I saw a post on LinkedIn recently from somebody asking about what might be a good idea for a social networking application or service for Africa. Not quite sure if he meant good in the sense of being financially-successful, or good in the sense of being beneficial to everyday folks. Ideally, such a thing would be good at both. Here was my contribution:
A Twitter-like social networking service may be a good idea, just adapted to the differences of the local market and culture, and optimized for having mobile devices be the dominant client.
Also, a Craigslist-like service.
And some sort of discussion forums, organized by topic or region.
I think really simple services like this would be useful in every culture. Again, in this case, probably especially important to make sure that the enduser UI is optimized for mobile devices, particularly low-end cellphones rather than iPhones. The lower the device hardware capability requirements for the UI & data communication, the cheaper devices can run it, the more people can afford to access it, the more popular it will be, and the greater the benefit to African society.
Not truly a social networking application, but one thought I had would be that it could be really useful to have mobile applications that make it really easy to connect employers with job seekers, or to buy & sell items on an Ebay-like auction market. My understanding is that the power infrastructure and transportation networks in Africa are not as pervasive or as reliable as in the US, making it harder to travel and commute. And that not as many have full-blown desktop computers, so instead mobile devices like cellphones are really popular precisely because they allow individuals to get around that weakness. And cellphones are increasingly popular there for mobile banking, not just telephony. So jobs and markets/auctions could be the next logical step and have synergy with the mobile banking services and use cases.
If you enable online job markets and auction markets, it should make it easier for individuals and small businesses to find employment, and sell products & services -- without being limited to dealing only with who is in the local village or neighborhood. It should also amplify people's ability to leverage the advantages that come from differentiation and specialization, by being able to consume the fruits of the best provider of a given thing from a much larger region than before, or for someone who provides an esoteric skill or product to be able to sell that to a much larger region geographically, making an increasing breadth of job types financially viable. Diverse economies tend to be more efficient, and more resilient.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Open Letter to Congress on Health Care Reform
I strongly think you need to add the public plan option back into whatever bill you pass.
Also, any reform bill would have as it's most beneficial features the notions that insurance companies could not deny coverage due to so-called pre-existing conditions, and, once someone has coverage and is sick and therefore is using the coverage that they cannot be dropped. If the public plan is created, then those latter 2 elements are not as important, but if it does not, and only the private health insurance industry option remains then adding those restrictions is crucial to fix the system. Currently the private health insurance industry is effectively acting as a parasite on Americans, trying to extract as much profit as they can out of people, by looking for every excuse to charge them for things, while also looking for every excuse to deny or minimize the delivery of actual health care service. That to me is a broken system, and worse than that, predatory and evil.
One compromise variant on reform would be to say, fine, we won't add any additional regulations to the private health industry, but, in return, we will add a new public health program that (a) does have the qualities Americans want (can't deny, can't drop, no profit motive, with success measured by effectiveness which is in turn measured by health outcomes -- saving lives & improving health -- not by huge private profits for the fat cats at the top and their investor allies), and (b) is optional -- therefore, nobody is forced into it, and they can still choose the private insurance route, and the private industry would still be free to run their operation as they are today. In that scenario, let consumers & citizens decide which they prefer, and may the best offering win. Free market choice is a good thing, right? Republicans should love that, if they truly believe in the philosophy they advocate.
Also, if you pass a bill that requires everyone to buy private insurance, and yet at the same time you do not also pass strong enforceable measures to ensure that the private industry can't deny, can't drop, and doesn't game the system to maximize profits, then really what you are doing is passing a bill which is a big handout to the private health insurance industry and actually rewarding their current system, and increasing their revenue and profits by effectively giving them more customers -- forced customers, the best kind for monopolists, the worst for providing actual good service. Therefore, if you can't get enough votes to pass a bill that has the core elements Americans want (public plan option, and/or a new law that says can't deny and can't drop) then it's better to pass no bill at all. Better if you truly want to benefit your constituents: the American public, the little guy, the voter.
Also, any reform bill would have as it's most beneficial features the notions that insurance companies could not deny coverage due to so-called pre-existing conditions, and, once someone has coverage and is sick and therefore is using the coverage that they cannot be dropped. If the public plan is created, then those latter 2 elements are not as important, but if it does not, and only the private health insurance industry option remains then adding those restrictions is crucial to fix the system. Currently the private health insurance industry is effectively acting as a parasite on Americans, trying to extract as much profit as they can out of people, by looking for every excuse to charge them for things, while also looking for every excuse to deny or minimize the delivery of actual health care service. That to me is a broken system, and worse than that, predatory and evil.
One compromise variant on reform would be to say, fine, we won't add any additional regulations to the private health industry, but, in return, we will add a new public health program that (a) does have the qualities Americans want (can't deny, can't drop, no profit motive, with success measured by effectiveness which is in turn measured by health outcomes -- saving lives & improving health -- not by huge private profits for the fat cats at the top and their investor allies), and (b) is optional -- therefore, nobody is forced into it, and they can still choose the private insurance route, and the private industry would still be free to run their operation as they are today. In that scenario, let consumers & citizens decide which they prefer, and may the best offering win. Free market choice is a good thing, right? Republicans should love that, if they truly believe in the philosophy they advocate.
Also, if you pass a bill that requires everyone to buy private insurance, and yet at the same time you do not also pass strong enforceable measures to ensure that the private industry can't deny, can't drop, and doesn't game the system to maximize profits, then really what you are doing is passing a bill which is a big handout to the private health insurance industry and actually rewarding their current system, and increasing their revenue and profits by effectively giving them more customers -- forced customers, the best kind for monopolists, the worst for providing actual good service. Therefore, if you can't get enough votes to pass a bill that has the core elements Americans want (public plan option, and/or a new law that says can't deny and can't drop) then it's better to pass no bill at all. Better if you truly want to benefit your constituents: the American public, the little guy, the voter.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
When Total Price is NOT Total Price
...when the phrase is used by a car dealer!
I was at a car dealer today looking at cars -- not an experience I recommend to anyone, and in fact, as a general rule I don't do it, but since I hadn't in years I thought I would "test my assumptions" to see if they still held true.
Price lies? Check.
Value-based pricing? Check. (Q: "What's the price of this car?" ---> A: "It depends. How much money to do you have?")
Pushy salesmen? Check.
All of the vehicles which had "price stickers" (and not all did) had a section on the label in big bold black letters like this:
TOTAL PRICE*: $15,345.23
Notice that little asterisk?
You can probably guess what it means.
If you looked elsewhere on the label it has a section where it explains what the asterisk means.
It means that the "total price" shown is not the total price, because it does not include this-long-list-of-extra-stuff-whose-amounts-they-did-not-care-to-specify.
I'm reminded of the movie Princess Bride, where the annoying know-it-all bad guy keeps saying the phrase, "Inconceivable!", despite the fact that, due to his having made that remark in reaction to an idea just conceived and expressed in his presence, it means that the thing in question that he is saying is inconceivable, is, quite clearly, and shown with direct recent evidence, *conceivable*. I've given a rather detailed and pedantic explanation of why what he said is ridiculous, but what I really loved is what the Hero says to him after hearing it said too many times, and the Hero becoming annoyed (or amused) at it. He says:
"There you go using that word again. I don't think it means what you think it means."
That was my reaction today at the car dealer. "Total Price" indeed!
I don't think it means what they think it means...
I was at a car dealer today looking at cars -- not an experience I recommend to anyone, and in fact, as a general rule I don't do it, but since I hadn't in years I thought I would "test my assumptions" to see if they still held true.
Price lies? Check.
Value-based pricing? Check. (Q: "What's the price of this car?" ---> A: "It depends. How much money to do you have?")
Pushy salesmen? Check.
All of the vehicles which had "price stickers" (and not all did) had a section on the label in big bold black letters like this:
TOTAL PRICE*: $15,345.23
Notice that little asterisk?
You can probably guess what it means.
If you looked elsewhere on the label it has a section where it explains what the asterisk means.
It means that the "total price" shown is not the total price, because it does not include this-long-list-of-extra-stuff-whose-amounts-they-did-not-care-to-specify.
I'm reminded of the movie Princess Bride, where the annoying know-it-all bad guy keeps saying the phrase, "Inconceivable!", despite the fact that, due to his having made that remark in reaction to an idea just conceived and expressed in his presence, it means that the thing in question that he is saying is inconceivable, is, quite clearly, and shown with direct recent evidence, *conceivable*. I've given a rather detailed and pedantic explanation of why what he said is ridiculous, but what I really loved is what the Hero says to him after hearing it said too many times, and the Hero becoming annoyed (or amused) at it. He says:
"There you go using that word again. I don't think it means what you think it means."
That was my reaction today at the car dealer. "Total Price" indeed!
I don't think it means what they think it means...
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Zero Visibility Vehicles (ZVV)
Ever been out driving and gotten stuck behind a big SUV?
And it blocked your view of anything happening in front of it in the lane?
So if there was a sudden slowdown of the line of cars in front of you in that lane, you wouldn't have any early warning?
If there was a sudden accident or collision, you also wouldn't have any visible early warning, because you couldn't see through or over the vehicle in front of you?
Yeah, it's horrible. And with the massive rise in SUV ownership in America, it now happens to me almost every day, whereas it didn't say 20 years ago.
I call that situation "ZVV" in my mind, which stands for Zero Visibility Vehicle.
It's annoying and dangerous. As a rule, I try to avoid and extricate myself from situations where I would be behind a ZVV.
I don't call it just SUV, because SUV's are one particular kind of vehicle that can cause the ZVV effect. Also trucks and vans, for example.
Though I'd love to drive around knowing I had the safety of armor-plating protecting me, like a tank, I would also feel bad about creating a ZVV situation for people behind me. Since my main ethical guideline in life is The Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.") it is this ZVV effect which is one of the reasons I haven't rushed to buy an SUV of my own even as the rest of society seemed to be doing so. The gas mileage was a bit of a lesser concern, though also important.
Mike
And it blocked your view of anything happening in front of it in the lane?
So if there was a sudden slowdown of the line of cars in front of you in that lane, you wouldn't have any early warning?
If there was a sudden accident or collision, you also wouldn't have any visible early warning, because you couldn't see through or over the vehicle in front of you?
Yeah, it's horrible. And with the massive rise in SUV ownership in America, it now happens to me almost every day, whereas it didn't say 20 years ago.
I call that situation "ZVV" in my mind, which stands for Zero Visibility Vehicle.
It's annoying and dangerous. As a rule, I try to avoid and extricate myself from situations where I would be behind a ZVV.
I don't call it just SUV, because SUV's are one particular kind of vehicle that can cause the ZVV effect. Also trucks and vans, for example.
Though I'd love to drive around knowing I had the safety of armor-plating protecting me, like a tank, I would also feel bad about creating a ZVV situation for people behind me. Since my main ethical guideline in life is The Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.") it is this ZVV effect which is one of the reasons I haven't rushed to buy an SUV of my own even as the rest of society seemed to be doing so. The gas mileage was a bit of a lesser concern, though also important.
Mike
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Call of Duty 4: Suggested Improvements
Here's a list of suggested improvements to the game Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, for the Sony PS3. It's a great game, one of the best FPS I've ever played, and it's finally knocked Counter-Strike off as my favorite FPS. And that says alot because CS, in various iterations has been my favorite for a long time. That said, despite how great the game is, it has some flaws. Nothing is too horrible, but most are annoying or are glaring opportunities to improve the user experience. Here they are:
1. fix team assignment balancing
Your algorithm currently will put 5 level 50+ players on one team, and put only 1 on the other. Are you on crack? This assignment almost always produces seriously unbalanced teams skills-wise, with a resulting lop-sided match results.
2. give players a way to turn off the hearing of other player's voice chatter
99% of it is the audio equivalent of garbage (teens saying "you suck!" or kids making funny sounds, dogs barking, lots of juvenile humor, etc.). In the case of total strangers playing together randomly on the internet.
3. honor a player's desire to leave a particular server/session
Currently when you quit a server/session, then try to join a new game that otherwise has the same traits (game mode/style), your system will often reassign you back to the same exact server/session you just left. This is annoying. In the case of an explicit quit action on the part of the user there is a *reason* why the user left: typically because the map sucked, the players sucked, or it was a lopsided steamroll fest, or there was possible cheating behavior going on. Either way, the user indicated he didn't want to play on it by leaving it.
4. improve/widen time span in which user can indicate he doesn't want to see his death replay
And/or give user a configurable option to specify whether he always wants to see it, or never. Currently there's a very quirky time window in which the system polls for a control action indicating the user doesn't want to see his death replay. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Often when I'm in the heat of battle and I want to get back into battle quickly I do not want to watch the replay because I don't care that much about seeing where my killer was (perhaps I know or am confident of his location, or, I just don't care) and want to get back to playing immediately.
1. fix team assignment balancing
Your algorithm currently will put 5 level 50+ players on one team, and put only 1 on the other. Are you on crack? This assignment almost always produces seriously unbalanced teams skills-wise, with a resulting lop-sided match results.
2. give players a way to turn off the hearing of other player's voice chatter
99% of it is the audio equivalent of garbage (teens saying "you suck!" or kids making funny sounds, dogs barking, lots of juvenile humor, etc.). In the case of total strangers playing together randomly on the internet.
3. honor a player's desire to leave a particular server/session
Currently when you quit a server/session, then try to join a new game that otherwise has the same traits (game mode/style), your system will often reassign you back to the same exact server/session you just left. This is annoying. In the case of an explicit quit action on the part of the user there is a *reason* why the user left: typically because the map sucked, the players sucked, or it was a lopsided steamroll fest, or there was possible cheating behavior going on. Either way, the user indicated he didn't want to play on it by leaving it.
4. improve/widen time span in which user can indicate he doesn't want to see his death replay
And/or give user a configurable option to specify whether he always wants to see it, or never. Currently there's a very quirky time window in which the system polls for a control action indicating the user doesn't want to see his death replay. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Often when I'm in the heat of battle and I want to get back into battle quickly I do not want to watch the replay because I don't care that much about seeing where my killer was (perhaps I know or am confident of his location, or, I just don't care) and want to get back to playing immediately.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Time Machine Statements
Something I've always found funny and sometimes annoying are statements like this:
"The market for X will be 4 times what it is today by 5 years from now."
"It will take 4 years for the price of SSD drives to become competitive to traditional disk drives."
"Wall Street analysts agree that X will be selling at Y by the same time next year."
And so on...
I call these Time Machine Statements.
Because they are statements that can only be made with a straight face by someone who has just stepped out of a time machine, returning from a voyage to the future. In the magic Time Machine. Which, of course, don't exist. And therefore, what they are saying is nonsense. It's not factual. It's bullshit.
At best what they're saying is "Given a certain set of assumptions, and given current trends, and there's nothing else happening today or will happen tomorrow or the day after or a year from now, that could impact this prediction, that I have not already taken into consideration etc., then if I take a certain number and apply a certain equation or algorithm to it, it yields of value of Y around T units of time from now."
That's it. Basically, they've taken some numbers, made a few simple assumptions, they abstract away most of the details of nitty gritty REALITY and come up with a pretty graph. And the graph goes up or down or whatever. And all they're doing is giving you a summary description of that graph.
But what they have not done is describe the future in a factual way. Because they have not stepped out of a Time Machine.
As a counter-point to this, I'd like to give some examples of the types of statements you can make about the future, with a straight face, and without the benefit of a Time Machine.
"It will be darker tonight than it was at noon."
"I live in Chicago and I can assure you it will be colder and darker, with shorter days, during the winter than it will be during the summer."
That's a smart and 99.999%+ reliable way of making believable statements about the future. (Notice I did not say 100%: perhaps there will be some celestial event or nuclear conflaguration that night which lights up the sky enough that it's as bright as the day. But on 99.9999%+ of the days experienced by all of humanity so far in the past, it appears, that has not been the case.)
No Time Machine needed. No crack pipe need be smoked.
"The market for X will be 4 times what it is today by 5 years from now."
"It will take 4 years for the price of SSD drives to become competitive to traditional disk drives."
"Wall Street analysts agree that X will be selling at Y by the same time next year."
And so on...
I call these Time Machine Statements.
Because they are statements that can only be made with a straight face by someone who has just stepped out of a time machine, returning from a voyage to the future. In the magic Time Machine. Which, of course, don't exist. And therefore, what they are saying is nonsense. It's not factual. It's bullshit.
At best what they're saying is "Given a certain set of assumptions, and given current trends, and there's nothing else happening today or will happen tomorrow or the day after or a year from now, that could impact this prediction, that I have not already taken into consideration etc., then if I take a certain number and apply a certain equation or algorithm to it, it yields of value of Y around T units of time from now."
That's it. Basically, they've taken some numbers, made a few simple assumptions, they abstract away most of the details of nitty gritty REALITY and come up with a pretty graph. And the graph goes up or down or whatever. And all they're doing is giving you a summary description of that graph.
But what they have not done is describe the future in a factual way. Because they have not stepped out of a Time Machine.
As a counter-point to this, I'd like to give some examples of the types of statements you can make about the future, with a straight face, and without the benefit of a Time Machine.
"It will be darker tonight than it was at noon."
"I live in Chicago and I can assure you it will be colder and darker, with shorter days, during the winter than it will be during the summer."
That's a smart and 99.999%+ reliable way of making believable statements about the future. (Notice I did not say 100%: perhaps there will be some celestial event or nuclear conflaguration that night which lights up the sky enough that it's as bright as the day. But on 99.9999%+ of the days experienced by all of humanity so far in the past, it appears, that has not been the case.)
No Time Machine needed. No crack pipe need be smoked.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
The Man Taylor Lives
Sad day, just heard that Charlton Heston died.
At first I was shocked because I thought he had already passed away a few years ago.
I generally am not effected much when I hear a total stranger has died, especially an actor. But I grew up watching him in movies, and several of his characters were idols of mine, in various ways, as a kid. From Moses, to Ben Hur, to astronaut George Taylor from Earth in the original movie Planet of the Apes. Some people in the supposedly "liberal" camp painted him in a negative light for some things he's said in the last decade or so, but I think such criticisms are not important, plus, no man is perfect.
I do think that something that everybody needs is positive role models in their lives. Especially in childhood. Plus, as children, we have a much greater need to fantasize, live in stories, and play out imaginary situations in our minds. I think that's a very necessary and healthy part of growing up. It may be a built-in behavior, with a beneficial purpose, and so it needs to happen, or bad things will happen later on in life.
Regardless, I have very strong memories of some of his movies, and his role in them. Though I am not a religious person, I do like many of the central stories and myths in the Bible, and Moses and The Ten Commandants are right up there.
I'm also a big fan of science fiction and fantasy. And so he's in my pantheon for Planet of the Apes, The Omega Man, and Soylent Green.
One consolation is that the product of his work will live on. We'll always have his movies. Somewhere in the alternate dimension that exists when you're watching Planet of the Apes for the first time, the astronaut Taylor -- a man who speaks! -- is down on his knees on a beach on what he thought was an alien world, staring up at the ruins of the Statue of Liberty, with the terrible realization dawning, and he's yelling out his curse at the fate of his world, damning those who have ruined it. One of the best endings to any story, of all time. And also a powerful moment in movies and science fiction. Damn you all to hell, indeed.
At first I was shocked because I thought he had already passed away a few years ago.
I generally am not effected much when I hear a total stranger has died, especially an actor. But I grew up watching him in movies, and several of his characters were idols of mine, in various ways, as a kid. From Moses, to Ben Hur, to astronaut George Taylor from Earth in the original movie Planet of the Apes. Some people in the supposedly "liberal" camp painted him in a negative light for some things he's said in the last decade or so, but I think such criticisms are not important, plus, no man is perfect.
I do think that something that everybody needs is positive role models in their lives. Especially in childhood. Plus, as children, we have a much greater need to fantasize, live in stories, and play out imaginary situations in our minds. I think that's a very necessary and healthy part of growing up. It may be a built-in behavior, with a beneficial purpose, and so it needs to happen, or bad things will happen later on in life.
Regardless, I have very strong memories of some of his movies, and his role in them. Though I am not a religious person, I do like many of the central stories and myths in the Bible, and Moses and The Ten Commandants are right up there.
I'm also a big fan of science fiction and fantasy. And so he's in my pantheon for Planet of the Apes, The Omega Man, and Soylent Green.
One consolation is that the product of his work will live on. We'll always have his movies. Somewhere in the alternate dimension that exists when you're watching Planet of the Apes for the first time, the astronaut Taylor -- a man who speaks! -- is down on his knees on a beach on what he thought was an alien world, staring up at the ruins of the Statue of Liberty, with the terrible realization dawning, and he's yelling out his curse at the fate of his world, damning those who have ruined it. One of the best endings to any story, of all time. And also a powerful moment in movies and science fiction. Damn you all to hell, indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
