 |
|






 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Well, we've seen a few waves of important news breaking on social media just in the last week. Most notably the Iran election, but there was also the Honduras coup. Both were stories that happened to a lot of people at once, where even the central narrative was highly disputed, and the 'official' sources of information were all interested parties.
It would have really helped if there were clearinghouses that could determine what was true and what wasn't. Some tireless bloggers like Andrew Sullivan have tried. But I know of no one who is really succeeding with any kind of nearly-real-time truth verification system.
The mainstream media, particularly television, is basically an entertainment system now, and can only live off of predigested food. If it is not already in a press release they cannot process it. There are wonderful exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions. Forget about them. They're gone.
So what can take on the truth verification role?
Suspend practicality for a moment. Is it even theoretically possible that we can distribute this work? Might there be ways to break down a small unit of data -- say, a tweet -- into component claims, and then assemble evidence and confidence levels for each, finally producing a summary percentage of how likely the original statement is to be true? This might require also producing some reliable confidence score for every person who adds data to the system, too.
A generalized system of credentials might have side benefits for sites like Wikipedia, or distributed identity systems in general.
Or, if you think the work can't be distributed, is there some way to get the right expert skeptics (on whatever topic) to sift through the data?
Some people think prediction markets are the way to go, since people are willing to bet money in proportion to their own confidence. I doubt it. There have been protests against the use of such markets in relation to facts about human misery (it feels wrong to have people betting "for" wars or climate catastrophes). But more importantly, such markets only work when there is some crisp outcome to test in the short term. A question like "were the 2009 Iranian election results falsified" may not reach a conclusion for a decade, if ever, so the prediction market would be dominated by speculation -- guessing what other people are currently guessing.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |

 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
Helped microgravity with her Cnideria project yesterday. The work involves latex gloves and rubbing long cylinders and little crevices with lots of lube, and squirting gluey liquids. We of course kept the conversation clean and decent. She says she has enough people now, but if you've already signed up then do make the effort to get here, it's been a lot of fun. (Here = yes I am at NIMBY, because I am stupid and forgot my laptop here last night.) I read some of Nature magazine in a cafe this morning. This is a magazine for actual scientists. It was full of glossy advertisements for products I couldn't even understand, using words that I didn't think went together. Like, advertisements for antibodies in bulk and "most reliable cloning apparatus on the market!". Can you imagine opening up the equivalent of People magazine in 2050 and seeing advertisements for home versions? And that's nothing compared to the articles. The 21st century might suck as far as jetpacks go, but in the bio labs, we are living in the future. The public announcement: I am remaining unemployed for the time being. I actually got a very good job offer but decided it wasn't right for what I want to do now, and besides, I wasn't in a good frame of mind to begin working. Apparently it takes me about six different job interviews over the past month to figure that out. Of course this complicates things with my visa status, but there isn't actually a law against being a layabout, as long as I'm not taking jobs away from Americans. (I may need to exit the country and return.) For now I'm going to stay in the Bay Area and try working on personal, not-necessarily-remunerative projects, something like full-time, at least for the next little while. (I wouldn't say no if something perfect came along though, and I guess I'm going to continue "networking", whatever that means.)
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |

 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
I checked out the demo of Google Wave earlier today. Interesting stuff. It reminded me a little bit of how we used to interact on a former team. Half the team was in New York, and Google Docs was the hot new thing, so we would chat using cells of the spreadsheet. (Once you have ported document editing to the web, by definition you have figured out asynchronous client/server editing, so real time collaboration comes almost for free.) The Google Docs team noticed that too, and their reaction was to add a sidebar for chat. But discussion right in the document had its merits, too, as Google Wave shows. I think that misuse of technology is interesting. It tends to point the way to a potential new product. For instance, I've noticed that whenever I have a pressing need for something, I write scripts to automate searching Craigslist or eBay or whatever, and so do many of the geeks I know. There must be some way to make that pattern universal. What technologies do you misuse?
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |












 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
More tales of urban collapse and urban renewal from Detroit:
For Sale: The $100 House.
[...] The run-down bungalow had already been stripped of its appliances and wiring by the city’s voracious scrappers. But for Mitch that only added to its appeal, because he now had the opportunity to renovate it with solar heating, solar electricity and low-cost, high-efficiency appliances.
Buying that first house had a snowball effect. Almost immediately, Mitch and Gina bought two adjacent lots for even less and, with the help of friends and local youngsters, dug in a garden. Then they bought the house next door for $500, reselling it to a pair of local artists for a $50 profit. When they heard about the $100 place down the street, they called their friends Jon and Sarah.
Admittedly, the $100 home needed some work, a hole patched, some windows replaced. But Mitch plans to connect their home to his mini-green grid and a neighborhood is slowly coming together.
Wow. I am not nearly resourceful enough to take over a place with no wiring, especially in a place with severe winters. But... I know some people who are, and I've seen much more unlikely enterprises come together with just a few dozen volunteers, a few weekends, and cheap Chinese goods from the hardware store.
Is it wrong to feel strangely drawn to this urban disaster area? I read tales of people bicycling down totally vacant four lane highways and something in me goes hey, that's pretty freaking cool. I guess I am a child of the 1980s, always expecting the apocalypse. And the experiment in local semi-anarchy seems to be working out not too badly.
I mean, no matter how bad the economy gets, it's never going to get Detroit bad, everywhere. If this represents the nadir, and life still goes on, maybe there's nothing to fear. Maybe the artists who moved to those places will be highly in demand as urban renewal consultants in 10 years.
(via four)
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |



 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
- hummingbirds fighting over who gets the chance to bathe in a small stream. It seems like it's the season of love and all the males want to look slick for the ladies. I crouched down nearby and did get some photos, with hummingbirds buzzing all around me like basso profundo bumblebees. But only with my iphone, so it's mostly little orange blurs. Oh well.
- a pet cemetery. It's not a sad or somber place at all. With pets, people feel free to express their affection, and make each grave marker personal. Every pet in the cemetery was loved, which isn't the case in a human graveyard.
- this totally awesome-looking bridge. Have you seen it?
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |