Change, Speed and Computers

Change is the only constant. There is a need then to always keep up with change. This means that we must always be adaptable and always ready to react according to a change in the environment. This is also in tandem with the intellectual movement of always in flux. This means society travel in a trajectory which is always in flux, changing course as according to changes in general trends and undercurrents.

This intellectual movement is contrasted what we call rationalism which defines that we understand by the manner of categories, and everything is knowable. There is at least some form scientific law underlying all forms of nature.

Hence in the modern context, where individualism and capitalism comes together, producing goods by the minute and by the second- this in the flux idea seems to be in tandem together. The thing about rationalism, it is often associated with bureaucracy and large corporations which is always finding ways to organize in blocks to fulfil a particular outcome. This is so 1970s.

When you are face with a barrage of messages to fulfil your individual and creative self by consuming and producing goods which goes along this particular message- it is hard to think that big "anything"- governments, corporations or money- is simply just politically incorrect in this age. It is always good to be the alternative, to be different, to stand out from the crowd. In fact, Marx, the father of communism criticizes capitalism for alienating the individual from the product and hence we must removed ourselves from being a cog in a machine and release our "creative" self.

But let me tell you a simple question, what you consuming for or what you standing for? This means that what is your point: assuming that you are an individual, what do you stand for really? Marx had lofty goal where, he wants people to be liberated from their alienated self and fulfil their creative ends- how does participating in the global market place- make you any closer to being a creative self.

This means that we are creative just to be individualistic- and to produce "jeans", t-shirts and sneakers and computer games. huh. What is the difference between this and producing sweat shop sneakers- after all, when you design the sneakers, or post your status on Facebook- someone on the other end of world is doing on the cheap, so that that you can make your sneakers to enter the global market place right. Why does anyone want to pretend that we are anti-establishment by dressing differently when we are really "pro-establishment".

At least the Marxists and communist of the older days have a goal, but now we are designing sneakers and handphones for some developed world consumer to buy and be "cool". What is the difference between that and the exploited textile worker in London in "Great Expectations by Charles Dickens. At least, he had a point, but what is the point in being different just for the sake for being the "same" in the market place- so to speak.

The ironic thing now is that Apple is the second biggest company in the world behind only a oil company and it is still consider an "alternative" brand. How that can be understood by the consumers continues to puzzle me. I have nothing against Apple. I like their iPhones and iPads, in fact, I have them, but what I do not understand is that how can be "alternative" when it is bigger than Microsoft and HP put together.

You see in this modern age, their considered to be "innovative" companies always at the edge of any technological breakthrough- this is at tandem with this "in flux" idea- but they are not changing anything at "all"!! You are buying Macs, iPods, iPhones to listen to music, watch movies, and create montages for your friends on Facebook and not to make "human life better". If you watch the original Apple advertisement called "1984", now that is call a change. Because it was not biggest company in the world yet.

The closest I see of anything tangible is this idea of a Google engineer sending tweets out there to mobilize people to revolt against the regime. Putting the legitimacy aside of this revolt aside, my question is: okay, the old guy is gone, what next dude- another old guy?

Look, 1960s up to 1990s have this big bad giant called the communists which always spying on each others, and building up walls and indulging in propaganda, and building up totalitarian regime- and most of the market-driven world know who to hit. But East Germany is gone, Soviet Union is gone, China and Vietnam are striving towards market economies. Making fun of North Korea is so 1990s. No one makes fun of them now, is like rehashing an old punchline- it is not funny anymore.

And so now, since, we sort of think that money has won, and so what is the next big battle- "freedom"? Freedom from "what"? Freedom from a big and opaque governments, freedom from oppressive regimes? Or like Wikileaks and Edward Snowden, freedom to take on the big bad state: like a David and Goliath battle.

Look it is a lofty idea, but what are you trying to achieve. Let's say that the US state really did spy in EUs- are you trying to say that it is news? I mean which country does not engage in some form espionage. Everyone is spying on everyone, it probably started when we can identify each other from tribes- I am not trying to say that it is right- but it is a fact, I really don't even consider that as breakthrough. The corporate whistleblower which blew the whistle on fraudulent transactions probably deserve more accolades then someone telling everyone that countries are spying on each other.

Everyone is looking for next ideological battle. But the last big one has already been fought- and it was lucky that it didn't go beyond the Cold War and Vietnam and skirmishes. It is obviously communists is losing vogue- even Cuba is opening their property market to money transactions beyond barter exchange.

At an individual level, unless you are some genius which can forecast the future, my advice is to focus on things that affect directly when not bother with things have absolute nothing to do with you. If you think your government is oppressive and you really feel strongly about it, make your voice heard- but just beware, it is not easy as sending some tweets online.

I cannot help but put in a mathematical analogy just to crystallize everything. You see, there is no discernible pattern on your graph and convenient thing is just say that everything is in flux- means that there is no proper regression line which is discernible line- hence everything is ok, since nothing is ok.

If there is no discernible line, I think you should be happy about it, this means that the world has no over-riding conflict that causes the world to split down the middle. But it does not mean that there is absolute no line, there is a line, but with less efficacy that's all. This means that, a pattern still exist but the correlation might not be so strong that's all.

Hence if you feel compel to live on the outlier, be my guest, but an outlier will always be an outlier. It means that you will not be able to live a life like anyone. This means that if you are incapable to accept that fact, you will live like an outlier.

And if you believe that, being in flux is the reason for constant change, you would be mistaken that speed is then the deciding variable. Since correlation are not strong and hence trends are not as sticky as before, hence being in vogue means changing faster than the trends, you would be so mistaken. Let's just say that if the R square is 0.9 which means it is efficacious, it is 0.7 now, it just means that there are 0.2 difference. But the line is still efficacious, but the difference is that the strength of relationship has decreased that's all- simply because living in a post-modern capitalist require us to follow trends closely. One never realise that, it is still capitalist world, that adjective still has not changed for the last 50 years, no amount of speed will change, unless you become a communist.

It is the capitalist world that decides what trends will stick and what will not. Hence if one is serious about being in flux and believe that history is a matter of ebb and flow, in reality, you should be a "communist" in reality. Not participating in tech start ups and earning millions of dollars or even become hackers and become security experts after that- really aren't you perpetuating the system in the first place.

Have you seen the dog chasing the tail- do you compare with each dog chases the tail the fastest or do you compare the dog that runs the fastest for the bone. In effect, you seem like you are doing the latter because it is easy for you to believe likewise but in reality, you are the former, chasing after your own tail.

There is one Mark Zuckerburg for every 1 million hackers- and even he is a billionaire. Do not kid yourself, you are doing the world a favour. All discussions is already done and dusted, everything has been set and done before. Even I don't know what the next fight is about, all I know is that all these hackers are extremely talented into breaking government systems- but I don't see a point in all of these that's all. Very clever, but I will not crack the government main frame for an ego trip, firstly I am not that talented, secondly, I would rather be a consumer of technology than an innovator.

There is a hacker culture, but I am as far from that as I am from the North Pole. I don't mind meeting one, but I am practical man, it would make a good story but I didn't dabble with computers since I was young- they would find me boring anyway.

Look computers can harness all the computing power deliver mechanical results faster than all the humans combine together can. This means they can deliver big data, fast. These two words normally don't go together. But since they can do it, big and fast- it makes them a really scary all encompassing ghost. But the difference is that, they cannot move you- humans.

The power of algorithms is to scrap all the meta datas together and scrap them into useful categories and find discernible patterns that's all. As I have explained in the earlier post- "linear regression" is not truth. "Phenomenon" is not the truth. This means that if a computer can aggregate all your touch points and find your personality and predict what you would do next- you are in control of your behaviour. Even self learning computers need someone to key in the algos or rules in, otherwise they cannot learn by itself. As I have explained a couple of posts ago, you can "literally" tricked the computer by knowing what they wish to record.

The point is not about computers- or speed. The point is that you are in control- no matter how "fast" they can predict your movements.

Don't overthink everything- computers is not necessarily bad. As I myself have discovered in managing big data.

You see, the confluence of "being in flux", capitalism and individualism and computers, put forward the new "superstars" of the world, the computer geeks or the anti-thesis, the hackers. But name me one thing major that has happened as a result of this "revolution". Facebook, replacing one old man with another old man. Placing another interest group for another interest group. Nothing really change at all.

In reality, nothing of "value" really quite occur. This is not the start of another renaissance- the haves [ those with computer knowledge] and have nots [ those without]. This might shift capital like in Facebook, but money is still the currency- they even created virtual money, called bitcoin to monetize everything.

I would like to be more proficient with computers, I think it would be useful- but I don't think I will die if I cannot get by beyond knowing Microsoft Excel.

P/S: I think Internet made all the political and social ideals worse off- now everyone with a loud mouth can criticize anyone and anything anonymously without any repercussions. At least, all those interested people in 1980s and before have to put something on the line to stand up something they believe in or feel passionate about. Now anyone, can just go online and launch a 'senseless" tirade on anything.