Why is every other article playing the anti-privacy game these days? If anything, the discussion in the article should read as pro-privacy. If there is so much value in private information, then further to ethical, there might also be financial motivation to safeguard our data. Even more so in enterprise environments and as the boundaries between personal and business devices are getting blurrier. This is also why I think enterprise will move on to MYOD (make your own device) from BYOD.
The article refers to Apple's taking a more "extreme" stance on privacy and it being at a disadvantage for doing so. While I appreciate the article is about data in AI, they neglect to even entertain the idea that privacy may be more important in the long term than obtaining some added benefit by using the personal information entrusted to them.
It is just a reference to a return of the systems perimeter within the control of the enterprise. As monitoring and data collection functionality becomes more prevalent, embedded and hard to identify even on traditional platforms (e.g. Windows), I think it makes sense for enterprises to move to platforms under their control (e.g. custom Android, linux, even custom hardware etc.) Most probably that would be through a market that builds most of that for them, with sufficient guarantees/standards.
That would be nice, but is there a hardware supply chain that can support enterprises? Dell & HP seem to have given up on making money from endpoints. OEMs like Quanta and Foxconn would need middlemen to support customers. Secure OS software like Qubes struggles to find OEMs who care about integration.
Interesting to see how views around AI evolve over the years. My opinion is that AI from a Turing Test perspective or from a singularity pov is focusing on the wrong things. My focus instead is on symbiotic intelligence (i.e. how machines will change the way symbiotic people/technology societies operate.) I have fragments of an unpublished paper I am working on, around these ideas, here, for anyone interested
In your redefinition of free as a bobby trap, and out of the options you give which may not be exhaustive, I see my giving my attention as a paramount expression of freedom. Therefore, free does not mean get something out of nothing, or get something for nothing. Free is not even an attribute of the good per se; it is an attribute of the relationship between good and "consumer". What you do with a good and the amount of energy you have to expend to make use of it is an expression of freedom rather than a price. Price is conditioning and not characterising the relationship between good and consumer but the relationship between "producer/owner" and "consumer", you have to pay it before getting any relationship with the good.
How would you see the same definition with regards to free software? Of course, you may choose to spend time on contributing, but that does not mean that you have to, and obligation is one of the components of price. In the case of electronic content, the thermodynamics laws are respected perfectly as we can all see by the operation of the network/path that transfers something, no need for an additional layer of finance to have physics working.
"I see my giving my attention as a paramount expression of freedom"
The thing is that the 5 secs you spent looking at an ad when you went to youtube to search for XYZ was not what you wanted but the price you paid for the free video service (because you didn't pay for XYZ video creation, nor for youtube infrastructure that serves that video, nor for google service behind to perform the search).
-as in the use of the term "free" I might ask someone else to complete but I think is not referred to the cost of producing or delivering it to you but the access to the underlying source code and the ability to change it.
>"free software" -as in the use of the term "free" I might ask someone else to complete but I think is not referred to the cost of producing or delivering it to you but the access to the underlying source code and the ability to change it.
It can refer to both and more.
>The thing is that the 5 secs you spent looking at an ad when you went to youtube to search for XYZ was not what you wanted but the price you paid for the free video service (because you didn't pay for XYZ video creation, nor for youtube infrastructure that serves that video, nor for google service behind to perform the search).
This is either post hoc rationalization or bullshit ad marketer speak.
You cannot claim, "oh, you watched the ad? you just paid for it!", unless a contract was in place before the ad was watched.
You are describing something more akin to exploitation.
I am not questioning the existence of monetisation models for things. That's why we have an economy. What I question is generalising the existence of monetisation models to say that there can be no free goods, especially when this is somehow argued with reference to natural laws and implying that free goods is an absurd or non-feasible concept. If we are to look into examples, what would you say with regards to reading Wikipedia, or Standord encyclopedia of philosophy. Are these ad-free channels defying a physical law?
The non-cool BI tools work alright with multiple sources and integrating them into a common OLAP model that takes care of automating the relevant backend queries. This is a valid approach if you do not want to move all your data into a DW before reporting on consolidated views, but the there is no magic bullet in terms of which model is optimal. I am talking about Oracle BI, SAP BO, Cognos BI.
I don't know of a paycheque with no risk. Lay-offs are a type of risk, I hope you will agree with me. Given the capital obligations e.g. mortgages paid using the paycheque you can see how the risk is even more than just the unpaid labour. Also labour markets are not liquid.
From an accounting perspective I am inclined to disagree. Firstly, the way you present functionality as asset and code as liability, you do not make it easy for me to read how they are components of a balance sheet. More specifically, how do you see your balance sheet improving while still being balanced?
Furthermore, both assets and liabilities (including capital) are stock measures. I would consider insight more of a flow than a stock. More specifically, I think it is the process and tools of achieving insights that is the asset. Whether data is part of this asset base is up for grabs, but accountants have not identified any reasonable way to measure it.
"...the light that falls on to your eye, sensory information, is meaningless, because it could mean literally anything. And what's true for sensory information is true for information generally. There is no inherent meaning in information. It's what we do with that information that matters." Beau Lotto
I have constructed the argument before that if you consider functionality as an asset and code as a liability, you can consider a refactor as retained earnings (or stockholder's/owner's equity, whichever you prefer). Along those lines, refactoring code becomes much more palatable.
I know it's a flawed analogy because refactoring costs money, so it isn't really RE. It did help me answer a question along a similar vein to yours ("...how do you see your balance sheet improving while still being balanced?"); where I was assuming a reduction in liabilities satisfied "...balance sheet improving...".
As far as the balance sheet, less code means lower costs and more projects from development. Because it costs less to maintain less code than it does large, convoluted codebases. Are you better off with a codebase that has similar value (functionality) but much lower maintenance costs? The value of a codebase is the functionality it provides, not the number of lines of code in use.
Instinctively management will try to through more resources at a problem instead of paying off technical debt before it becomes unwieldy.
I don't know if I understand properly, but are the dimensions not implicitly at least defined if we have n-dimensionally measured point? Any additional dimension would be either irrelevant or would be necessitating additional data to populate the dimension
This is a common distinction. The issue is that my information may be your data and therefore any such definition does not refer to data or information but to someone's relationship with it. I allude to that with the quote I included above.
Data: Any collection of information, bullshit and noise.
Information: Data that has been judged to be true or false through comparison with observed reality at a given point in time.
Bullshit: (1) Data (often a firehose) produced by someone who is indifferent to the truth or falsity of what is being said (2) Data that appears to contain more information than it actually does (3) Noise randomly tagged with truth-values to give it apparent legibility
Noise: The component of data that is neither information nor bullshit and at risk of being prematurely discarded ...
Falsehood: Information that is known to be inconsistent with the observed state of the world.
Truth: Information that is known to be consistent with observed reality at a given time and capable of being unpredictably turned into falsehood by a change in reality in the future.
Illegibility: Information or bullshit that looks like noise to those outside a system, due to the presence of a large amount of metis. (Derived from James Scott).
Metis: A collection of formulas that work to maintain the identity of a system.
Intelligence: The ability to separate bullshit from information.
Belief: Sincere acceptance of the truth or falsity of a piece of information.
Art: the process of creating information starting with bullshit.
I like the definitions, but I can't be the only who notices that according to these definitions data is "information and ...", while information is "data that ...". It looks like a circular definition, which definitely cannot help with distinction.
Art has been quite open source in its workings since centuries. Look at how artists were joining masters to learn the art and how they "forked" masters' techniques to create theirs. Personal vision is not precluded from open source, to the contrary it is encouraged.
Oracle (Hyperion stack), IBM (Cognos TM1 and maybe Controller), SAP (BPC), Infor (PM) are the big ones. Also, SQL Server Analytic Services is in a similar space but mostly from a BI, read-only perspective. Smaller include Jedox Palo (GPL but with a weird openness history) and many other vendors (e.g. Anaplan etc.)
No worries. I played around a little, given that I have done implementations with all the systems I mentioned above, and it looks interesting at first sight. I would have to look into it in more detail. By the way, I tried to create a new spreadsheet and it creates it (test) but when I try to view it, it gives me an error. It looks pretty easy for someone who knows what they are looking for, but others would be confused.
Thanks for testing.
There are some misleading error messages. I will look into it. The problem was you did not "apply metadata" (from the tools menu) after creating a spreadsheet.
If you have any ideas I would really like to simplify the UI. A spreadsheet gets much more complex with multidimensional data model. My idea was that people who are familiar with tools like TM1 or BPC would use the system to create planning solutions for their small and mid-size clients.
Just one piece of advise. Do not sacrifice usability for elegance. I can see you consistently apply a model that builds on metadata abstractions. Nevertheless, it is not conceptual consistency but expectations that should drive interactions. A difficult balance, given that consistency also improves accuracy of expectations but if you take big vendors, that consistency approach was taken to the limits by BPC. This is why everything feels like 10 extra steps. When someone creates artefacts they should be immediately available. The only thing that should necessitate a metadata application from a user perspective should be metadata (as in dimensions changes, not even member additions) and logic changes (if you need to optimise your calculations graph.) The rest should be transparent and separated at least visually from metadata. You can keep security in metadata, but calculation is a separate concept and you will most probably have to separate it when, as per your roadmap, you look into workflows. Do not get confused by the consistency. Look at the concepts from a user perspective and hide elegance in implementation if you can. I hope this helps. I will send you an email and we can discuss in more detail.