Ulysse Sabbagh

Delphi Automotive Plc, the vehicle-electronics supplier that last year conducted the first coast-to-coast U.S. demonstration of a self-driving car, will begin testing autonomous autos in Singapore this year that may lead to robot taxis by the end of the decade.

So we do live in a world where driverless cars will drive us — mere mortals (i.e not Silicon Valley people) — around. Cool!

Read more over at Bloomberg.

There is a problem with modern scientific findings and it is that researchers can't replicate most discoveries. 

From Nautilus:

A group of researchers at Amgen, an American pharmaceutical company, attempted to replicate 53 landmark cancer discoveries in close collaboration with the authors. Many of these papers were published in high-impact journals and came from prestigious academic institutions. To the surprise of everyone involved, they were able to replicate only six of those papers—approximately 11 percent.

Why do I say modern? The quantity of scientific papers keeps increasing. And scientists, who crave recognition, want to differentiate and shine by themselves. 

Says Robert Merton, a well-known sociologist: 

The well-recognized sociologist Robert Merton has pointed out that scientists’ need for recognition may stem from their need to be assured that what they know is worth knowing, and that they are capable of original thought. In this view, recognition is necessary for intellectual confidence.

Unfortunately, recognition is not derived from the quality of the work: 

The inconvenient truth is that scientists can achieve fame and advance their careers through accomplishments that do not prioritize the quality of their work. If recognition is not based on quality, then scientists will not modify their behaviors to select for it. In the culture of modern science, it is better to be wrong than to be second.

This does not mean that quality is completely neglected. The Nobel Prize—the most coveted form of recognition—is associated with scientific discoveries of the highest caliber. But for the tens of thousands of scientists fighting over shrinking research budgets, winning less visible awards becomes an obsession, needed for promotions and grants.

Woops. What will the impact of this trend be in 10 years? 

There is a problem with modern scientific findings and it is that researchers can't replicate most discoveries. 

From Nautilus:

A group of researchers at Amgen, an American pharmaceutical company, attempted to replicate 53 landmark cancer discoveries in close collaboration with the authors. Many of these papers were published in high-impact journals and came from prestigious academic institutions. To the surprise of everyone involved, they were able to replicate only six of those papers—approximately 11 percent.

Why do I say modern? The quantity of scientific papers keeps increasing. And scientists, who crave recognition, want to differentiate and shine by themselves. 

Says Robert Merton, a well-known sociologist: 

The well-recognized sociologist Robert Merton has pointed out that scientists’ need for recognition may stem from their need to be assured that what they know is worth knowing, and that they are capable of original thought. In this view, recognition is necessary for intellectual confidence.

Unfortunately, recognition is not derived from the quality of the work: 

The inconvenient truth is that scientists can achieve fame and advance their careers through accomplishments that do not prioritize the quality of their work. If recognition is not based on quality, then scientists will not modify their behaviors to select for it. In the culture of modern science, it is better to be wrong than to be second.

This does not mean that quality is completely neglected. The Nobel Prize—the most coveted form of recognition—is associated with scientific discoveries of the highest caliber. But for the tens of thousands of scientists fighting over shrinking research budgets, winning less visible awards becomes an obsession, needed for promotions and grants.

Woops. What will the impact of this trend be in 10 years? 

 Collective wisdom tells us to set goals and reach them.

But what happens then? And what if such a dogmatic view can lead to counterproductive results? And what if, because of these goals, we miss out on auxiliary discoveries that may turn out to be better? 

Here's an example, from Kottke:

One illuminating example of the problem concerns the American automobile behemoth General Motors. The turn of the millennium found GM in a serious predicament, losing customers and profits to more nimble, primarily Japanese, competitors. As the Boston Globe reported, executives at GM's headquarters in Detroit came up with a goal, crystallized in a number: 29. Twenty-nine, the company announced amid much media fanfare, was the percentage of the American car market that it would recapture, reasserting its old dominance. Twenty-nine was also the number displayed upon small gold lapel pins, worn by senior figures at GM to demonstrate their commitment to the plan. At corporate gatherings, and in internal GM documents, twenty-nine was the target drummed into everyone from salespeople to engineers to public-relations officers.

Yet the plan not only failed to work-it made things worse. Obsessed with winning back market share, GM spent its dwindling finances on money-off schemes and clever advertising, trying to lure drivers into purchasing its unpopular cars, rather than investing in the more speculative and open-ended-and thus more uncertain-research that might have resulted in more innovative and more popular vehicles.

Be sure to read Nathan Bashaw's Hardbound story on goals. He tells the tale of Ken Stanley, a guy who wanted to create software that evolves random images into meaningful pictures — moving from a weird dot to something that'd look like an eye, for instance.

The software, Picbreeder, never did what Ken wanted it to do, so he opened Picbreeder to the public and saw that humans evolved images in a much smarter way. 

One day, he started with a picture that looked like an alien and it finally became a car (you'll understand what I say if you read the Hardbound story linked above).  

He realised then that great discoveries are possible but only if we abandon the need to control what they will be. 

It's something that you may have thought of intuitively. It keeps happening with scientific discoveries, time and time again (the telephone, for instance).

 Collective wisdom tells us to set goals and reach them.

But what happens then? And what if such a dogmatic view can lead to counterproductive results? And what if, because of these goals, we miss out on auxiliary discoveries that may turn out to be better? 

Here's an example, from Kottke:

One illuminating example of the problem concerns the American automobile behemoth General Motors. The turn of the millennium found GM in a serious predicament, losing customers and profits to more nimble, primarily Japanese, competitors. As the Boston Globe reported, executives at GM's headquarters in Detroit came up with a goal, crystallized in a number: 29. Twenty-nine, the company announced amid much media fanfare, was the percentage of the American car market that it would recapture, reasserting its old dominance. Twenty-nine was also the number displayed upon small gold lapel pins, worn by senior figures at GM to demonstrate their commitment to the plan. At corporate gatherings, and in internal GM documents, twenty-nine was the target drummed into everyone from salespeople to engineers to public-relations officers.

Yet the plan not only failed to work-it made things worse. Obsessed with winning back market share, GM spent its dwindling finances on money-off schemes and clever advertising, trying to lure drivers into purchasing its unpopular cars, rather than investing in the more speculative and open-ended-and thus more uncertain-research that might have resulted in more innovative and more popular vehicles.

Be sure to read Nathan Bashaw's Hardbound story on goals. He tells the tale of Ken Stanley, a guy who wanted to create software that evolves random images into meaningful pictures — moving from a weird dot to something that'd look like an eye, for instance.

The software, Picbreeder, never did what Ken wanted it to do, so he opened Picbreeder to the public and saw that humans evolved images in a much smarter way. 

One day, he started with a picture that looked like an alien and it finally became a car (you'll understand what I say if you read the Hardbound story linked above).  

He realised then that great discoveries are possible but only if we abandon the need to control what they will be. 

It's something that you may have thought of intuitively. It keeps happening with scientific discoveries, time and time again (the telephone, for instance).

Robin Yassin-Kassab, reporting for The National: 

Daraya, a suburb west of Damascus now suffering its fourth year under starvation siege, is run by a council. Its 120 members select executives by vote every six months. The council head is chosen by public election. The council runs schools, a hospital,and a public kitchen, and manages urban agricultural production. Its office supervises the Free Syrian Army militias defending the town. Amid constant bombardment, Daraya’s citizen journalists produce a newspaper, Enab Baladi, which promotes non-violent resistance. In a country once known as a 'kingdom of silence', there are more than 60 independent newspapers and many free radio stations."

And: 

Towns could legislate locally according to their demographic and cultural composition and mood. The alternative to enhanced local control is new borders, new ethnic cleanings, new wars. At the very least, the councils deserve political recognition by the United States and others. Council members should be a key presence on the opposition’s negotiating team at any talks.

Localism as an answer to the many woes brought upon by globalisation is not such a far-fetched idea. Mix this with Yaneer Bar-Yam's idea on teamwork and we have something interesting. 

Robin Yassin-Kassab, reporting for The National: 

Daraya, a suburb west of Damascus now suffering its fourth year under starvation siege, is run by a council. Its 120 members select executives by vote every six months. The council head is chosen by public election. The council runs schools, a hospital,and a public kitchen, and manages urban agricultural production. Its office supervises the Free Syrian Army militias defending the town. Amid constant bombardment, Daraya’s citizen journalists produce a newspaper, Enab Baladi, which promotes non-violent resistance. In a country once known as a 'kingdom of silence', there are more than 60 independent newspapers and many free radio stations."

And: 

Towns could legislate locally according to their demographic and cultural composition and mood. The alternative to enhanced local control is new borders, new ethnic cleanings, new wars. At the very least, the councils deserve political recognition by the United States and others. Council members should be a key presence on the opposition’s negotiating team at any talks.

Localism as an answer to the many woes brought upon by globalisation is not such a far-fetched idea. Mix this with Yaneer Bar-Yam's idea on teamwork and we have something interesting. 

Thanks, Randall Munroe. 

 From Marginal Revolution, reblogging the NYT: 

"Now scientists have determined that humans and their honeyguides [a kind of bird] communicate with each other through an extraordinary exchange of sounds and gestures, which are used only for honey hunting and serve to convey enthusiasm, trustworthiness and a commitment to the dangerous business of separating bees from their hives.

The findings cast fresh light on one of only a few known examples of cooperation between humans and free-living wild animals, a partnership that may well predate the love affair between people and their domesticated dogs by hundreds of thousands of years.

Claire N. Spottiswoode, a behavioral ecologist at Cambridge University, and her colleagues reported in the journal Science that honeyguides advertise their scout readiness to the Yao people of northern Mozambique by flying up close while emitting a loud chattering cry.

For their part, the Yao seek to recruit and retain honeyguides with a distinctive vocalization, a firmly trilled ‘brrr’ followed by a grunted ‘hmm.’ In a series of careful experiments, the researchers then showed that honeyguides take the meaning of the familiar ahoy seriously.

…Researchers have identified a couple of other examples of human-wild animal cooperation: fishermen in Brazil who work with bottlenose dolphins to maximize the number of mullets swept into nets or snatched up by dolphin mouths, and orcas that helped whalers finish off harpooned baleen giants by pulling down the cables and drowning the whales, all for the reward from the humans of a massive whale tongue.

But for the clarity of reciprocity, nothing can match the relationship between honeyguide and honey hunter. ‘Honeyguides provide the information and get the wax,’ Dr. Spottiswoode said. ‘Humans provide the skills and get the honey.’

Very interesting. May I suggest you watch the beautiful BBC documentaries, Human Planet. You'll see a video of these Brazilian fishermen.  

 From Marginal Revolution, reblogging the NYT: 

"Now scientists have determined that humans and their honeyguides [a kind of bird] communicate with each other through an extraordinary exchange of sounds and gestures, which are used only for honey hunting and serve to convey enthusiasm, trustworthiness and a commitment to the dangerous business of separating bees from their hives.

The findings cast fresh light on one of only a few known examples of cooperation between humans and free-living wild animals, a partnership that may well predate the love affair between people and their domesticated dogs by hundreds of thousands of years.

Claire N. Spottiswoode, a behavioral ecologist at Cambridge University, and her colleagues reported in the journal Science that honeyguides advertise their scout readiness to the Yao people of northern Mozambique by flying up close while emitting a loud chattering cry.

For their part, the Yao seek to recruit and retain honeyguides with a distinctive vocalization, a firmly trilled ‘brrr’ followed by a grunted ‘hmm.’ In a series of careful experiments, the researchers then showed that honeyguides take the meaning of the familiar ahoy seriously.

…Researchers have identified a couple of other examples of human-wild animal cooperation: fishermen in Brazil who work with bottlenose dolphins to maximize the number of mullets swept into nets or snatched up by dolphin mouths, and orcas that helped whalers finish off harpooned baleen giants by pulling down the cables and drowning the whales, all for the reward from the humans of a massive whale tongue.

But for the clarity of reciprocity, nothing can match the relationship between honeyguide and honey hunter. ‘Honeyguides provide the information and get the wax,’ Dr. Spottiswoode said. ‘Humans provide the skills and get the honey.’

Very interesting. May I suggest you watch the beautiful BBC documentaries, Human Planet. You'll see a video of these Brazilian fishermen.  

‘In Syria, there was always a way to avoid bureaucracy, even if it meant paying a bit of extra money. Here, there is no way around the paperwork,’ Khattab said.

Read more on the Guardian from a couple of days ago. The app is brilliantly named Bureaucrazy. They need funds and coding support. 

‘In Syria, there was always a way to avoid bureaucracy, even if it meant paying a bit of extra money. Here, there is no way around the paperwork,’ Khattab said.

Read more on the Guardian from a couple of days ago. The app is brilliantly named Bureaucrazy. They need funds and coding support. 

Here's the list, from No Film School:

• Days of Heaven (DPs: Nestor Almendros and Haskell Wexler)
• Barry Lyndon (DP: John Alcott) 
• 2001: A Space Odyssey (DP: Geoffrey Unsworth) 
• Citizen Kane (DP: Gregg Toland) 
• Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (DPs: Karl Struss and Charles Rosher) 
• The Conformist (DP: Vittorio Storaro) 
• The Red Shoes (DP: Jack Cardiff) 
• McCabe and Mrs. Miller (DP: Vilmos Zsigmond) 
• Night of the Hunter (DP: Stanley Cortez) 
• Apocalypse Now (DP: Vittorio Storaro) 
• The Magnificent Ambersons (DP Stanley Cortez) 
• The Tree of LIfe (DP: Emmanuel Lubezki)

And here's a video showing excerpts from these films. You should probably watch them all, I know I will. 

Here's the list, from No Film School:

• Days of Heaven (DPs: Nestor Almendros and Haskell Wexler)
• Barry Lyndon (DP: John Alcott) 
• 2001: A Space Odyssey (DP: Geoffrey Unsworth) 
• Citizen Kane (DP: Gregg Toland) 
• Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (DPs: Karl Struss and Charles Rosher) 
• The Conformist (DP: Vittorio Storaro) 
• The Red Shoes (DP: Jack Cardiff) 
• McCabe and Mrs. Miller (DP: Vilmos Zsigmond) 
• Night of the Hunter (DP: Stanley Cortez) 
• Apocalypse Now (DP: Vittorio Storaro) 
• The Magnificent Ambersons (DP Stanley Cortez) 
• The Tree of LIfe (DP: Emmanuel Lubezki)

And here's a video showing excerpts from these films. You should probably watch them all, I know I will. 

 Over the next 10 years, we're building everything from Oculus headsets to solar-powered planes. We've always had labs for each team, but our new lab will be a hub where engineers can work together to make even faster progress towards connecting the world (emphasis mine).

Mark is hungry!

 Over the next 10 years, we're building everything from Oculus headsets to solar-powered planes. We've always had labs for each team, but our new lab will be a hub where engineers can work together to make even faster progress towards connecting the world (emphasis mine).

Mark is hungry!

Yaneer Bar-Yam is a complex systems scientist and he has an idea about solving some of the world's biggest woes.

But first, what are complex systems?

From the one and only Wikipedia: 

The study of complex systems represents a new approach to science that investigates how relationships between parts give rise to the collective behaviors of a system and how the system interacts and forms relationships with its environment.

Here's the problem according to Yaneer's post on Medium: 

Why should governments fail? Because leaders, wheth-er self-appointed dictators, or elected officials, are unable to identify what policies will be good for a complex society. The unintended consequences are beyond their comprehension. Regardless of values or objectives, the outcomes are far from what they intend.

 And his solution?

There is a solution. It is not a form of government, no “ism” or “ocracy’’ will do. It begins with widespread individual action that transforms society — -a metamorphosis of social organization in which leadership no longer serves the role it has over millennia. A different type of existence will emerge, affecting all of us as individuals and enabling us to live in a complex world.

To be successful in high complexity challenges requires teamwork. Each team member performs one part of what needs to be done, contributing to the complexity and scale of what the team does while limiting the complexity each individual faces.

Yaneer Bar-Yam is a complex systems scientist and he has an idea about solving some of the world's biggest woes.

But first, what are complex systems?

From the one and only Wikipedia: 

The study of complex systems represents a new approach to science that investigates how relationships between parts give rise to the collective behaviors of a system and how the system interacts and forms relationships with its environment.

Here's the problem according to Yaneer's post on Medium: 

Why should governments fail? Because leaders, wheth-er self-appointed dictators, or elected officials, are unable to identify what policies will be good for a complex society. The unintended consequences are beyond their comprehension. Regardless of values or objectives, the outcomes are far from what they intend.

 And his solution?

There is a solution. It is not a form of government, no “ism” or “ocracy’’ will do. It begins with widespread individual action that transforms society — -a metamorphosis of social organization in which leadership no longer serves the role it has over millennia. A different type of existence will emerge, affecting all of us as individuals and enabling us to live in a complex world.

To be successful in high complexity challenges requires teamwork. Each team member performs one part of what needs to be done, contributing to the complexity and scale of what the team does while limiting the complexity each individual faces.

Jeremy Thomas has an interactive way of teaching you how to design for the web in less than 4 minutes. 

Go play on his website!

Let's say you have a product, a portfolio, or just an idea you want to share with everyone on your own website. Before you publish it on the internet, you want to make it look attractive, professional, or at least decent to look at.

What is the first thing you need to work on?