Author Archives: Steve Mays

Silicon Valley is more important than the Middle East (Daniel Kahneman)

Posted on by

I’m a few chapters into Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, a really interesting book by Yuval Noah Harari. He’s an Oxford Ph.D. whose current research focuses on macro-historical questions: What is the relation between history and biology? Does history have a direction? Did people become happier as history unfolded?

Today I found a link to a conversation between Harari and Daniel Kahneman that was packed with interesting ideas. Here’s one:

“In terms of history, the events in Middle East, of ISIS and all of that, is just a speed bump on history’s highway. The Middle East is not very important. Silicon Valley is much more important. It’s the world of the 21st century … I’m not speaking only about technology. In terms of ideas, in terms of religions, the most interesting place today in the world is Silicon Valley, not the Middle East. This is where people like Ray Kurzweil, are creating new religions. These are the religions that will take over the world, not the ones coming out of Syria and Iraq and Nigeria.”

The best thing about the present

Posted on by

“The most fantastic thing about the present time is that we’re actually still here. In the early ’80s, people who knew what their situation was with the Cold War and nuclear armament didn’t necessarily expect that we’d make it this far. We’ve kind of lost that knowledge. Once the threat was gone, it was like we disremembered it as a species. It seldom comes up anymore, which is really odd.”

“The future will probably know more about what we’re actually doing than we do. Because if it stays history long enough, it doesn’t have to be secret anymore.”

From interview with William Gibson

Something new is happening

Posted on by

As it becomes increasingly difficult to know what’s ‘true’ and ‘accurate,’ I find myself depending (not he right word but close enough) on how something is said. Am I just talking about style or tone here? Perhaps. Anyway, Bruce Sterling (On Social Media Jihads) never disappoints.

“People are gonna kill ISIS because they want those oil wells back, not because ISIS is sort-of okay at social media and pushing viral atrocity videos. […] When you’re a top terrorist, you don’t really want to “wreak havoc” anyway. Mostly, you want to create a failed state, a place like Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, where you can take over at gunpoint and live it up in the narcotics, weapons, and oil biz.”

And this gem on U.S. foreign policy:

“It doesn’t matter how much data the U.S. military or U.S. intelligence has: They attack the wrong people for made-up reasons and they’re also [a] terribly ineffective occupation power.”

As for the Internet as a global brain uniting all of mankind…

“People don’t realize that the old-fashioned global Internet of the 90s is segregating into radicalized filter-bubbles, but it is, and fast. People are used to the Free World idea, they think the huddled masses behind the Chinese Firewall and the new Russian firewalls want to get out and be rich and happy at the West’s shopping mall. But the Chinese, Russians, and even the Greeks tried that, they don’t like it, and that’s not what is happening any more. Something new is happening.”

Like feeling warm or cold

Posted on by

“Don’t try to get rid of the ego-sensation. Take it, so long as it lasts, as a feature or play of the total process — like a cloud or wave, or like feeling warm or cold, or anything else that happens of itself. Getting rid of one’s ego is the last resort of invincible egoism! It simply confirms and strengthens the reality of the feeling. But when this feeling of separateness is approached and accepted like any other sensation, it evaporates like the mirage that it is.” — Alan Watts

Apple Watch. More than a timepiece

Posted on by

Apple is having one of their product unveiling/press events tomorrow. Me and a couple of my Apple Fan Boys are getting together to watch. Everyone’s expecting to learn more about the upcoming Apple Watch. My buddies can’t wait to get one of these strapped to their liver-spotted wrists. I’ve never been a watch guy but then, I wasn’t a phone guy or a table guy, so who knows. I just don’t like jewelry on my hands. Never wore a wedding ring.

But don’t get me wrong, I’m excited about this new product category from my favorite company. And I’ve followed the tech press as it has speculated about features and price. And price is what I want to talk about today.

If the top-of-the-line Apple Edition carries a price tag of ten or twenty-thousand dollars (or more), a bunch of folks are going to lose their shit. Both fans and haters. I can’t imagine spending that kind of dough on a watch but a lot of folks will. And the fancy pants model won’t do anything that the low-end model can do, so why pay more?

I don’t know a lot of rich people so it’s really unfair of me to speculate about what makes them tick (get it?). But the only reason I can imagine wearing a watch that cost $100,000 (or more) is you want folks to know you are rich. I mean, nobody’s trying to sell “This thing keeps great time!”

And a watch has a few advantages in this regard. Yeah, if you saw me get out of my Lamborghini you’d know I was something special. Or if you visited me in my Malibu mansion. But if you want folks to know you’re a little bit special whenever you go out in public, you gotta wear it.

Now I can’t tell a five-thousand dollar suit from a thousand-dollar suit. But a watch is something you never have to take off (if it’s water-proof). It’s right there on your well-tanned wrist. And if it’s a Rolex or one of the other high-end time pieces… Whoa! Who the fuck is this guy with a 100K on his arm?

I’m starting to sound a little mean or envious here and that’s not my intention. I’m just trying to understand the thinking behind a luxury purchase.

Shoot all the guys wearing combat pants first

Posted on by

Interesting interview with William Gibson. I guess it’s about style and fashion although I doubt he’d describe it thus. “Tech Wear and the Limits of Authenticity” is a pretty good description.

My rule is that if Dick Cheney couldn’t wear it without creating a stir, I shouldn’t either. I like clothing that isn’t easily noticed. […] I’m embarrassed if I think anyone knows exactly what I paid for something, or even where I got it. I want what I’m wearing to feel good on, wear well, and to be extremely functional.

There’s an idea called “gray man”, in the security business, that I find interesting. They teach people to dress unobtrusively. Chinos instead of combat pants, and if you really need the extra pockets, a better design conceals them. They assume, actually, that the bad guys will shoot all the guys wearing combat pants first, just to be sure. I don’t have that as a concern, but there’s something appealingly “low-drag” about gray man theory: reduced friction with one’s environment.