Some Things I Read This Morning

Comments (Archived):

1. Some absurdity? I’ll raise you. I read that EOS has amassed +4 billion US dollars.Where do i subscribe to the things you can’t say premium paywall blog? What tokens do you take?

2. #5 is a head scratcher.Sad to see these extreme cases begin to multiply in frequency.

   1. You have to listen closely on that one to hear the signal through the noise.

   2. sad but the new inevitable. what CEO would turn down the chance of free money?do you have any Summit III videos? something to lift our spirits.

      1. I’m much less sure: as of around this past January, every single ex-b-school classmate of mine, and every single current successful business owner or type-A personality came out of the woodwork to ask me for advice re doing their (usually yet-to-be-defined) ICO.Today, I see that flow cut down to a trickle.Folks seem to realize it ain’t free money now, after all.

         1. the well is a little dry atm.there’s no debt, and there’s no equity exchange. if they can pull it off then they only have their soul to consider.

      2. Yes, we have been tweeting them out!Here’s the channel:https://www.youtube.com/cha…

3. *”that I can say”– #tease

   1. I was thinking that could be the start of a very interesting song!

4. Adblocking, GDPR….WAKE UP AD TECH!

   1. you forgot “skip ad”

      1. Skipping ads is actually ad engagement. Marketers are getting their message crammed into the first 4 seconds, LOL.

         1. Yes, they have 5 seconds to grab your attention. It is an opportunity for further engagement. Very challenging.

            1. 5 seconds is the new 30 seconds

5. Mary Meeker manages to confirm and reassure our understanding of human nature and the laws of physics: when a vacuum is filled, another vacuum is created. (on second thought, maybe too much coffee this morning)

   1. Your vacuum analogy sucks

      1. Ha! You sound like my wife.

         1. Because puns?

            1. No. Because I married someone a whole lot smarter than me.

            2. I think you complimented me there

            3. Faint praise.

   2. is she still in hyperdrive mode? i really can’t be doing with that speed of delivery.

      1. Looks like standard issue material to me.

         1. her ‘standard’ is my fast forward.

6. I’ll add my random thought to this.Subscribed to Goddard College feed and a great read.For those that don’t know it, the most experimental college (in Vermont) coming out of Black Mountain College closing.Buddy went, then bought the curriculum and ran it for years. To see these young multidisciplinary kids studying arts and architecture–as education should be an a lot to be learned.

7. This was an interesting Tim Wu piece:* https://uploads.disquscdn.c…FACEBOOK, SNAPCHAT AND THE DAWN OF THE POST-TRUTH ERA* https://www.wired.com/story…

   1. IMHO the notion of “The Dawn if the Post-Truth Era” is ill conceived. It falls to recognise that a very large percentage of the US population and the overwhelming majority of the world’s population never entered the”Truth Era.”. The Enlightenment was hugely important and was largely responsible for the creation of today’s world but it passed most people byr.

      1. What did the Enlightenment do? Professor Michael L. Dertouzos, Director of MIT Lab from 1974-2001: “We made a big mistake 300 years ago when we separated technology and humanism,” Dertouzos said in a (1997) interview in Scientific American. “It’s time to put the two back together.”Several logic frameworks were constructed during the Enlightenment that are at the roots of the problems with data and technology today.John McCarthy, a father of AI, 1973: “The common sense programs have occupied relatively little computer time. (They) simply have too limited a formalization. Now, part of this is due to a defect in current systems of mathematical logic — where the systems are designed to be REASONED ABOUT, rather than to be REASONED IN.”The Enlightenment’s logic models from Descartes, Leibniz, Hobbes, Locke, Bayes et al are all REASONED ABOUT. https://uploads.disquscdn.c…

         1. It isn’t simply a matter of logic. Nor is it just a matter of scientism. Facts matter.

            1. Yes, facts matter. Yet this is the tech reality:* https://www.cnbc.com/amp/20…* https://www.theatlantic.com…Sir Roger Penrose said something important at Qualcomm’s AI debate: “What he (Gödel) doesn’t show is that there are things you can’t establish in mathematics. What he does show is that if you base your belief in what is true, what is not true, on computable rules, you’ve missed things. There are things you cannot obtain by those rules yet you know must be true.”How do we compute the “rules” to determine the truth of whether and why someone loves us, and reciprocally so? We simply … KNOW.Is it a fact we love our family and friends? Are there scientific methods, measurements and maths models that can completely map our experiences in this area?I do hear you about the importance of facts but we had methods for that before Descartes and the Enlightenment thinkers. And theirs is not the whole picture for facts or how to collect and measure things.

            2. You’re right. But let’s not forget that the Enlightenment period did signal a very important transition in human history. It undercut the significance of religion in everyday life and as an rustical ground for belief in all matter of topics.Human beings did indeed middle along for thousands of years prior to the rise of science and the more general role for fact and reason that this ushered in, but a huge amount of belief about the world was just wrong. One doesn’t have to believe that science is the answer to everything to recognise that a world view that didn’t embrace reason is crippled.Btw I hate to contradict Penrose but he is wrong. He is wrong in at least two ways.Firstly, and purely technically, Godel does in fact show that there are things that you can’t establish in math. In fact that is the significance of his result. He proves that any attempt to model mathematics with set theory and logic will be incomplete. This is a mathematical result. It is every bit as mathematical as the proof of the infinitude of primes. Secondly, he does not show that if you be your belief in what is true, not true and rules that you have missed things. Such an assertion is extrapolating way beyond the scope of Gidel’s work. This is an extremely common error. People love the notion of undecidability and extend it into all sorts of fields citing Godel. Quota is littered with questions asking these lines.

8. Give the masses ad-blocker options meantime:https://www.reuters.com/art…

   1. http://www.wired.co.uk/arti…

9. Let’s not forget that Monster had naming rights to Candlestick Park in SF* for a few years, last decade. Wonder if this ico is even more short-lived.* Beatles had their last concert there.

   1. Wasn’t that Monster, the job listing site?

      1. Nope! and funny thing was, they had real problems, lost real money and the naming rights within a few years, partly because lots of people assumed it was either that or the energy drink!They were Monster Cable then, and the park became Monster Park, then reverted to Candlestick, then got torn down and the 49ers moved down to santa clara, if i’m remembering all this correctly.

         1. Branding is a monster of a problem

      2. that was a monster. there are many monsters. more than i can say (theme of the day).

         1. Have you sought counseling for this many monsters condition you suffer from?

            1. everyone should learn to cultivate their monster. it’s not inevitably a bad outcome. monsters have been maligned for too long in popular culture.

   2. Little known fact. Was that the last US appearance or as a group?

      1. sounds like something googling can answer.*short of my doing that, I do remember that the Stick was the final full-length concert that the 4 ever did. (The ’69 Apple studios rooftop “Get Back” doesn’t count.)Can you imagine: they had to stop touring right when they were kind of just getting going, because the demand and excitement were way too out of control?!*ok fine, 1st google hit i see on the subject: http://www.nme.com/news/mus…

         1. Thanks. Never knew this. It was the Beatles that inspired five of us to form a garage band. And, it was Ringo that motivated me to be the drummer. Then, we ended up playing mostly ‘Stones’. Unfortunately, we never had the screaming groupie problem. The main reason we formed the band.

10. I’ll toss in, the crypto bank of choice these days.https://www.cnbc.com/2018/0…

    1. No question that bitcoin coverage is akin to porn, investment porn

11. Monster vs Beats by Dr Dre Pod Cast. Lesson to be learned: read the contract, don’t rush to make a deal and get a lawyer involved. https://www.youtube.com/wat…

12. .#3 Tom Evslin’s blog post is a good read. He lives in Vermont and voted for Candidate DJT. He explains why.The next Presidential election will be between whoever the Dems come up with versus a President DJT 2.0.Right now the entire Dem focus is on #notTrump (OK, they want to raise your taxes, but that’s not novel or new for these chaps) and there is little likelihood their most powerful leader, Stormy Daniels, will accept the nomination.[I will miss the ability for the Trumpsters to shout: “The Dem candidate sucks/blows!” That is crude and beneath this audience, which is why I did not say it.]In 2020, the man running for President posing as a member of the Trump Tribe will not be the Candidate DJT 1.0 — the guy with no political experience, the hopeless amateur who would never get the nomination or win the election.Sure he beat the GOPe, the Bushes, the pundits, the pollsters, the Illuminati, the media, and — who am I leaving out? Oh, yes, HRC. Of course, the Russians swung it for him, right? It was all Beginners Luck, no?There will be a new, improved President DJT 2.0 version with a record to run upon coupled with all the powers of incumbency. There will be results and asking the electorate to give back the quality of the results, if judged good, will be like asking a kid to do without Christmas.It is worth noting that since the election, the Dems have drifted further left, are more comfortable with MS-13 than before, and have done NOTHING to win back the Rust Belt.Surely by 2020 the Mueller investigation will be winding down? When it does, unless President DJT is fitted for a prison jumpsuit, the boost for President DJT 2.0 will be staggering.Will there be a better candidate in 2020?Yes, and his name is President DJT v 2.0.I guess I should say the obvious: He will win an enormous landslide in the Electoral College and California will vote entirely for whomever the Dems run even if it is Hillary. [Please, God?]JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

    1. I didn’t know that you had started writing comedy.

       1. .Haha, good one, Tommy. There is a bit of comedy in every tragedy and a bit of tragedy in every comedy.Remember I was the one who said Trump could win back in 2015 and then that he would win in 2016. Lo and behold, the old boy did it.I was touched deeply when Freddy started that GoFundMe for the lobotomy, but I did get it right.Here it is — President DJT 2.0 in 2020 in a freaking landslide.Let me double down, may I? He will be regarded as one of America’s greatest Presidents 25 years after Pence is inaugurated as his successor.Bit of tragedy? Bit of comedy?JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          1. Pence? What about Ivanka?

             1. .Damn good point — Pence for 8, Ivanka for 8?JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

    2. Steamy, Sexy, Slutty, Stormy is a very talented woman, in less than 30 seconds, a new world record, and the only true test, can suck the chrome off an old Cadillac front bumper!

       1. .You Yankees are a funny bunch. The true ASTM standard is can she part a U-Haul bumper hitch from its chrome? She is a Baton Rouge phenom, after all.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

          1. So, that’s why Bill Clinton took all those trips to NOLA!! Suspicions confirmed!

13. “What you shout out, you dig in” Charlie Munger

14. Googlenews app is getting better and bettter. In 10 years CNN, FOX, and CNBC might be in the dogpile.

    1. they are dogpile.

15. https://upi.com/6750143t Screw space. I just want to get from here to there faster and not feel like I am in steerage.

16. Tom wrapped his Trump thoughts in a lot of words so for anyone interested (it was total link bait) I will boil it down:The day I decided I couldn’t vote for [Hillary] was the day a reporter asked if she’d wiped her email server. “You mean with a dishrag?” she smirked. The intentionally ditsy reply was an insult to women. The smirk was more than I could stomach. It seemed to cover everything from Whitewater to the Clinton Foundation to the fortunes Bill Clinton got for speaking in Russia while the sale of American uranium assets to Russia was in the hands of Hillary’s State Department. Throw in Benghazi, too.Summary: Tom never liked her before and that one single event gave him a way to show that dislike in a story that could be easily understood by the everyday man. [1] Personally I can’t see the offense in using ‘dishrag’ and ‘ditsy’. I would argue that is humor. And humor is protected free speech. People should be allowed to crack a joke. And surprise. All of us here in the US don’t think like you. But more importantly stop thinking (this is why ‘he’ won in a nutshell so pay attention) what you think is what we all need to think. It’s not your country. You don’t get to decide how we all think. Some of us are cool with the police removing people from Starbucks who don’t listen to police because we have been raised to respect the police. Even if we think they are wrong we still have to listen to them. If they say ‘leave’ we leave and then file a separate complaint if we have been wronged.I filed an absentee ballot, hesitated but voted for Trump, and headed to Houston on business. Didn’t think he had a chance. Summary: So he didn’t really ‘vote for Trump’ as Fred (and the post) is implying. Because he didn’t want him to win the election. What he did was ‘not vote for Hillary’ and also at the same time ‘not cop out’. Why that matters I have no clue if you don’t even want who you are voting for to win then why are you voting? Note how Tom also has to cover his action (while coming clean) with words to lessen the blow ie ‘hesitated’ and ‘didn’t think he had a chance’. Not exactly taking responsibility for one’s actions. Kind of like those plea deals where you don’t admit guilt.Because a very intelligent and principled friend said “no use arguing with Trump voters; they’ll never change their minds about their man.”This could be viewed as elitist in the same way that using ‘ditsy’ is an insult to women.Why? Well, why does it matter that the friend was ‘intelligent and principled’? If the high school graduate letter carrier had said the same would he have not listened?In a nutshell this is exactly what Tom and others are missing about people who voted for Trump. It’s a blanket rejection of that type of ‘best and brightest matter and you don’t’ that the mainstream media has broadcast. As well as the idea that the only thing that matters is what liberal voters think. As such they are voting emotionally more than anything. And in order to get them to support another alternative you have to give them someone that they can connect to on an emotional level. In other words it’s more than just issues which is what everyone seems to be missing.[1] Separately I take no issue with the fact that the Clintons are sleezy. If you aren’t sleezy you will never get anything done if you are operating in and around other sleezy people. I said so much about Hillary years ago and as I recall Fred agreed with me. I said that I like the fact that she was a little sleezy and exactly for that reason.

    1. It was a lame blog and you put your finger right on some of its “have your cake and eat it too” dithering.

    2. Thanks for the summary; now I won’t waste time reading the original.If want to say why didn’t vote for Hillary, then just pick something both simple and sufficient — IMHO she is and all the way back to her cattle futures deal a crook. There’s much more, but that much is sufficient.So, how come so many people did vote for Hillary? And how come so many powerful forces are still fighting that election, throwing mud at Trump, Melania, Ivanka — I assume you have seen some of the news of the past 48 hours?Well, as in my post yesterday on immigration, the main driver is money, as in “follow the money”, by, to use just one word, slavers. But that’s just the core driver. It’s not so easy to see the core driver because of four main effects:(1) The slavers have their immigration monster all dressed up in Sunday School clothes. Yesterday I listed some of the ruffles, ribbons, and folds in the blouses and skirts.(2) The Democrats, Obama, and Hillary all got together and created essentially a tribe — have to be loyal to the tribe but then get goodies. Much of this is old in politics, e.g., is Chicago style. So, get Federal subsidies, e.g., to fight “climate change”. Get loose money as part of TARP. Get a big push to fight Caucasian males and have versions of affirmative action for women and people of color. Get to see the US dump on Great Britain and Israel. Etc. The US intelligence community and the DOJ and FBI, the IRS, ICE, etc. joined in on the crooked stuff to support the tribe.(3) The mainstream media (MSM) — NYT, WsPo, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, … basically on the side of the Democrats anyway, strongly joined the tribe and then diligently supported the tribe if only so that their decision to join the tribe would be successful. With next to nothing in good arguments, the MSM went for the classic stuff, the J. Goebbels, IIRC, “If you tell a lie often enough, then people will believe it. Even you will come to believe it.” Now sometimes people have to do public mud wrestling with this propaganda to justify why they voted for Trump. As we see, the propaganda has such a strong hold that the pattern is: “Of course I don’t really like Trump. There is so much so obviously wrong with Trump, e.g., maybe he is not suited, cut out, qualified, able to be good POTUS. But i voted for him anyway because I didn’t like the Hillary uranium deal ….” For those things so obviously wrong with Trump, we don’t get much detail or evidence! The effects are from just the repeated lies of the Goebbels style propaganda. Again, the worst the propaganda has on Trump so far that has any credibility is something about Trump having an extra scoop of ice cream.(4) Then there are the foot soldiers, the pawns, the convenient idiots, who really believe in the promise of socialism, ObamaCare, the values of Pelosi, Behar, etc., the Fauxcahontas thingy about the Communism in China, making the US like European socialism, who admire the wacko stuff of California Governor Moonbeam, etc.In all of this, Obama and Hillary get what they want, or were getting what they wanted until Trump came along and talked about how the US was importing cheap goods and cheap labor, and won. That’s democracy!Well, the power of (1)-(4) is still partly there.

17. I found your friend Tom’s piece on Trump to be deeply depressing. The idea of an intelligent person voting for this reckless narcissist on such shallow grounds is indicative of a disturbance in the force.

    1. > reckless narcissistYou mean Hillary? For her, I’ve got lots of evidence.For meaning Trump, do you have any rational evidence? I like Trump but don’t want to be wrong. You’ve been listening to the Goebbels style propaganda against Trump from the usual suspects NYT, WaPo, … Politico?

       1. I assume your lots of evidence for Hilary is lots of rational such evidence?

    2. .Hahaha, I laughed hard reading your comment. Well played.I am sure there was a disturbance in The Force, but it was just the electorate roaring, nothing to worry about.It is hardly an insult to accuse anyone of being a narcissist these days. It might even be a prerequisite for the job, no?Be well. There is a lot more where that came from.JLMwww.themusingsofthebigredca…

       1. being a narcissistI’ve never understood the lazy use of that word anyway. It’s a matter of degree and there is no quantitative way to assign a value to how much someone is ‘a narcissist’. I am being serious. After all it’s not blood pressure or cholesterol (and even that is suspect because it’s arbitrary and shifts depending on how ‘white men’ see fit). It’s just a lazy put down that takes no effort.Also it assumes that being a narcissist is bad (in any degree). And just because someone appears to not be a narcissist often they are. (They just do a good job of hiding and saying the right things). Besides who in the world would want to be President (or in any public and visible position) if they were not a narcissist?Let’s take the MW definition of a narcissist:an extremely self-centered person who has an exaggerated sense of self-importanceSeriously there are people who comment on this blog who have ‘exaggerated sense of self importance’. I know that I do! Let me be the first to label myself that way. To me anyone who doesn’t think they are ‘self important’ (to some degree it’s always a matter of degree) possibly suffers from low self esteem and depression (my DX fwiw). If you think you are great the day goes by easier, you make decisions, and you don’t question and have to ask others what they think and what you should do. What is wrong with that?Edit: One other thing to note is the obvious fact that someone can be a narcissist and also do good and be a net gain to the world (or to another person). That nuance is important and often overlooked. The type of thinking (that rules someone out for an infraction) is exactly what sucks about the current world of social media with what I call ‘everyone gets a vote’.

          1. No problem with anyone being a narcissist when they are private citizens running private businesses. Some of it might indeed a prerequisite to navigate the world of business.However, being in public service (like a president) is fundamentally about making the best decisions for the country and keeping in mind the long term. The problem with a super-narcissistic President is that it becomes more likely that he solves for his ego, his personal friends and family, his sense of self-importance and worth, etc. and not based on the facts of the case.Leadership is about empathy and doing greater good. The nuance in your last graf is important but only if the narcissism is within reasonable bounds and there is at least a scintilla of self awareness. This is not the case with the subject in question.Also, this is not a new topic of debate. Over the course of history, the world has seen many ego-driven kings, queens, dictators, and Presidents, who solved primarily for their needs first. And in almost every case, the kingdom or the country suffered and declined in influence and prosperity, if not decimated eventually by its enemies.

             1. it becomes more likely that he solves for his ego, his personal friends and family, his sense of self-importance and worth, etc. and not based on the facts of the case.So are you saying that this has never happened before with any of our Presidents or public servants? It has. They all have their own agenda and for their own reasons (personal to them and that do not relate to ‘everyone’ or what is best) and in particular, and this is important, ‘their legacy’. It’s almost a cliche. Name me a single President in the modern era who hasn’t made decisions (which have been written about even by the press) so that they would be remembered in a positive light by all and go down in the history books as ‘a great President’. (Like it matters when you are dead). And that is not even talking about decisions made as a result of religious beliefs. This also happens with Supreme Court Justices and really any person of importance and in a position of power. And they openly talk about it. By the way even if a position benefits you directly (say taxes) does not mean you shouldn’t make a decision. After all most decisions will end up a benefit and a loss for someone.We can also discuss decisions made by anyone in politics which are directly related to how they need to be re-elected and how that is openly discussed. How in any way is that what is ‘best’ and the best decision? To make a decision and support something so that you can get re-elected? And not take a position that is best for the country specifically and openly because it will cost you your job.

             2. Yes, it has, but there are different gradations of it.Dealing with one’s ego and self is hard for everyone, but some are more aware of it, and hence have more empathy for other points of view and the parties impacted by the decision they are about to make.”Everyone does it, so why not?” seems a very cynical argument to me. Even in a self-interest driven capitalistic market, government is different because they look out for the greater good and can make decisions for the long term.Some would argue that the whole point of life is to become aware of your ego and seek to go beyond it, but that discussion is for another day.

          2. Tldr. So you’re a narcissist?

             1. Yes! Also selfish.

             2. Self-Aware means you understand your needs, but are also aware of the right things to do in any specific circumstance and genuinely grapple with the conflict.Selfish means you solve primarily for your needs and for no one else. You really do not care as long as you are protected from any consequences.People use “Selfish” loosely but there is a broad spectrum from Self-Aware to Selfish, and they are often at different points for different issues depending on how deeply their sense of identity is tied to the issue.

             3. )))

18. Hey Fred,I feel like you should really offer some explanation of why you found the Evslin post interesting. The thing that sent him over the edge was a smirk? While Muslims in this country were concerned about the coming of Muslim internment camps?This piece drips with a lack of self-awareness, and I think you have more responsibility to explain why you’re endorsing it.

19. Applying a fiduciary standard can be a powerful regulatory tool. I’ve argued that more startups who are serious about being customer centric should voluntarily adopt a fiduciary standard, particularly in mortgage, even if regulators don’t require it. It sends a strong signal to your clients. It’s been the standard for years with financial advisors and lawyers, to name a few professions. It’s time to spread it more broadly.https://medium.com/@rex.sal…