Ken's Blog

I was having a conversation with my class today about the future of communication technology. We touched on many topics, including mixed reality and artificial intelligence. And one topic that came up was the question of economic models.

You are probably familiar with the saying “If you’re not paying for it, then you’re not the customer, you’re the product.” It’s a pretty straightforward idea: If somebody is providing you with a free Web service, then they are probably not doing it for you. They are probably doing it for their advertisers — their real paying customers.

A corollary of this is if you really want to serve people, you need to do it in a way that is economically self-sustaining. For example, when you go to the market to get a dozen eggs, you pay for the eggs. And your money is what keeps the grocery store open.

You are willing to pay for those eggs because you are getting value for your money. And the people selling you the eggs don’t try to sell you broken or rotten eggs, because they want your continued business.

Similarly, if we want future communication technologies that serve our actual needs, there is an argument that we should be willing to pay for them. Otherwise, we will never really be the customer — we will be the product.

The president is calling for the firing of Jimmy Kimmel, but why? As I understand it, the president is accusing Kimmel of having accurately foreseen an extremely low probability event a full three days before that event occurred.

It seems to me, given this new revelation about Kimmel’s ability to see into the future, that merely firing him would be a terrible waste of resources. Shouldn’t the government deputize him, and put him to work telling us what is going to happen three days from now, so we can avoid mishaps?

Speaking of mishaps, wouldn’t it have been better for the U.S. war effort if our military hadn’t started out by blowing up more than a hundred little Irani schoolgirls? Arguably, it would have been easier for us to win the hearts and minds of the Irani people if we hadn’t just pulverized their kids.

Imagine, my fellow Americans, what our nation could accomplish, if only we were willing to harness Jimmy Kimmel’s new-found superpowers of precognition! Thank you for your attention to this matter.

We think that we will live forever
Though no one’s managed it before.
“Death won’t get me, I’m too clever”
Said everyone, since days of yore.
But time and age will do their damage
No matter what we say or do,
Yet even so, we somehow manage
To tell ourselves it isn’t true,
And faced with grim reality
Believe that Death will not arrive.
Our case for Immortality?
Every one on earth is still alive.

Is it wrong that I often prefer the original version of a song to the much more popular cover version? There are so many examples of this that it would be impossible to list them all, but here are a few.

Steve Goodman’s own version of City of New Orleans, rather than the more slick but less personal cover by Arlo Guthrie. Dylan’s own version of All Along the Watchtower, instead of the celebrated Hendrix cover.

The original version of Hallelujah. Of I Will Always Love You. Of I Think We’re Alone Now. Of Angel of the Morning. Of Reason to Believe.

There are so many more, but I will let you list your favorites.

It would be interesting to rate aphorisms on a scale of “wisdom per word”. First we ask how important is the life lesson imparted, and then we divide by the number of words contained in said aphorism.

My current favorite is a lyric penned by Joni Mitchell. It comes from her classic song “Big Yellow Taxi”.

The aphorism in question is “You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.” Only nine words, yet more wisdom than you are likely to encounter from far wordier sources.

I recently underwent an operation that involved general anesthesia. I am happy to report that the operation was successful,

Maybe the most notable thing about the entire event was a particular side effect of the general anesthesia. They had told me that when I awoke, I would be in a significant amount of pain, and they prescribed for me some fairly powerful painkillers.

When the family member who came to pick me up from the hospital and take me home showed up, he asked how I was feeling. I vividly recall what I said to him.

“I am in great pain, and I feel absolutely wonderful. Never felt better,” I said cheerfully.

Whatever it was that they had given me, which was clearly still lingering in my system, it was absolutely wonderful. And I sincerely hope that I never have an opportunity to try it again.

I was meeting with a student today, and we got on the topic of how the Internet can influence public opinion. The student was pointing out that people tend to believe what they hear if the source seems to be authoritative.

The key here is the phrase “seems to be”. As you probably know, seeming to be authoritative and actually being authoritative are two quite different things.

For example, organizations with lots of power, like large corporations, have many resources that they employ to create the appearance of being authoritative.

The student summed up the problem quite nicely. He said: “Unfortunately, people make a link between power and trustworthiness.”

To which I responded: “People who make a link between power and trustworthiness clearly are not following politics.”

I know I’m not supposed to discuss politics with students. But sometimes you just gotta say something.

Fortunately, the student knew exactly what I was talking about, and was in sad agreement.

I was having a conversation today with a colleague about the potential benefits or hazards of giving real-world rewards to learners. For example, you might think that it would be motivational to pay somebody in cash every time they did well on a test. But it’s complicated.

The situation can be described in terms of “playing a game”. When you practice the piano, or do a crossword puzzle, or engage in any other activity which challenges your brain, you are playing a kind of game.

You know you won’t receive any tangible rewards for solving that crossword puzzle, yet you do it anyway. Your reward is the intellectual challenge itself.

That’s why people usually don’t cheat on crossword puzzles. Of course you could just look up the answer, but then the challenge goes away. The entire enterprise would just become boring and pointless.

But if you pay somebody to do something, you are actually inviting them to play a different game. This new game might be called “How much money can I make by doing this?”

While the person is playing this new game, their goal is to win at the new game. So cheating at the first game no longer seems entirely pointless.

In fact, earning money by looking up the answers or some other loophole can be a very effective way to win at the new game of making money. The monetary reward isn’t exactly inviting people to cheat, but it might manage to remove the motivation to win at the first game, by effectively replacing that game with a different game.

Which is why paying somebody to score high on tests can actually backfire. You might just succeed in removing their motivation to learn.

And that would be a bad thing.

Success is problematic. As soon as you get something working well, you become nestled in a very comfortable plateau.

The tendency is to stay within the warm embrace of that plateau, savoring the sweet taste of success. But that, of course, is a trap.

Somehow, despite the siren call of successes safely achieved, you must row against the tide. Embrace the possibility of failure, be the agent of your own potential cataclysm.

Always, there must be risk. Without the possibility of failure, success is but a hollow victory.

Caffeine is most definitely a drug, albeit one that is apparently not terrible for you. Within twenty minutes after I drink my morning cup of coffee, my mood generally becomes one of elation, and I feel that I can accomplish anything I set my mind to.

This felling gradually fades over the course of the day. But while it lasts, it is awesome.

I also find that the chemical effects of a good aerobic workout are similar. And rhe combination of the two is unbeatable.

So my question for the day is this: Can a similar effect be achieved by entirely non-chemical means?

With proper training, can we will ourselves, using only our mind, to this sort of positive mental state? If so, that would be pretty darned awesome.