linkstogoguryeo

[linkstogoguryeo]

blockchain technology

http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/inventions/blockchain-buyers-the-transparency-revolution-coming-to-your-shopping-experience/news-story/f5606c2f15b80c8e57503aa6064332b6

A NEW technology is set to revolutionise how we shop and the products we buy, giving more power to Australian consumers to know exactly what they’re getting and where it came from.It might take years for it to fully infiltrate the retail and produce sectors, but a relatively new type of digital technology known as blockchain is tipped to become a common part of the modern shopping experience.So what is blockchain?Put simply, it’s a kind of decentralised digital ledger that records transactions and information both chronologically and publicly and is shared on an online network.

Importantly the records cannot be changed and are incorruptible. Blockchain is the technology that underpins notorious cryptocurrency Bitcoin and uses a form of math called cryptography to ensure that records can’t be counterfeited or altered.So how will this apply to your grocery shopping?If the system spreads through the retail sector — like Microsoft and many other tech companies are currently working towards — it means consumers would theoretically be able to scan a particular product with their smartphone and see the journey it took to get to the store shelf. For instance, customers could see how long “fresh fruit” took to get from the farm to the shelf and whether it was ever frozen.It could quickly show you where, when and how a product — such as a T-shirt in Kmart or a bag of fair trade coffee beans — was produced and shipped to you, says futurist and digital consultant Chris Riddell.

Australia does have strong regulations around food advertising and the claims a company makes about its product. But it is still possible for unfounded or embellished claims to sneak through.In 2015 and 2016 two separate Australian companies were fined a total of more than half a million dollars for mislabelling their eggs as free range.In fact on Thursday, the country’s peak consumer watchdog the ACCC urged businesses to review the country of origin labels on their products to ensure they comply with the Australian Consumer Law.“Consumers are often willing to pay a premium for products that originate from particular countries, but they need to be able to trust the labels. Failure to label products correctly may expose a business to penalties of up to $1.1 million,” ACCC deputy chair Dr Michael Schaper said.This is where blockchain technology comes in.

Australian consumers are increasingly concerned about trusting the brands they buy and making ethical choices at the checkout. At the same time, trust in major brands is very low.According to industry experts, with the growth in online shopping, the entry of players like Amazon to Australia and the rise of “influencers” spruiking products on social media, the battle for consumer trust is fiercer than ever.“Blockchain is going to provide transparency to brands, everything from an avocado to a Nike trainer,” Mr Riddell said.He believes it will become an integral part of your trip to the supermarket in the future.“The competition now is around how can you show transparency and provide insight behind the brands,” he said.According to a recent survey from consumer group Choice, 70 per cent of Australians are interested in ethical products and the advertising claims made on products.At the moment, there are a number of apps designed to help Aussies make ethical choices when spending their money, such as the food-focused Shop Ethical! or the clothes-focused Good On You.Many consumers are happy to pay a bit extra if it means they know more about the product, particularly when it comes to fresh food and meat products.“Coles and the Woolies aren’t going to be very keen to do this, because it’s going to give a level of transparency behind brands that they don’t necessarily want,” Mr Riddell said.But as we move towards a more interconnected world dubbed The Internet of Things, advances in chip and sensor technology will make it easier to translate data from the automated movement of physical goods, and could greatly enhance emerging blockchain systems, bringing them into the retail industry.

THE RISE OF BLOCKCHAIN Blockchain technology got its start in the banking sector, but in recent years its potential utility has been applied to a number of other industries — and there is no shortage of global companies keen to capitalise on its use in the retail market.US retail juggernaut Walmart is one of the biggest retailers in the world. It is currently working with IBM and a university in Beijing to follow the movement of pork in China by using blockchain.A start-up named Everledger is using the technology to fight against the scourge of blood diamonds and help jewellers comply with regulations that governments impose on the conflict-ridden trade.Microsoft and its partner Mojix had a booth at the annual National Retail Federation show in New York earlier this year where they spruiked how blockchain and IoT technology can provide “unprecedented supply chain and inventory visibility”.In the UK, a start-up named Provenance tells prospective clients they can use its blockchain-based technology to “share your product’s journey and your business impact on environment and society.”Meanwhile local Sydney-based start-up company called BronTech is working to find blockchain-enabled solutions to allow people to more easily gain access and share their personal data online, such as their medical records, in a secure way.Emma Poposka is the co-founder of the company and believes blockchain has immense potential in creating trustworthy networks for sharing things like financial assets but doesn’t think it is suited for the retail and food industry.She says while the interest in blockchain among Australian companies is growing, currently most businesses trying to exploit the technology are still in the proof-of-concept stage.Ms Poposka is sceptical of the idea that blockchain is the way to bring transparency to retail supply chains, especially when it comes to recording the true origin of a product because people will find ways to manipulate what’s recorded in the chain.“I know a lot of people are saying; ‘yeah you should use blockchain for this’ but I don’t necessarily agree with that. I think the transparency in the retail and food industry is not a technological problem.” https://hbr.org/2017/03/the-blockchain-will-do-to-banks-and-law-firms-what-the-internet-did-to-media

Fast forward two decades: Will we soon be seeing a similar impact from cryptocurrencies and blockchains? There are certainly many parallels. Like the internet, cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin are driven by advances in core technologies along with a new, open architecture — the Bitcoin blockchain. Like the internet, this technology is designed to be decentralized, with “layers,” where each layer is defined by an interoperable open protocol on top of which companies, as well as individuals, can build products and services. Like the internet, in the early stages of development there are many competing technologies, so it’s important to specify which blockchain you’re talking about. And, like the internet, blockchain technology is strongest when everyone is using the same network, so in the future we might all be talking about “the” blockchain.

The internet and its layers took decades to develop, with each technical layer unlocking an explosion of creative and entrepreneurial activity. Early on, Ethernet standardized the way in which computers transmitted bits over wires, and companies such as 3Com were able to build empires on their network switching products. The TCP/IP protocol was used to address and control how packets of data were routed between computers. Cisco built products like network routers, capitalizing on that protocol, and by March 2000 Cisco was the most valuable company in the world. In 1989 Tim Berners-Lee developed HTTP, another open, permissionless protocol, and the web enabled businesses such as eBay, Google, and Amazon.

The Killer App for Blockchains

But here’s one major difference: The early internet was noncommercial, developed initially through defense funding and used primarily to connect research institutions and universities. It wasn’t designed to make money, but rather to develop the most robust and effective way to build a network. This initial lack of commercial players and interests was critical — it allowed the formation of a network architecture that shared resources in a way that would not have occurred in a market-driven system.

The “killer app” for the early internet was email; it’s what drove adoption and strengthened the network. Bitcoin is the killer app for the blockchain. Bitcoin drives adoption of its underlying blockchain, and its strong technical community and robust code review process make it the most secure and reliable of the various blockchains. Like email, it’s likely that some form of Bitcoin will persist. But the blockchain will also support a variety of other applications, including smart contracts, asset registries, and many new types of transactions that will go beyond financial and legal uses.

We might best understand Bitcoin as a microcosm of how a new, decentralized, and automated financial system could work. While its current capabilities are still limited (for example, there’s a low transaction volume when compared to conventional payment systems), it offers a compelling vision of a possible future because the code describes both a regulatory and an economic system. For example, transactions must satisfy certain rules before they can be accepted into the Bitcoin blockchain. Instead of writing rules and appointing a regulator to monitor for breaches, which is how the current financial system works, Bitcoin’s code sets the rules and the network checks for compliance. If a transaction breaks the rules (for example, if the digital signatures don’t tally), it is rejected by the network. Even Bitcoin’s “monetary policy” is written into its code: New money is issued every 10 minutes, and the supply is limited so there will only ever be 21 million Bitcoins, a hard money rule similar to the gold standard (i.e., a system in which the money supply is fixed to a commodity and not determined by government).

The primary use and even the values of the people using new technologies and infrastructure tend to change drastically as these technologies mature. This will certainly be true for blockchain technology.

Bitcoin was first created as a response to the 2008 financial crisis. The originating community had a strong libertarian and antiestablishment spin that, in many ways, was similar to the free-software culture, with its strong anticommercial values. However, it is likely that, just as Linux is now embedded in almost every kind of commercial application or service, many of the ultimate use cases of the blockchain could become standard fare for established players like large companies, governments, and central banks.

Similarly, many view blockchain technology and fintech as merely a new technology for delivery — maybe something akin to CD-ROMs. In fact, it is more likely to do to the financial system and regulation what the internet has done to media companies and advertising firms. Such a fundamental restructuring of a core part of the economy is a big challenge to incumbent firms that make their living from it. Preparing for these changes means investing in research and experimentation. Those who do so will be well placed to thrive in the new, emerging financial system.

BITCOIN https://www.bitcoin.com/you-need-to-know

No Central Command

Bitcoin isn’t owned by anyone. Think of it like email. Anyone can use it, but there isn’t a single company that is in charge of it. Bitcoin transactions are irreversible. This means that no one, including banks, or governments can block you from sending or receiving bitcoins with anyone else, anywhere in the world. With this freedom comes the great responsibility of not having any central authority to complain to if something goes wrong. Just like physical cash, don’t let strangers hold your bitcoins for you, and don’t send them to untrustworthy people on the internet.

Secure Your Wallet

There are several different types of Bitcoin wallets, but the most important distinction is in relation to who is in control of the private keys required to spend the bitcoins. Some Bitcoin “wallets” actually act more like banks because they are holding the user’s private keys on behalf. If you choose to use one of these services, be aware that you are completely at their mercy regarding the security of your bitcoins. Most wallets, however, allow the user to be in charge of their own private keys. This means that no one in the entire world can access your account without your permission. It also means that no one can help you if you forget your password or otherwise lose access to your private keys. If you decide you want to own a lot of Bitcoin it would be a good idea to divide them among several different wallets. As they saying goes, don’t put all your eggs in one basket.

Bitcoin Price

Like everything, Bitcoin’s price is determined by the laws of supply and demand. Because the supply is limited to 21 million bitcoins, as more people use Bitcoin the increased demand, combined with the fixed supply, will force the price to go up. Because the number of people using Bitcoin in the world is still relatively small, the price of Bitcoin in terms of traditional currency can fluctuate significantly on a daily basis, but will continue to increase as more people start to use it. For example, in early 2011 one Bitcoin was worth less than one USD, but in 2015 one Bitcoin is worth hundreds of USD. In the future, if Bitcoin becomes truly popular, each single Bitcoin will have to be worth at least hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to accommodate this additional demand.

[linkstogoguryeo]

The advent of the smartphone and its cousin the tablet was followed quickly by hand-wringing about the deleterious effects of “screen time.” But the impact of these devices has not been fully appreciated, and goes far beyond the usual concerns about curtailed attention spans. The arrival of the smartphone has radically changed every aspect of teenagers’ lives, from the nature of their social interactions to their mental health. These changes have affected young people in every corner of the nation and in every type of household. The trends appear among teens poor and rich; of every ethnic background; in cities, suburbs, and small towns. Where there are cell towers, there are teens living their lives on their smartphone.

To those of us who fondly recall a more analog adolescence, this may seem foreign and troubling. The aim of generational study, however, is not to succumb to nostalgia for the way things used to be; it’s to understand how they are now. Some generational changes are positive, some are negative, and many are both. More comfortable in their bedrooms than in a car or at a party, today’s teens are physically safer than teens have ever been. They’re markedly less likely to get into a car accident and, having less of a taste for alcohol than their predecessors, are less susceptible to drinking’s attendant ills.

Psychologically, however, they are more vulnerable than Millennials were: Rates of teen depression and suicide have skyrocketed since 2011. It’s not an exaggeration to describe iGen as being on the brink of the worst mental-health crisis in decades. Much of this deterioration can be traced to their phones.

Even when a seismic event—a war, a technological leap, a free concert in the mud—plays an outsize role in shaping a group of young people, no single factor ever defines a generation. Parenting styles continue to change, as do school curricula and culture, and these things matter. But the twin rise of the smartphone and social media has caused an earthquake of a magnitude we’ve not seen in a very long time, if ever. There is compelling evidence that the devices we’ve placed in young people’s hands are having profound effects on their lives—and making them seriously unhappy.

[linkstogoguryeo]

The night before his client was to be executed for drug trafficking, a "demoralised" lawyer posted a 22-line poem on his Facebook page.

In his post at about 12.55am on May 19 (2017), Eugene Thuraisingam, 42, alleged that "million dollar men", including judges, have "turned blind" to a cruel and unjust law and are more preoccupied with acquiring financial wealth and material goods.

For that, the lawyer was fined $6,000 for contempt of court on Monday (Aug 7).

[linkstogoguryeo]

Charlie Chan has created comics for decades, a once-enthusiastic young artist, now an old man, living in a small rental flat in Singapore.

His body of work tells the story of the small island nation’s journey towards independence, reflecting and even questioning the maneuvers of well-known politicians like Singapore’s national founder and first Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew.

Charlie Chan, of course, isn’t a real artist. Rather, he’s a character in a popular graphic novel, and his story – and subsequent events – have shone a revealing light on the Singapore government’s true attitude towards the arts.

On July 22, Sonny Liew became the first Singaporean to be awarded at the Eisners, commonly described as the Oscars for comics, for his graphic novel “The Art of Charlie Chan Hock Chye.” He took home trophies for Best Writer/Artist, Best US Edition of International Material – Asia and Best Publication Design.

Unlike the immediate and effusive celebration of Singaporean swimmer Joseph Schooling’s gold-medal triumph at the Olympics, the response from the state on Liew’s award was muted. The state’s National Arts Council (NAC) put out a carefully-worded congratulatory statement two days later, without specifically referring to Liew’s artistic work.

The hesitation was perhaps understandable. The council had earlier withdrawn a S$8,000 (US$5,900) publishing grant for The Art of Charlie Chan Hock Chye just ahead of its launch in 2015, reasoning that its content “potentially undermines the authority or legitimacy” of the government.

The revocation, which ironically helped to catapult the graphic novel into the public eye, now looks even more short-sighted with the novel’s international acclaim.

Despite the government’s issues with his book, Liew hasn’t yet been blacklisted in Singapore. He continues to work from a state-subsidized studio in one of the country’s art centers, and has a show scheduled at the upcoming Singapore International Festival of the Arts, which is notably supported by the NAC.

“They have adopted a sort of schizo approach where they say they can support me as an artist, but not the book in itself,” Liew told Yahoo! Singapore in July this year.

Liew’s experience is emblematic of the conflicted relationship between the state and the arts, a constant push-pull, love-hate tension that provokes a gamut of reactions, ranging from praise to criticism to mockery.

Although Lee Kuan Yew once remarked in 1968 that “poetry is a luxury we cannot afford”, the state has since directed attention and funds towards developing the arts in the island nation.

In 2005, his son, current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, said in a national address that the city-state needed to become “vibrant, cosmopolitan, and throbbing with energy” through “our own distinctive X-factor” to stand out from other global cities.

The NAC supposedly has a similar vision for nurturing Singapore into a “distinctive global city for the arts.” The council regularly hands out grants, awards and subsidies to select local artists. State funding and support has since become the financial lifeblood that sustains Singapore’s arts industry.

Yet Liew’s experience with the “The Art of Charlie Chan Hock Chye” and testimony from other Singaporean artists reveal a still yawning gap between the independent creativity the state supposedly aims to incubate and its still hard-wired nanny state reflexes.

“I often get the impression that the Singaporean state is supportive of the arts – or at least has heard that art is something world-class cities have, so we should get some of that too, but still regards actual artists as at best inconvenient and at worst dangerous,” writer and translator Jeremy Tiang told Asia Times.

Tiang recounted his experience of having a NAC grant withdrawn after it read the first draft of his debut novel, State of Emergency.

“They take you to a cafe and tell you that they’re very sorry, and they totally support you as an artist, but on this occasion, they’re going to have to cut you off,” Tiang said.

“And, incidentally, they’re going to preemptively cancel a second grant that you’d already been approved for, and they’re doing this for your own good, so you don’t get a reputation as a troublemaker.”

His debut novel follows a family from the 1950s to the present, touching on the old leftist and Communist movements in colonial Malaya, as well as the Lee government’s use of detention without trial against left-leaning activists and dissidents – a topic that remains sensitive in Singapore.

Grace Fu, the Minister for Culture, Community and Youth, explained that his grant had been withdrawn because “the content in the book deviated from the original proposal.”

Artistic critics say the state’s wariness of artists is rooted in ruling politicians’ awareness of art’s power to inspire, motivate and influence.

“In the 1960s and 1970s, the [People’s Action Party] also used art as part of the cultural war to bring messages across and build nationalism,” said Kok Heng Leun, artistic director of theater company Drama Box and a nominated parliamentarian. “I think the powerful understand what art can do.”

Some have argued that, instead of grappling with the government’s ambiguous red lines, artists should simply reject state funding and its attached strings.

“Consider a scenario whereby an artist or arts group accepts money from say an online shopping platform, and then puts up a play or an installation piece that trashes the company’s delivery. Wouldn’t that company quickly pull funding?,” local poet Toh Hsien Min wrote recently in the Quarterly Literary Review Singapore.

“[I]n the real world funding comes with conditions, and if artists are not happy with the conditions set by whichever organization is offering funding, the only real option is to decline that funding.”

Local artists say that’s easier said than done. “That’s a tricky proposition in a country where state participation in all fields of life is so pronounced,” said Liew.

“It is not even clear if the authorities would want or allow the arts to break free from constraints and be financially and ideologically independent… I’d suppose they seek to have some control over the arts not just because they can, but also because they want to.”

Singaporean artists are accustomed to living with this tension, finding ways to probe the boundaries while sustaining their own livelihoods. But walking this tightrope of dependence doesn’t solve the fundamental problem of creating space for more diverse perspectives in Singapore.

It’s an existential crisis that weighs heavy on many of the soft authoritarian state’s artists and writers. “The question is: Does the government trust artists?” asked Kok. “Does the government even believe that contestation and disagreement is part of what makes the society creative and democratic?”

[linkstogoguryeo]

[linkstogoguryeo]

The contrast is stunning. Expats I speak to view this country with unbridled optimism – a clean, green, corruption-free city that’s the envy of the world.

However, the mood among locals – some of them at least – is more dour. They think Singapore’s heyday has passed, and the time for its tumble is just around the corner.

A friend of mine is convinced Singaporeans should have a migration plan in case things really go south.

I’m not as pessimistic, but I share his concern. Singapore can be likened to a successful multi-national company at its apex. But the tectonic plates are shifting, and a sudden jolt could shake Singapore from the throne.

To see how Singapore can be dislodged, let’s break down what makes its economy such a powerhouse in the first place.

Sweetspot

Singapore won the geographical lottery. Unlike Indonesia, it’s earthquake-free. It doesn’t face regular typhoons like the Philippines. It’s shielded from tsunamis too.

It’s situated at the gateway between East and West, making Singapore a perfect seaport for global commerce.

Singapore Inc is also powered by its many government-linked corporations, which play an enormous role in the local economy. From transportation to the media to telecommunications, these companies made their fortune by becoming staples in everyday Singapore.

Singapore needs to build a core of highly intelligent, ambitious, and engineering-focused entrepreneurs to tackle global problems.

This went on for decades. But an ambush has been taking shape in recent years, and the pirates are now ready to pounce.

The first signs of change came in the 90s, when Microsoft monopolized the computing world. It didn’t matter where in the world you were: your computer ran Windows.

Meanwhile, many of Singapore’s enterprises were content with local or regional dominance, unaware that global powers would soon out-maneuver them.

Singapore Inc under threat

Today, internet companies are increasingly going after other industries. They’re spilling over from the world of bits into the world of atoms.

To illustrate the threat they represent to the status quo, I’ve compiled a table showing some of Singapore’s government-linked corporations (GLCs) and important industries, and put them side-by-side with tech companies or trends that could usurp them.

INDUSTRIESGLCSINDUSTRY’S % OF GDPTHREATSTotal: 46.9%Retail, F&B, transportation, logisticsCapitaland, SingPost, SMRT, ComfortDelGro~14% (hereand here)Alibaba, Amazon, Lazada, Grab, UberMediaMediacorp, Singapore Press Holdings (SPH)4.4%Netflix, Facebook, BuzzfeedCommunicationsSingtel4%Skype, Whatsapp, WeChat, drones, balloons, and satellitesMaritimePort Authority of Singapore, Neptune Orient Lines7%Kra Canal, Northern Sea RouteFinanceDBS Bank12.5%BlockchainOil refineryNone5%Tesla, Solar City

The table is of course an oversimplification. But it shows how at least half of Singapore’s industries could be due for a shake-up in the decades ahead.

Given how tech savvy the Prime Minister is (ohmagawd, he can code!), you’d expect Singapore to be nimble in the face of technological change.

A report card



SingPost is testing drone deliveries. Image credit: Ed Schipul.

For now, Singapore appears to be holding its ground.

SingPost has ridden the ecommerce wave admirably by transforming from a postal company into a logistics company. Singtel is in the midst of becoming a company with more diverse businesses, and Singapore’s banks are already looking into blockchain.

The government, meanwhile, is making concerted moves to attract tech startups and talent to work in the country. It gets the create-a-knowledge-economy-or-die philosophy.

Some developments are not as upbeat though.

Mediacorp and SPH don’t seem to have figured out how to monetize online media. Strict media regulations have given them the advantage with local politics and policy coverage, but on all other grounds they’re losing relevance. Fortunately, they have deep pockets, buying them time to figure things out.

Transport operator ComfortDelGro, meanwhile, appears to have been asleep when ride-hailing apps like Uber and Grab began making moves into Singapore. National shipping company Nepture Orient Lines has been in the red for a decade.

More ambition needed

Looking forward, Singapore needs to build a core of highly intelligent, ambitious, and engineering-focused entrepreneurs to tackle global problems. If it can achieve this, it won’t matter if Singapore’s maritime trade goes tits-up.

It had at least one false start already. Creative Technology, which developed the SoundBlaster sound card, did Singapore proud.

The tragedy wasn’t that Creative failed to keep up with the times, but that there wasn’t a cadre of equally ambitious and successful tech companies in Singapore to pick up the baton. It’s an ecosystem failure, a bug that the country is beginning to fix.

The Singapore government must surely realize what’s at stake. Sure, there is room for mistakes (and it has made plenty), but this is not something it can fuck up.

[linkstogoguryeo]

In general, to be a national is to be a member of a state. Nationality is acquired by birth or adoption, marriage, or descent (the specifics vary from country to country). Having a nationality is crucial for receiving full recognition under international law. Indeed, Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that “Everyone has the right to a nationality” and “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality” but is silent on citizenship. Citizenship is a narrower concept: it is a specific legal relationship between a state and a person. It gives that person certain rights and responsibilities. It does not have to accompany nationality. In some Latin American countries, for example, such as Mexico, a person acquires nationality at birth but receives citizenship only upon turning 18: Mexican children, therefore, are nationals but not citizens. Similarly, not all American nationals are also American citizens. People born in the “outlying possessions of the United States” can get an American passport and live and work in the United States, but cannot vote or hold elected office. In the past, these “outlying possessions” included Guam, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, but in the 20th century Congress gradually extended citizenship to their inhabitants. Today, only American Samoa and Swains Island stand apart: the latter is a tiny atoll in the Pacific ocean, barely more than five meters above sea level, which, in 2010, had a population of just 17.  In Britain, thanks to the legacy of colonialism, the situation is even more complicated. There are six types of British nationality: British citizens, British subjects, British overseas citizens, British overseas territories citizens, British overseas nationals, or British protected persons. Sometimes it is possible to switch categories: for instance, before the British handed Hong Kong over to the Chinese on 1st July 1997, some British overseas territories citizens registered as British overseas nationals. These overseas nationals hold British passports and can receive protection from British diplomats, but they do not have the automatic right to live or work in Britain. 

[linkstogoguryeo]

Whether truck drivers or marketing executives, all workers consider intelligence intrinsic to how they do their jobs. No wonder the rise of “artificial intelligence” is uniquely terrifying. From Stephen Hawking to Elon Musk, we are told almost daily our jobs will soon be done more cheaply by AI. Yet AI is too amorphous a label to actually convey anything useful about what, precisely, it’s supposed to displace. Instead, think of it as a technology that does one thing particularly well: predictions. Such as, will that mark on the X-ray prove to be a tumor? Is the object in the road a paper bag or a child? Which headline will get the most readers to click on an article? Treating prediction as an input into an economic process makes it much easier to map AI’s impact. History and economics show that when an input such as energy, communication or calculation becomes cheaper, we find many more uses for it. Some jobs become superfluous, but others more valuable, and brand new ones spring into existence. Why should AI be different? Back in the 1860s, the British economist William Stanley Jevons noticed that when more-efficient steam engines reduced the coal needed to generate power, steam power became more widespread and coal consumption rose.  More recently, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology-led study found that as semiconductor manufacturers squeezed more computing power out of each unit of silicon, the demand for computing power shot up, and silicon consumption rose. The “Jevons paradox” is true of information-based inputs, not just materials like coal and silicon. Until the 1980s, manipulating large quantities of data—for example, calculating how higher interest rates changed a company’s future profits—was time-consuming and error-prone. Then along came personal computers and spreadsheet programs VisiCalc in 1979, Lotus 1-2-3 in 1983 and Microsoft Excel a few years later. Suddenly, you could change one number—say, this year’s rent—and instantly recalculate costs, revenues and profits years into the future. This simplified routine bookkeeping while making many tasks possible, such as modeling alternate scenarios. The new technology pummeled demand for bookkeepers: their ranks have shrunk 44% from two million in 1985, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Yet people who could run numbers on the new software became hot commodities. Since 1985, the ranks of accountants and auditors have grown 41%, to 1.8 million, while financial managers and management analysts, which the BLS didn’t even track before 1983, have nearly quadrupled to 2.1 million. Just as spreadsheets drove costs down and demand up for calculations, machine learning—the application of AI to large data sets—will do the same for predictions, argue Ajay Agrawal, Joshua Gans and Avi Goldfarb, who teach at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management. “Prediction about uncertain states of the world is an input into decision making,” they wrote in a recent paper.  Unlike spreadsheets, machine learning doesn’t yield exact answers. But it reduces the uncertainty around different risks. For example, AI makes mammograms more accurate, the authors note, so doctors can better judge when to conduct invasive biopsies. That makes the doctor’s judgment more valuable. Machine learning is statistics on steroids: It uses powerful algorithms and computers to analyze far more inputs, such as the millions of pixels in a digital picture, and not just numbers but images and sounds. It turns combinations of variables into yet more variables, until it maximizes its success on questions such as “is this a picture of a dog” or at tasks such as “persuade the viewer to click on this link.” AI has already made some skills obsolete. Google Translate is faster, cheaper and often as good as a human interpreter. Some AI programs can outperform human radiologists at identifying malignant tumors. Yet as AI gets cheaper, so its potential applications will grow. Just as better weather forecasting makes us more willing to go out without an umbrella, Mr. Manzi says, AI emboldens companies to test more products, strategies and hunches: “Theories become lightweight and disposable.” They need people who know how to use it, and how to act on the results.

[linkstogoguryeo]

[linkstogoguryeo]

Ask them gently about that time before you were born, and whether they dared think at that time that one day everybody will post and share their images on a social network called “Facebook”. Or that they will receive answers to every question from a mysterious entity called “Google”. Or enjoy the services of a digital adviser called “Waze” that guides you everywhere on the road. If they say they figured all of the above will happen, kindly refer those people to me. We’re always in need of good futurists. The truth is that very few thought, in those olden days of yore, that technologies like supercomputers, wireless network or artificial intelligence will make their way to the general public in the future. Even those who figured that these technologies will become cheaper and more widespread, failed in imagining the uses they will be put to, and how they will change society. And here we are today, when you’re posting your naked pictures on Facebook. Thanks again, technology. History is full of cases in which a new and groundbreaking technology, or a collection of such technologies, completely changes people’s lives. The change is often so dramatic that people who’ve lived before the technological leap have a very hard time understanding how the subsequent generations think. To the people before the change, the new generation may as well be aliens in their way of thinking and seeing the world. These kinds of dramatic shifts in thinking are called Singularity – a phrase that is originally derived from mathematics and describes a point which we are incapable of deciphering its exact properties. It’s that place where the equations basically go nuts and make no sense any longer. Since one of the roles of this AI would be to improve itself and perform better, it seems pretty obvious that once we have a super-intelligent AI, it will be able to create a better version of itself. And guess what the new generation of AI would then do? That’s right – improve itself even further. This kind of a race would lead to an intelligence explosion and will leave old poor us – simple, biological machines that we are – far behind. If this notion scares you, you’re in good company. A few of the most widely regarded scientists, thinkers and inventors, like Steven Hawking and Elon Musk, have already expressed their concerns that super-intelligent AI could escape our control and move against us. Others focus on the great opportunities that such a singularity holds for us. They believe that a super-intelligent AI, if kept on a tight leash, could analyze and expose many of the wonders of the world for us. Einstein, after all, was a remarkable genius who has revolutionized our understanding of physics. Well, how would the world change if we enjoyed tens, hundreds and millions ‘Einsteins’ that could’ve analyzed every problem and find a solution for it? Similarly, how would things look like if each of us could enjoy his very own “Doctor House”, that constantly analyzed his medical state and provided ongoing recommendations? And which new ideas and revelations would those super-intelligences come up with, when they go over humanity’s history and holy books? Already we see how AI is starting to change the ways in which we think about ourselves. The computer “Deep Blue” managed to beat Gary Kasparov in chess in 1997. Today, after nearly twenty years of further development, human chess masters can no longer beat on their own even an AI running on a laptop computer. But after his defeat, Kasparov has created a new kind of chess contests: ones in which humanoid and computerized players collaborate, and together reach greater successes and accomplishments than each would’ve gotten on their own. In this sort of a collaboration, the computer provides rapid computations of possible moves, and suggests several to the human player. Its human compatriot needs to pick the best option, to understand their opponents and to throw them off balance. Together, the two create a centaur: a mythical creature that combines the best traits of two different species. We see, then that AI has already forced chess players to reconsider their humanity and their game. In the next few decades we can expect a similar singularity to occur in many other games, professions and other fields that were previously conserved for human beings only. Some humans will struggle against the AI. Others will ignore it. Both these approaches will prove disastrous, since when the AI will become capable than human beings, both the strugglers and the ignorant will remain behind. Others will realize that the only way to success lies in collaboration with the computers. They will help computers learn and will direct their growth and learning. Those people will be the centaurs of the future. And this realization – that man can no longer rely only on himself and his brain, but instead must collaborate and unite with sophisticated computers to beat tomorrow’s challenges – well, isn’t that a singularity all by itself?

[linkstogoguryeo]

Almost everyone in major Chinese cities is using a smartphone to pay for just about everything. At restaurants, a waiter will ask if you want to use WeChat or Alipay — the two smartphone payment options — before bringing up cash as a third, remote possibility. Just as startling is how quickly the transition has happened. Only three years ago there would be no question at all, because everyone was still using cash. If I had to get somewhere, I couldn’t use my phone to unlock one of the ubiquitous bicycles that are a part of China’s bike-sharing craze. Even the buskers were apparently ahead of me. Enterprising musicians playing on the streets of a number of Chinese cities have put up boards with QR codes so that passers-by can simply transfer them tips directly. “It has become the default way of life now,” said Shiv Putcha, an analyst with the research firm IDC. “Literally every business and brand in China is plugged into this ecosystem.” In practical terms, this means Tencent and Alibaba’s financial affiliate, Ant Financial, the two Chinese internet companies that run WeChat and Alipay, respectively, are sitting atop a gold mine of staggering proportions. Both companies can make money off the transactions, charge other companies to use their payment platforms and all the while collect the payments data to be used in everything from new credit systems to advertising. Mr. Lim said that according to recent data, Ant Financial and Tencent were set to surpass credit card companies like Visa and Mastercard in total global transactions per day in the coming year. The key is that both companies are able to provide payments on the cheap, partly by allowing smaller vendors to make use of a simple printout of a QR code or their phone, instead of an expensive card reader. A back-end system that stores a record of user accounts, instead of having to communicate with a bank, also keeps costs down. There are some potential future problems with China’s sweeping embrace of online payments. As the country builds its entire consumer economy around two private smartphone payment platforms, it is slowly locking out people unable to get onto those networks, and locking itself into those companies. At the simplest level, that makes life difficult for tourists and business travelers who are unlikely to open a bank account in China and so will find it hard to turn their phones into wallets. More broadly, it means things could get harder for foreign and local businesses alike. Foreign companies hoping to sell to Chinese consumers now must deal with Alibaba and Tencent or risk being unable to take payments. Likewise, Chinese companies reliant on Alibaba and Tencent have to build out separate structures to deal with the world of Facebook, Google and credit cards that still dominate elsewhere. There is a corollary for what could happen here. In Japan in the early 2000s, flip phones could do everything from stream cable TV to pay at stores. But because the phones were so advanced, Japan was slow to adopt smartphones, and it went from tech giant to tech laggard in 15 years.

[linkstogoguryeo]

Mass production of plastics, which began just six decades ago, has accelerated so rapidly that it has created 8.3 billion metric tons—most of it in disposable products that end up as trash. If that seems like an incomprehensible quantity, it is. Even the scientists who set out to conduct the world’s first tally of how much plastic has been produced, discarded, burned or put in landfills, were horrified by the sheer size of the numbers.

“We all knew there was a rapid and extreme increase in plastic production from 1950 until now, but actually quantifying the cumulative number for all plastic ever made was quite shocking,” says Jenna Jambeck, a University of Georgia environmental engineer who specializes in studying plastic waste in the oceans.

Continue Reading.

[linkstogoguryeo]

UBER’S PROBLEMS It's not just Uber. The gig economy promises flexibility, but it usually benefits companies more than the workers, who work for low wages without benefis or retirement plans.  By disrupting existing industries, these gig companies avoid regulations meant to protect people.  AirBnB avoiding hotel taxes + removing apartments from rental markets in cities already struggling to provide enough housing, driving up rent for everyone... But people don't want to stop using these apps...  57% negative or neutral view of Uber, but only 4% would stop using Uber.  YOU CAN STOP WITH YOUR WALLET. 

[linkstogoguryeo]

The act of taking selfies at disaster sites is not a new one. Sergio Pirozzi, the mayor of Amatrice, a small Italian town, spoke out in April after visitors were spotted taking selfies in the area after an earthquake killed nearly 300 people and destroyed historic landmarks.In 2015, several tourists in New York were criticized online after taking smiling selfies at the site of an explosion in East Village that killed two.And in 2014, a teenage girl from Alabama was publicly shamed after posting a selfie at the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland, where an estimated 1.1 million people were killed during the Holocaust. Susan Krauss Whitbourne, a psychology professor at University of Massachusetts Amherst, said the growing "disaster selfie" trend showcases the increasing value society places on social media."Putting your face in front of a disaster scene adds a different dimension to the incident," she said. "Then it's not coping, it's just self-promotion. You're hoping to get attention or comments on your photos. "It's one thing to honor and respect the drama and suffering that people have gone through, and it's another to cross that line. There's always been a tendency to make yourself part of the action and show you were there." By posting signs condemning the selfies and confronting visitors, Whitbourne said residents could "help define a new norm" that will make clear this type of behavior is unacceptable and not tolerated.

[linkstogoguryeo]

Hawthorne effect

It is the process where human subjects of an experiment change their behavior, simply because they are being studied. This is one of the hardest inbuilt biases to eliminate or factor into the design. Many types of research use human research subjects, and the Hawthorne effect is an unavoidable bias that the researcher must try to take into account when they analyze the results.Subjects are always liable to modify behavior when they are aware that they are part of an experiment, and this is extremely difficult to quantify. All that a researcher can do is attempt to factor the effect into the research design, a tough proposition, and one that makes social research a matter of experience and judgment. https://explorable.com/hawthorne-effect

[linkstogoguryeo]

Lee’s family is full of President’s Scholars. He and his wife, both Cambridge-educated lawyers, had three children. All three became President’s Scholars. As ordained, they dutifully rose to the top of their respective spheres. The scions of other Southeast Asian political families – the Marcoses of the Philippines, the Suhartos of Indonesia or the Razaks of Malaysia – included at least some individuals who let their hair down, to put it mildly. But the Lees of Singapore were the goody-two-shoes of the block, the epitome of self-discipline, diligence and responsibility.

Nothing in the Lee family biography or background prepared Singaporeans for last Wednesday’s eruption. While most of Singapore was still asleep, the Prime Minister’s two siblings released a six-page statement titled “What has happened to Lee Kuan Yew’s values?”, which they posted on their respective Facebook accounts.They declared they no longer trusted Lee Hsien Loong as a brother and a leader. “We have lost confidence in him,” the pair said. They also claimed that they “have felt threatened by Hsien Loong’s misuse of his position and influence over the Singapore government and its agencies to drive his personal agenda”. At the heart of the quarrel is what to do with their childhood home, 38 Oxley Road. Their father stated in his last will that it should be demolished after his death. The two younger siblings are intent on carrying out these wishes. Lee Hsien Loong, however, has been arguing that the government could choose to preserve it as a monument. Since Wednesday, shots have been fired back and forth. Lee Hsien Loong first said he would address the matter when he returns from leave. But on Thursday he decided he could not wait, releasing a summary of statements he had made under oath to a ministerial committee looking into the matter of the house. This “summary”, exceeding 3,800 words, suggested that Lee Hsien Yang and Lee Suet Fern had an improper role in Lee Kuan Yew’s last will, and that the father may not have even known the details of what he was signing. The younger siblings dispute this. Lee Wei Ling called her brother’s claims “mischievous and dishonest”.

[linkstogoguryeo]

Lee Kuan Yew's will left the house at 38 Oxley to Lee Hsien Loong (his eldest son and the prime minister) -- though see my question below -- and in a "settlement" last year, younger brother Lee Hsien Yang bought over the house at full market value +50% more. LHY might have thought that the money was well spent since with control, he could ensure that the house would be demolished according to his father's wishes. (it is becoming apparent that LHL did not want the house demolished). After the sale, LHY and sister Lee Wei Ling were aghast to learn that a secret cabinet committee had been set up to consider the future of the house. The secrecy was such that even the members of the committee were not identified. It is only natural that when process and key players are deliberately hidden from view, outside parties would be highly suspicious about motives. LHY and LWL might well have feared that the aim of the committee was to frustrate their intentions to demolish the house, and they might feel themselves very unjustly treated in being made to pay market value+50% in the first place only to be robbed of their freedom of action. It would leave a very, very sour taste, and would account for the intensity of their attacks on LHL. One confusing detail remains: Some articles have mentioned that Lee Kuan Yew left his estate in three equal shares to his children.... if so, how did the entire house to go LHL? Or are those reports wrong? Maybe only a one-third share of the house?