any kind of specific practice, test or procedure.

Finally, they call for increased scrutiny of mergers, including mergers between very large companies and small startups. They argue that existing law (Sec 2 of the Sherman Act and Sec 7 of the Clayton Act) both empower enforcers to block these acquisitions. They admit that the case-law on this is poor, but that just means that enforcers need to start making new case-law.

I like all of these suggestions! We're certainly enjoying a more activist set of regulators, who are more interested in Big Tech, than we've seen in generations.

But they are grossly under-resourced even without giving them additional duties. As Matt Stoller points out, "the DOJ's Antitrust Division has fewer people enforcing anti-monopoly laws in a $24 trillion economy than the Smithsonian Museum has security guards."

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/congressional-republicans-to-defund

What's more, Republicans are trying to slash their budgets even further. The American conservative movement has finally located a police force they're eager to defund: the corporate police who defend us all from predatory monopolies.

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[techverse1]

Tech Stocks Plunge as DeepSeek Disrupts AI Landscape

Market Reaction: Nvidia, Broadcom, Microsoft, and Google Take a Hit On January 27, the Nasdaq Composite, heavily weighted with tech stocks, tumbled 3.1%, largely due to the steep decline of Nvidia, which plummeted 17%—its worst single-day drop on record. Broadcom followed suit, falling 17.4%, while ChatGPT backer Microsoft dipped 2.1%, and Google parent Alphabet lost 4.2%, according to Reuters.

The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index suffered a significant blow, plunging 9.2%—its largest percentage decline since March 2020. Marvell Technology experienced the steepest drop on Nasdaq, sinking 19.1%.

The selloff extended beyond the US, rippling through Asian and European markets. Japan's SoftBank Group closed down 8.3%, while Europe’s largest semiconductor firm, ASML, fell 7%.

Among other stocks hit hard, data center infrastructure provider Vertiv Holdings plunged 29.9%, while energy companies Vistra, Constellation Energy, and NRG Energy saw losses of 28.3%, 20.8%, and 13.2%, respectively. These declines were driven by investor concerns that AI-driven power demand might not be as substantial as previously expected.

Does DeepSeek Challenge the 'Magnificent Seven' Dominance? DeepSeek’s disruptive entrance has sparked debate over the future of the AI industry, particularly regarding cost efficiency and computing power. Despite the dramatic market reaction, analysts believe the ‘Magnificent Seven’—Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Tesla—will maintain their dominant position.

Jefferies analysts noted that DeepSeek’s open-source language model (LLM) rivals GPT-4o’s performance while using significantly fewer resources. Their report, titled ‘The Fear Created by China's DeepSeek’, highlighted that the model was trained at a cost of just $5.6 million—10% less than Meta’s Llama. DeepSeek claims its V3 model surpasses Llama 3.1 and matches GPT-4o in capability.

“DeepSeek’s open-source model, available on Hugging Face, could enable other AI developers to create applications at a fraction of the cost,” the report stated. However, the company remains focused on research rather than commercialization.

Brian Jacobsen, chief economist at Annex Wealth Management, told Reuters that if DeepSeek’s claims hold true, it could fundamentally alter the AI market. “This could mean lower demand for advanced chips, less need for extensive power infrastructure, and reduced large-scale data center investments,” he said.

Despite concerns, a Bloomberg Markets Live Pulse survey of 260 investors found that 88% believe DeepSeek’s emergence will have minimal impact on the Magnificent Seven’s stock performance in the coming weeks.

“Dethroning the Magnificent Seven won’t be easy,” said Steve Sosnick, chief strategist at Interactive Brokers LLC. “These companies have built strong competitive advantages, though the selloff served as a reminder that even market leaders can be disrupted.”

Investor Shift: Flight to Safe-Haven Assets As tech stocks tumbled, investors moved funds into safer assets. US Treasury yields fell, with the benchmark 10-year yield declining to 4.53%. Meanwhile, safe-haven currencies like the Japanese Yen and Swiss Franc gained against the US dollar.

According to Bloomberg, investors rotated into value stocks, including financial, healthcare, and industrial sectors. The Vanguard S&P 500 Value Index Fund ETF—home to companies like Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and Coca-Cola—saw a significant boost.

“The volatility in tech stocks will prompt banks to reevaluate their risk exposure, likely leading to more cautious positioning,” a trading executive told Reuters.

OpenAI’s Sam Altman Responds to DeepSeek’s Rise OpenAI CEO Sam Altman acknowledged DeepSeek’s rapid ascent, describing it as “invigorating” competition. In a post on X, he praised DeepSeek’s cost-effective AI model but reaffirmed OpenAI’s commitment to cutting-edge research.

“DeepSeek’s R1 is impressive, particularly given its cost-efficiency. We will obviously deliver much better models, and competition is exciting!” Altman wrote. He hinted at upcoming OpenAI releases, stating, “We are focused on our research roadmap and believe

[epicstoriestime]

Why Aren’t We Using Counter-Drone Tech in NJ?

Counter-Unmanned Aerial Systems (C-UAS) Clusters of unidentified drones have been buzzing around New Jersey, raising eyebrows and concerns, especially near critical infrastructure. The U.S. has top-tier counter-drone systems—tech designed to track and neutralize UAVs—yet they aren’t being deployed here. Instead, officials are focused on monitoring and investigating, leaving the public wondering:…