Surfers, not plodders

 Academia Surf&Rock 2013

When she finished her pitch, the investor said he didn’t invest in women
[Via Boing Boing]

“I don’t like the way women think. They haven’t mastered linear thinking.

[More]

Idiots. Cutting off half of society simply reduces the possible solutions to a wide variety of solutions.

But the quote about linear thinking is right on. These guys simply do not understand the genius of real innovators and simply follow a linear approach themselves.

We need more non-linear thinkers, those that can adapt to things even as the conditions are changing.

These male investors know how to plod to the top of a mountain. They do not know how to surf a wave of change. But a  mountain does not change as you are hiking to the top. Today’s economies do.

A wave cannot be predicted. It is constantly changing. So we need surfers. But these investors will continue to fund plodders.

Using an iPhone to check in and get a key at Hilton

Family at the hotel check in 

Hilton hotels to let you use your iPhone as your hotel key from next year
[Via 9to5Mac]

Queuing up at a hotel check-in desk is often the last thing you want to do after a long flight. Starting next year, you’ll be able to bypass the front desk altogether in Hilton hotels, your iPhone serving as as your hotel room key.

We’ve seen the same thing in smaller hotel groups, but Hilton’s adoption of the technology moves it very much into the mainstream. The group told the WSJ that it will begin introducing the new door locks next year, and expects to complete the global roll-out by the end of 2016.

The Hilton app already allows you to check-in electronically, but currently you still need to collect your room key from the front desk – which kind of defeats the object. With the new system, iPhone check-in will send a key code to your phone which can then be used to unlock your door.

[More]

 So hotels will need fewer people at the front desk now. Throw in iBeacons and the bell hops will know when you arrive and will be ready to gather your luggage as you simply go to your room.

Would be nice.

How a distributed approach prevents authoritarian actions at Wikipedia

 Washington D.C. - Capital Building Dome

Who’s banned from editing Wikipedia this week? Congress
[Via Ars Technica]

Most members and staffers of the US House of Representatives won’t be able to edit pages on Wikipedia for more than a week. Administrators of the popular Web encyclopedia have imposed a 10-day ban on the IP address connected to Congress’ lower house.

The ban comes after a series of wild “disruptive” edits that appeared following the creation of @congressedits, a bot that monitors anonymous edits from congressional IP addresses and announces them to the world via Twitter. The account was created just over two weeks ago and already has more than 23,000 followers.

Wikipedia editors explained their castigation for the IP address 143.231.249.138 on the user talk page. The 10-day edit ban follows a one-day ban imposed earlier this month, which apparently didn’t do the trick.

[More]

Some people in Congress, using congressional computers, thought they could change content at Wikipedia. They’d be anonymous so no one would know. It might violate the TOS at Wikipedia but who would know.

It is the typical ‘smart’ idea of an authoritarian elite who hopes to hoodwink the distributed masses. A Congressional office could spend hours using their computer to alter things for their won purposes. All under the watchful eyes of authority to make sure that what was actually changed was what it wanted changed.

This was not some random staffer making changes. These were pretty obviously directed by someone in authority., someone who does not understand the power of distributed democracy.

We still do not know who was responsible (I bet we could if we made a Federal case out of it). But we do not really need to. It was a simple matter for someone to follow changes coming from congressional computers and make it open by putting on twitter.

Simply by making these changes open and transparent allows us to take action and probably change the behavior.

Sure, they can try to find another solution, such as using their own, personal, computers at another location, but that is simply using a distributed approach. This works against their authoritarian tendencies.

How will the authority know if the staffer is actually making the  right changes? Can it really trust anyone? A hallmark of hierarchical authority in a distributed democracy is paranoia due to the loss of direct control.

So moving control of these changes away from the eyes of the authority will make the elites feel less powerful, not more.

Win-win all around!

The premises may be incorrect but I agree with most of the conclusions

Pericles 

There Will Be No Smooth Sailing
[Via Booman Tribune]

In the next couple of decades, America is going to have to grapple with two major changes. The first is that there are going to be new first-world powers, like China, Brazil and India, that we will have to reckon with. The West will not be driving things the way we have been accustomed to since the end of World War Two.

The second is that the American electorate is going to be more diverse and left-leaning, more like Europe.

In both cases, Hillary Clinton seems ill-suited to be our leader. The future is more Bill de Blasio than Andrew Cuomo, and the Clintons probably don’t get that. Still, Andrew Sullivan’s dripping contempt of the Clintons is irritating. He opposes them for all the wrong reasons and none of the right ones.

While I think the Clintons are a bit “out of time,” I don’t necessarily think this is a terrible thing for a country that is going to have some serious difficulties adjusting to new realities. Clinton could serve as a bit of a buffer, allowing the country to adjust to the changed world in way that doesn’t put too much shock into the system.

We should not underestimate the threat that the reactionary rebellion against change represents in this country. They are on the verge of defeat, they know it, and they aren’t going to take it lying down.

[More]

I have not disagreed with a post I agree with quite this much in a long time.

I do not think that we will have to worry about the BRIC countries quite as much as others. In a battle between diverse, distributed bottom up approaches and single-minded, authoritarian, top down ones, no country in history can compare to the US. Two of the BRIC countries (Russian and China) are highly authoritarian and the other two, while diverse, do not have a long history of effectively dealing with that diversity.

The BRIC countries will be important, and Western influence may drop (I actually feel it may increase in some ways), I do not think the threat of BRIC will really impact the US. I think it is other. smaller pressures that will have a huge effect.

He hits one of these in the 2nd problem – diverse populations. One of the aspects of a successful society in the current age is solving complex problems, using a wide and diverse set of views to arrive at the best win-win solution.

We may become more diverse and left-leaning but not at all like Europe. Europe still has too little diversity and is having a very hard time adapting. The US while obviously showing signs of stress, has a long and successful history of dealing with new and diverse immigrants, integrating them into the most diverse culture ever.

And America has historically balanced this with an authoritative individualism that allows us to do things well, once we make the decision. Or decide to change what we are doing when conditions change. A decision that is almost always based on the democratic principles we were founded on.

Our culture is an amalgam of every other culture. It is one reason Hollywood movies do so well overseas (in fact, many movies can only make a profit by making a lot of money in a wide variety of countries). Our culture is a world culture.

No one else comes close. It is why I am confident humanity will solve our problems. We already have the beginnings of the culture that will lead us to success. It is America’s.

Not because we have some God-given manifest destiny. No top down authority makes us the model. It is due mainly to one thing.

Balance. Between distributed democracy and hierarchical authority. Those have helped make America as successful as it is. They will help even more in the future.

I do think Hillary may not be suitable for the next President. I actually think she would be better suited on the Supreme Court but that’s another story. But at the moment, there are no other  viable choices for continuing our transition.

Because, while I talk historically  presently the US is out of balance, with top-down, elites having too much political and economic power And as has happened others times this occurred, we are beginning to see the democratic processes re-balance the system,

Those in favor of the status quo, the reactionaries, the ones who want to maintain the concentrated power they wield, will not give up power easily or without loss.

I do think the reactionary elements of our society are where the real battle is at. As it is with reactionary elements being seen across the globe as they deal with distributed approaches. It is no coincidence that we are seeing multiple outbreaks of violence, driven in most cases by reactionary approaches being used. 

This will simply drive people to use distributed approaches to find solutions. The barriers to entry for much of this are so low that authority simply has a hard time stopping it.

As a quick instance, war zone reporting used to be highly restricted, with authorities only allowing certain things to be printed. Now everyone has a camera on them almost all the time, with the ability to disperse information in ways that have never been allowed before. Both for good and ill.

Finally, a key aspect to remember. Reactionaries here are not strictly conservatives. There are many liberals who want to maintain the status quo. The battle is not along economic lines – as our political parties are drawn up. It is along a separate axis. 

We have already seen this beginning to arise in our political leaders (whose votes have recently begun to reflect the battles going on).

As with any struggle, there will be setbacks and such. But, historically, the societies that did best at balancing hierarchical authority and distributed democracy were the most successful (Cordoba in the  900s vs Cordoba 150 years later; Venice in the 1300s vs Venice. 100 years later). The democracy of Athens still informs us, not the authority of Sparta.

Too much of the latter and a society is brittle and unable to adapt, ruled by an authoritative elite that extracts wealth for their own aggrandizement  Too much the latter and nothing gets done, as everyone talks about the problem.

But balance the two and you have the ability to adapt, to find radical solutions and then execute them. 

I see nothing yet to believe that America will not find the balance needed to produce solutions in this battle, and then help the rest of the world. That is also what we have done before.

The seventh year anniversary of a cultural icon’s last journey

Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows 

How Harry Potter shaped a generation
[Via Boing Boing]

Seven years after the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Caroline Siedelooks back on the book series that defined a generation.

[More]

This series changed how books are read and by whom. It also instructed a generation on the proper way to deal with authoritarian perils, even as the individuals involved were complex, multifaceted characters

We could hate the actions Snape took as much as we liked them. Same with Dumlbedore. Or Draco. They did things not because they were evil but because they were humans trying to make their way in the world, dealing with the consequences of the decisions they made. Sometimes people die because of those decisions.

It showed that even if not perfect, people could do the right thing to help others and to defeat the forces that drive authoritarian tyrannies.

Exactly the battle that generation will fight in real life. Those books provided early training for what the Potter generation will deal with most of their adulthood.

Talking with strangers makes us happier and feel more productive

tokyo subway 

You’d Be Happier If You Talked to Strangers More Often
[Via D-brief]

Humans are some of the most social creatures on this planet, but step into an elevator, train or public bus and something strange happens: we fall silent, stare at the wall and ignore the strangers surrounding us. But in doing so, we might be missing out on an easy way to make ourselves happier people.

Through several experiments, behavioral scientists Nicholas Epley and Juliana Schroeder demonstrated that we view solitude as a better option than engaging a stranger, not because we like being alone, but because we mistakenly think others don’t want to talk to us. As a result, we miss a chance to make our morning commutes more pleasurable, or even make a new friend.

Defying Expectations

The scientists started their investigation by recruiting over 100 commuters at a train station in Homewood, Illinois, and splitting them into three groups. One group was given instructions to strike up conversation with a stranger, another told to stay silent, and the third to simply carry on like they normally would. Then, after their commute, participants filled out an assessment that asked them to rate how productive, pleasant and happy their commute felt.

A second experimental group simply filled out a survey that asked them to predict their happiness levels in each of the three situations. However, they weren’t asked to take action.

In the first experimental group, those who struck up a conversation with someone — across the board — had a more pleasurable commute, and even felt more productive. On average, they spoke for 14 minutes. But interestingly, those that were asked to predict their moods went in a completely different direction: they assumed that talking to a stranger would make their commute less pleasant, less productive and leave them less happy.

[More]

It turns out that we are such social creatures that we would actually like to talk with people, even when we do not want to talk with people.

Interesting findings.

Making a better world = Separating Sheep from Goats

Ellis Island

The parable of the sheep and goats – to me, one of the defining Biblical passages describing the underlying principles of Christ’s teachings. (with the Sermon on the Mount being the other major one).

As I have written before:

Whether it is the New Commandment to love one another, the Second Great Commandment to love our neighbors, turning the other cheek in response to evil, or how to love one’s enemies, His teachings show a path that breaks cycles of violence that often reverberate during times of change and strife.

This parable catalogs some of the actions that can be taken by those following his teachings – the sheep. It details how they separate themselves by how they treat others.

Seeing a person in difficulty, having compassion and acting to remedy that difficulty is one of the defining teachings that Christ provided.

They are about how to treat other humans, how compassion is required. Empathy and sympathy are what constantly drive successful societies and simply slow down cultures doomed to failure.

Time for us all to be separated – so many goats and so few sheep. From Matthew 25:

31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?

39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

In reality, few geniuses did it alone. Perhaps none.

Genius

[Via Dave Winer's linkblog feed]

The End of ‘Genius‘.

[More]

Edison was wrong. Or at least the picture is. He was not a solitary genius working by himself, alone in the lab. He had the help of many, many others.

The perspiration did not come only from Edison. It came from over 200 researchers working on his ideas. The number should be 0.5% inspiration (his) and 99.5% perspiration (theirs).

One of the great debates between those who are of the Age of Reason and those of the Romantic: does genius come from the friction between individual drive and social requirements or does it come fully formed from the natural state of a solitary human?

Data supports the former view.

We all live in a social setting and almost all the things we call genius came about through discussions, debates and simple interactions in a community. Even if that community is a simple pair of people.

The idea of a solitary genius was  a construct of the romantics, an authoritarian group that arose as a reaction from the distributed democracy of the Age of Reason. The latter based itself on logical actions of the head – that Nature could be understood – giving us social changes embodied in things like the Declaration of Independence and the Industrial Revolution

The former based itself on the emotional affairs of the heart – that Nature could simply be observed, never understood – giving us artistic changes embodied in people such as Coleridge and Beethoven. The latter championed the connectedness of people, while the former championed the uniqueness of a solitary genius.

Recent research suggests the view of the romantic does not actually match reality; that every genius stood on the shoulders of giants; that social interaction drove and modified the results of a genius; that we often only know of genius because of the very same social interactions that romantics try to pretend are not there.

So why do we continue to support, if not actually require, a view that a single person can drive creativity by themselves, that they  can innovate alone?

I would suggest that we seek a balance – the fame of the individual against the anonymity of the group.. While we value the importance of community, we desire to be seen as more than a node in a network. Things move ahead because a small group (perhaps staring with a single person) change the way a community acts. It is the friction of the individual drives and the community needs that produce the best solutions.

A creative individual alone does nothing. A community without creativity  does nothing. A successful society requite both innovative individuals and communities that value innovation. They need both the head of Reason and the heart of Romantics.

In the end, though, we are social animals and everything needs to be seen through the prism of communities of humans.

As the article states: 

This is just one piece of an impressive body of research in social psychology and the new field of social neuroscience, which contends that individual agency often pales next to the imperatives of a collective.

Or, writing at the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment, from Thomas Done:

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were: any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

[…]

If a man carry treasure in bullion, or in a wedge of gold, and have none coined into current money, his treasure will not defray him as he travels. Tribulation is treasure in the nature of it, but it is not current money in the use of it, except we get nearer and nearer our home, heaven, by it. Another man may be sick too, and sick to death, and this affliction may lie in his bowels, as gold in a mine, and be of no use to him; but this bell, that tells me of his affliction, digs out and applies that gold to me: 

 We are all connected. No one does everything by themselves.

A treasure that exists only for one person has no value. What a genius provides must be valued by a community, otherwise it is no treasure.

 



Telling people how we will horribly mess things up probably won’t change anyone’s views

 Star Trek: Spock

How Western Civilization Ended, Circa 2014 |
[Via  Mother Jones]

You don’t know it yet. There’s no way that you could. But 400 years from now, a historian will write that the time in which you’re now living is the “Penumbral Age” of human history—meaning, the period when a dark shadow began to fall over us all. You’re living at the start of a new dark age, a new counter-Enlightenment. Why? Because too many of us living today, in the years just after the turn of the millennium, deny the science of climate change.

Such is the premise of a thought-provoking new work of “science-based fiction” by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway, two historians of science (Oreskes at Harvard, Conway at Caltech) best known for their classic 2010 book, Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. In a surprising move, they have now followed up that expose of the roots of modern science denialism with a work of “cli-fi,” or climate science fiction, entitled The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View from the Future. [SPOILER ALERT: Much of the plot of this book will be revealed below!] In it, Oreskes and Conway write from the perspective of a historian, living in China (the country that fared the best in facing the ravages of climate change) in the year 2393. The historian seeks to analyze the biggest paradox imaginable: Why humans who saw the climate disaster coming, who were thoroughly and repeatedly warned, did nothing about it.

[More]

Dystopias like 1984 are popular because they show us what will happen if we stop doing something we are already doing  (like resist authoritarians). This one seems to be trying to show us what will happen if we keep doing what we are  already doing. 

Not really helpful, in my opinion. We need narratives that help us learn how to act successfully, not stories that show an Apocalypse. The most popular fiction recently have examined how people can fight against a dystopia, not just accept it.

Here they seem to just tell us  that everything we try to do will be a failure. Hard to get people energized to chance.

Scaring people accomplishes little and is actually the fundamental reason people will grab onto any competing narrative, no matter how many lies are part of the narrative. They simply stop hearing the truth because of fear.

The Original Star Trek is the most influential SF show of all time because it was optimistic, even while showing many continuing problems. It showed people how to act. 

Real science fiction authors have done a much better job.

Beware of this scam – predicting the World Cup with 100% accuracy while creating provable conspiracy theories

Estádio Nacional Mané Garrincha 

How to predict news events with 100% success
[Via Boing Boing]

It’s simple, writes Andy Baio: “Delete Your Mistakes.”

[More]

This scam was just done on Twitter with the game between Argentina and Germany. They not only predicted the correct score but also who would score the goal and when it would occur. It went viral.

Luckily the perpetrator made a mistake and did not keep all their handiwork private.

The author of this article uses another example – a youtube video predicting a presidential election. The YouTube video has a time stamp that is from 6 months before the election. It states the exact results and links to Instagram, Flickr and Twitter accounts –  all also timestamped from before the election, that accurately show the correct results, state by state.

So the election was pre-ordained, a kabuki created by the corporations?

How this is done is to create private accounts months ahead of time for every possible combination, then delete all the incorrect accounts and make the correct one public.

Easy to do with a little programming skill.

So watch out for those who predict the Emmy winners, election results or World Series champions, after the fact.

Obama’s dingo policy goes over like lead balloon

 Canis lupus dingo

Following Backlash, White House Realizes Guy Who Opposed Obama’s Own Patent Reform Plan Shouldn’t Lead The Patent Office
[Via Techdirt]

A little over a week ago, it came out that President Obama was on the verge of appointing a former pharmaceutical industry exec, who had spent years fighting against the very kind of patent reform that President Obama supported, to be head of the USPTO. It was a little odd how the news came out — as it seemed to be clearly “leaked” to a few folks in the press that Phil Johnson was likely to be the nominee. However, the move was pretty quickly condemned, and now the same folks are saying that the White House has changed its mind, and will not offer the position to Johnson.

At the very least, that suggests that the “leak” of his name was something of a trial balloon, to see how it would go over — and the vocal rejection (including by big patent reform supporter Senator Chuck Schumer) made the White House realize that it would be in for a pretty angry fight over the nomination. Hopefully, the next nominee isn’t someone who has vocally fought against the President’s own position on patent reform…[More]

So here is one time that he appears to listen. Nice to see a distributed approach succeed over the normal authoritarian.

I did love the comment that stated this sort of policy: “Let’s hire the dingo as our babysitter” Maybe the new tools of distributed democracy will make this policy much less likely.

Being an asshole in a video game may make people better people

Critical Miss! 

Another Study Suggests Acting Immorally In Video Games Actually Makes Players More Moral
[Via Techdirt]

As the evolution of video games as a major entertainment medium marches on, you would expect to see more and more studies done as to their effects. And, since the chief topic among those having this conversation seems to center around the effect of violence in games, that’s where much of the focus of these studies is going to go. Now, we’ve already discussed one study that linked violent video games and the so-called Macbeth Effect, in which the gamer feels the need to cleanse themselves of the wrong-doing with a conversely benevolent action. That study was important because it demonstrated that the effect of violent games might have the opposite effect of the all-to-prevalent theory that virtual violence begets real-life violence.

A recent study appears to boil this down even further, indicating that instead of feeling any kind of desensitizing effect, immoral actions taken in video games produce a more sensitive, compassionate person.

A study led by Matthew Grizzard, assistant professor in the department of communication at the University at Buffalo, reaffirmed previous research saying that committing immoral acts in games can cause players to feel guilt. Moreover, the study found that players would become more sensitive to the specific moral codes that they violated while playing — and according to Grizzard and his co-authors, that may eventually lead players to practice prosocial behavior (that is, voluntary behavior for the benefit of other people).

The study was done at an unnamed Midwestern university, sampling nearly 200 individuals for testing purposes. The game used was Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis, an older game that was previously used in a study that first tried to measure guilt in the gaming population. The methodology used by several researchers from major universities is interesting, to say the least.

First, the researchers randomly assigned the participants to play a game or perform a memory recall task. They randomly assigned the gaming segment to play Cold War Crisis in two ways: Either they would play as terrorists (the “guilt condition”), or as U.N. peacekeepers in the “control condition.” The researchers also split the memory recall participants into two groups: They asked the guilt condition people to write about a time in which they felt particularly guilty, while they requested the control condition folks to write about a normal day.

What they found is that feelings of guilt were more profound in those gamers who played as terrorists compared with those that played as peacekeepers. The rationale at work is that terrorists are unjustified in killing the U.N. characters, but not vice versa. What thatdemonstrates is that players taking what they deem to be immoral actions within a virtual environment are emotionally stimulated in thinking about those actions and develop thoughts and opinions based on those actions, building generally towards empathy through guilt. Coupled with other research, this is important.

[More]

Interesting research.  Not what one would expect but makes sense. At least for people who are empathetic.

I’m sure this only works for normal people and not psychopaths. But it is interesting that that “immoral virtual behaviors are capable of eliciting guilt.”  And that guilt usually results in taking actions to assuage the feeling, often by doing pro-soical things.

So now do this with a group of Wall Street financiers  some CEOs and politicians. Compare with public defenders, firefighters and doctors. I’d be interested in any differences.

They will have to do more work to see if this lessens as time goes on but, as a strictly anecdotal observation, I almost always hate playing the bad guys when given the choice. In Dungeons and Dragons  I could not abide anyone who was evil.  Heck, even in Angry Birds I refuse to play the Pigs.



Uselss app finds usefulness in warning Israelis of rocket attacks

 Bomb Shelter in the Golan Heights, Israel

Pointless Yo app now alerts Israelis to rocket attacks
[Via Ars Technica]

An app that became infamous for its astounding lack of utility has found a purpose: warning Israeli citizens about rocket strikes. As reported by the Times of Israel (via Valleywag), Israelis have been using the app Yo to subscribe to alerts from Red Alert: Israel about incoming attacks during the Hamas-Israel conflict.

Yo was roundly mocked when it secured $1.2 million in funding and again when it was shown to have gaping security holes. It does almost nothing; tapping a contact’s name within the app sends a push notification to that person’s phone and makes it say “yo.” That’s… it.

Now Yo has partnered with Red Alert: Israel, an app that shows users “where the rockets fired at Israel by Gaza terrorists are aimed,” according to the Times of Israel. Red Alert: Israel’s app sounds an alarm during attacks, and it’s meant to work as a backup for the sirens that sound to alert residents. Users who so choose can now receive a “yo” when rockets have been launched.

[More]

I love this.  The developers of Yo are nothing if not adaptable. Eight hours of work to create an app that could save lives. From a totally useless app to a reasonably valuable one. Who is laughing now?

Distributed approaches again succeed over hierarchical.

Neymar is out mainly because Velasco Carballo did not do his job (UPDATE: FIFA had a role)

Mondiale finito. Si è rotto l'asso brasiliano.
[Via Dave Winer's linkblog feed]

For Bellicose Brazil, Payback Carries Heavy Price: Loss of Neymar.

[More]

UPDATE: FIFA picked the ref because he threw very few yellows. So they bear some blame because the ref knew that if he showed too many yellows he would not get picked to call the final. It was not money involved in the ref tanking the game. It was FIFA.

It was an ugly, cynical game. It is the referee’s job to control the game. He called something like 54 fouls but only gave  3 yellows, one for a technicality, not a challenge. Brazil crushed James Rodriquez with little consequence. He gave a yellow to Rodriquez for a first time innocuous foul yet several Brazil players commit 5 or more horrible fouls without a card.

The referee list serv was not happy with the referee’s game even while it was happening. In a physical game with lots of fouls, the proper response is not simply to let it continue to escalate until someone is hurt. Because eventually the players will take justice into their own hands.

Brazil decided to sow a physical game and reaped the loss of their best player. Because the referee did not perform at a world-class level.

A few yellow cards early would have changed the complexion of the game. For the better. And Neymar might still be healthy.

The referee is the only one who has the power to prevent such play. He did not and it became more rugby than soccer. 

I am sorry to see Neymar out. But the failure of the referee to control the physicality of the game (most fouls in the Cup so far and he did not even call the kick on Neymar a foul), a physicality initiated by the Brazilians, resulted in some payback. Everyone knows that is what will happen which is why the referee cannot lose control.

It is never a good thing when you read the referee’s name in a game summary. Shame on Velasco Carballo.

Jay Rosen nails it with respect to Facebook

Facebook Beachfront 

[Via Dave Winer's linkblog feed]

Facebook’s controversial study is business as usual for tech companies but corrosive for universities.

[More]

I was more upset with PNAs than Facebook. Glad to see someone else is.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 431 other followers

%d bloggers like this: