"Life After Google" Review

Does George Gilder hate Google?

I’ll readily admit, this book was both illuminating and a little over my head. I understood the big picture stuff he talked about. The math and nitty gritty tech stuff was difficult but not enough to put down.

Google changed the world by offering the first and best search algorithm. You know that. What you may not know is that the philosophy of the company and the era they’ve created is not match for future technology. This might sound odd for a business currently building massive server farms to handle increasing loads of data. But according to Gilder, Google’s lack of security and Marxist vision of the world will be their undoing.

It’s precisely because Google doesn’t value security for its users and runs operations like a collective, making everything free, it alienates those who do value it. Most finance and health care companies have started moving the pertinent stuff offline. With major hacking stories popping up in the news constantly its clear consumers want something reliable, secure.

   

The problem most tech elites have, from Sergei Brin and Larry Page to Elon Musk and Ray Kurzweil, is their view that humanity will be surpassed by machines.

“The security system has broken down just as the computer elite have begun indulging the most fevered fantasies about the capabilities of their machines and issuing arrogant inanities about the comparative limits of their human customers.”

Artificial Intelligence (AI) machines are deterministic despite the leaps and advances in computing power and deep learning. In other words AI is just a machine with incredibly fast problem solving abilities that is limited by design. It can’t extend the boundaries of its design, it was created for a specific purpose. It can’t ‘think’ in the sense that people think. Artificial Intelligence condenses and processes information quicker than people do but is not ‘conscious’. Advances in chip technology or processing power can’t change that.

 Humans are uniquely creative because they have a Creator. Futurists fall into the same trap that intellectuals in other generations have, thinking their discoveries and inventions represent the end of advancement. This is where George’s “fevered fantasies” line comes from. Karl Marx believed the industrial revolution was it, the crowning achievement of human capability. Only thing to do, according to Marx, was distribute the wealth and proportion “…each according to his need.”

Like most of Gilder’s books this one is a prediction about the near future; it shouldn’t be taken as a schedule, only a prescription about the underlying problems with Big data and how the block chain represents a clean break from cloud computing. Instead of ‘stacking’ information in server farms, blockchains distribute the information throughout multiple computers. 

The internet currently requires multiple user names, passwords, pin IDs, secret questions and image verifications to prove you are you. This reflects the disaster with security across the web. While Google is building a giant supercomputer and feeding it knowledge from across the net, hackers are stealing massive amounts of user information and banking details. Companies like Yahoo and Equifax saw major breaches in just the last two years.

Bitcoin was the first (successful) cryptocurrency build on a distributed ledger system, or blockchain. The idea is to limit the amount of ‘coins’ to a specific amount and use it for payment to those who manage the system (mine). Bitcoin’s breakthrough is the genius of timestamping every transaction in the ledger for verifiable proof. It’s a technology that’s virtually impossible to hack because a change in one block (or hash) requires a change to all.

Some sectors with needed security are beginning to realize the value of blockchain to their business model. Healthcare is one such industry that prizes patient confidentiality enough to use a new technology for ease of use. Imagine having a key for an online profile that you controlled completely and giving permission to insurers, doctors, pharmacists to view your details, instead of logging in to theirs with an expired password or a forgotten image? With blockchain the patient controls the information and has proof for any transactions in the network.

George Gilder doesn’t step into the realm of theology, but it’s there in the ideas. He believes in the Creator, in some form, with a creative mind and problem solving abilities. Commerce between individuals is an extension of the talents we all have. 

‘Free’ is bad because it surpasses the price system and lets the maker off the hook. No longer is the maker responsible to fix flaws or tighten up security. Ever gotten a free gift, say a new lawnmower? Would you insist the person who gave it be responsible for servicing it, or fixing it when it broke down? Not a chance. This, according to Gilder, is what Google does with its products and services. It gives its technology away but doesn’t take responsibility for protecting personal information.

Blockchain technology restores some of the importance of personal data by giving it value. A lot of the promise from blockchain might be just noise instead of the revolutionary change in business and technology that Gilder believes it to be.

 Perhaps the vision of a distributed future where contracts and money are traded via the blockchain never materializes. We can’t know for sure. But he doesn’t believe anyone can bypass the natural laws of commerce for too long. That includes Google. 

Brexit (An American View)

I do the best I can with international news but sometimes their isn't a very good comparison in politics or culture. The only way to explain Aussie Rules Football to an American is by relating it to the NFL and explaining the differences. But that isn't quit right is it? The lost in translation effect can’t be avoided. So in the spirit of understanding only half pictures and half truths, here are some thoughts on Brexit.

What was it about?

The United Kingdom is (for now) a part of the European Union which acts like a government for member states, or most of Europe. It has a common market with a common currency and open borders for all countries in the zone. Countries can vote to leave if they like, but most stay, seeing their future under a common market as better than going it alone. Mostly because of immigration and fears of British sovereignty going the way of fox hunting, the voters said “enough!” Now comes the monumental challenge of cobbling together new trade deals; after all someone has to buy the stuff they make.

The deadline to put a deal together is March of next year. After two years sorting through details with the European Union, Theresa May, the prime minister, and company have a rough draft that goes to parliament this week. Apparently it’s pretty similar to the original deal they have now, without the critical voting rights.

What’s the best option?

Britain was faced with two paths after voting to leave the union. A hard break of all ties with the EU or a soft one that keeps most of the trade framework intact. They’ve opted for the soft version, requiring May to negotiate with the EU on a new pact. Conservatives in parliament wanted a hard Brexit; they would rather leave the EU without any agreement and try to negotiate individually with multiple countries. The soft Brexit feels like hedging a bit, hoping the angry legislators in Brussels don’t punish you with weak deals.

The EU was not happy with Brexit.

The problem is the people leading the negotiating would rather not be doing it at all. Theresa May (the Prime Minister) was a Remain vote, which means her motivations should be a little suspect. If I’m put in charge of a sales plan at work that I think is dumb, I’m not likely to give much effort. I’d also be happy if the whole plan collapsed of its own weight, because after all, “I told you so.” I don’t think she is sabotaging the plan but I do question her determination.

To Stay or to go?

The best argument against Brexit is exactly what May is concerned about, financial uncertainty. Untangling long established ties among banks, businesses and law firms is a scary thought. Would the new deals serve Britain’s interest, the EU’s or both? Would negotiators in Brussels accept any new trade deals?

 From their point of view, negotiating with a light touch sends a signal to other countries hoping to leave that the EU is a pushover. Obviously they want to avoid that.

The best argument for Brexit is the restoration of sovereignty. Most Remainers argued solely on an economic basis. Leaving the EU means charting their own course with no guarantees, and likely, a loss of market share for your business. I can’t imagine economics played too much into the thinking of Brexiters though. They took a look a look at the migrant crisis, and the free movement of Muslim immigrants all over Europe and said “No”. Germany brought in something like 800,000 (mostly Syrians) and regretted it almost immediately. That’s why Angela Merkel’s party lost seats in the last election. It’s the kind of un-democratic decision made by officials and not voters.

Part me is sympathetic to May. She wants to preserve as much of the old agreements as possible and prevent a lot of disruption sure to come with a hard break. Ministers keep quitting on her too, which tells me they’ll blame her for everything that goes bad.

I don’t know how the horse race political stuff works in the U.K. But I imagine the Tories didn’t want to be blamed by the country for a falling economy after a hard Brexit. A committed Brexiter like Michael Gove or Boris Johnson would have been a better choice than Theresa May. They would have held firm on the hard break.

If May gets her deal through Parliament, what will have been the point of the last two years? It’s the worst possible deal for ordinary Britons who felt strongly enough about the EU’s encroachment to vote themselves out. It’s essentially the same agreement without the voting rights member states are supposed to get. It makes a mockery of the original Brexit vote by using a work around.

Where to now?

Here is where this is similar to American: immigration. The Brexit vote turned on concerns about border security and immigration. They just didn’t trust the officials in Brussels to fix it. Why should they? Germany opened the gates to refugees in numbers that might be too large to integrate. And because of the free movement within the EU zones (Schengen Area) others are forced to deal with Merkel’s reckless decision.

   

I’am not sure who said it but I think it fits: if responsible politicians don’t deal with immigration, irresponsible ones will (paraphrase). Or maybe put another way, ignoring cultural issues at the expense of the economy leaves you with poor choices on both. 

  

Bannon Vs. Frum

The latest Munk Debate between Steve Bannon and David Frum was a snapshot of where politics are today. If you’ve never seen one I’d recommend this one. Debaters argue for and against global policy. A resolution is posed and the audience is expected to vote based on the debate they just watched. I think they host these events a couple of times per year.

The resolution this week “The future of Western Politics is Populist not Liberal” had Steve Bannon arguing for populism and David Frum arguing against. It’s probably easier to think of the difference like this, Trump equals populism and Bush (or Obama) equals liberalism. In other words “liberalism” is the global order that has defined Western civilization since World War II. Both ideologies contain adherents of right and left. Populist leaders, including Trump, have come to power around the globe in recent years, most recently in Brazil. It’s tough for anyone to draw hard lines around ideologies without recognizing differences in the countries where they originate. Would populism in Poland look different than populism in Myanmar? I think it would. Populism is really just shorthand for throw-out-the ‘ruling class’and start electing people with limited political acumen.

Steve Bannon had his hands full defending Trump and global populism in general. Bannon’s gripe (and his best argument) has always been the administrative state, a permanent fixture of our system that is unaccountable. He hates massive trade bills and open borders because they wreck sovereignty and treat the democratic process like a joke. He pretty much explained that position to the audience and got a few claps, mostly boos and heckles though. Frum argued for traditional liberalism with its respect for alliances, loose borders and international treaties. David is a smart guy; he is used to being on TV so he is very articulate and understands global trade and tariffs. This was a home crowd for him in Toronto. He took some usual shots at Trump and his lack of expertise or skill.

He obviously thinks Donald Trump is ill equipped for the job and played to the crowd who agreed with him. What he misses is that he is pretty much the embodiment of what a lot of Americans don’t like about their ‘betters’ in Washington. He is part of a professional class that typifies Steve Bannon’s administrative state--highly educated, networked in the same social circles, all thinking along the same track, all swearing allegiance to same international forums, organizations, confabs, and summits. The locus of power keeps moving further out of reach of the American people to a bureaucratic cabal.

It isn’t resentment, it’s just the truth.

 Where Steve is frumpy and passionate, David is polished and glib. Their difference personifies the positions they took.   

David took a few cheap shots at Trump supporters and their supposed racism and xenophobia, suggesting blacks were being kept from voting and that George Soros is reviled because he is Jewish. I think Frum knows this is just nasty point scoring with the audience.

   

As for me I would have voted for the resolution. I don’t like populism but I do think there is a creeping classism sneaking into the US that is foreign to the country. We’ve always had a vibrant middle class and a meritocratic system of upward mobility. Ok, it wasn’t good for African Americans until recently but hard work equaled better opportunities not better status. We don’t have an aristocracy, we’re too young. Fortunately we still do have a vibrant middle class but with a massive administrative state we lose the ability to determine our destiny. Unprotected borders damage sovereignty and suggest that the duly elected government isn’t concerned about your safety or how much money is spent on welfare schemes. If it’s true in the U.S. I imagine it’s true in Europe as well.  

I can say all of that and still think Steve Bannon is probably a nasty guy. He isn’t a racist just because he’s mean to his opponents though. He doesn’t hate Muslims because he restricted immigration from countries with internal terrorism problems. It’s also telling that the protesters who wanted to shut down the very civil debate, wanted to do so on the basis that Steve would be there.In a free country (Canada) protesters thought a pro-national sovereignty guy was beyond the pale. Is there a better example of why we need more speech and not less?

Populism of the Steve Bannon/Donald Trump variety is probably a short term trend anyway. David Frum is right to be skeptical of global populism. The danger inherent is the ‘Us versus Them’ dynamic used to throw out ‘undesirables’ whether Jews in Russia or Rohingyas in Myanmar. But the other danger is letting an unelected class of ‘professionals’ run the affairs of the state and take away all sovereignty. There is a reason the British left the European Union, the Brazilians elected Bolsonaro, and the US elected Trump. I don’t know if it constitutes populism but citizens of those countries decided the global order didn’t have their interests’ at heart.

There was a technical glitch in the voting results at the end of the night. Steve Bannon supposedly won by a good margin (57%) despite starting off the night less than 30%. The true results were close to what they had been at the beginning of the night. Winning isn’t really the point of the debates. It’s to get current ideas and issues out in the open. Free speech is wonderful thing.

Whatever side of an issue people come down on, it’s still possible to argue and agree in a free society.

Routines To the Rescue

Regular habits and healthy routines lay the groundwork for productive people; the more you have the more effective you are.

Most people have probably noticed the headlining grabbing “Successful Habits of the Rich”, or “Routines of Successful CEOs”. Usually they’re just Buzzfeed style lists with some quirky facts. Apparently Tim Cook (Apple CEO) starts texting his colleagues at 4 a.m. about projects, questions, answers. Mark Cuban tries to work out for an hour a day with basketball and kickboxing. The routines vary but one thing they have in common is they constitute a plan for individuals to map out the day. Even people who aren’t as busy will benefit from starting and ending the day with a plan.  

I have better routines now than I had in the Army, and much better than college. Although, the regular exercise and hot breakfast is hard to beat in the military. I still exercise but not every day. I run quite a bit and life weights at least 3 times per week. Going to the gym for me is better after a day of work instead of before. Mostly because of the later hours, I don’t get moving before 8 in the morning. For most people 8 o’clock is too late. But I don’t even start work until after 9. For now anyway, evening exercise is perfect. When I don’t go after work I feel like I missed something critical.

I started reading scripture every morning about 5 years ago. I need that critical jolt of truth even more than I need coffee. Without it I feel lost. Ever need your front end aligned on the car? The steering wheel starts puling in one direction and you need to correct it back to center? Usually it happens because you hit a pothole or hit a curb too hard. It’s a simple fix for a tech--put the front end on a machine and tighten or loosen the tie rods. When I don’t put in time reading the Bible I my sense of direction gets off-center and needs a reset.  

Another value from routines is in reducing the number of choices you need to make every day. Fewer choices equal less stress. I remember having a math class my 2^nd year of college. I managed to put it off for the first semester so I wasn’t looking forward to it. It was pretty basic by math standards, but I’m pretty basic by learning standards. I developed a system of doing my assigned homework right after class. My mind was still in logical left brain land so it made sense to do the work right away. It took at least an hour every day and I struggled all the way through it. But I did it. I started early and after a few weeks I didn’t have to force myself to open the text and begin figuring. I developed a habit, of doing assigned work and took the decision to sit and watch “SportsCenter” instead, out my hands. 

Routines put your mind in a kind of autopilot.

Even though regular habits seem like drudgery, they provide us with better productivity and more flexibility. I’ve gotten good at doing certain academic things early, writing and research, reading and journaling. College actually helped me with this. But other parts of life like work around the house or fixing changing the oil in the car are still put offs for me. Everyone who procrastinates understands the problems with it. Projects get the half-assed treatment and sometimes get missed altogether. With some simple changes in routine, procrastination will cease to be a stumbling block.

Routines make every other decision in life easier.