The conversation about gun control is heating up again. But as a technologist, I find myself questioning the practicality:
Let's ignore for a moment the fact there are already more guns than people in the US.
Let's ignore the fact that the current 300-20k (depending on whose interpretation you accept) current gun control laws don't seem to be working.
Let's ignore the fact that there are a fair number of rabidly crazy 2nd amendment proponents who will require you to pry their firearms form their 'cold, dead hands'.
Let's just talk modern technology.
Over seven years ago, a handful of 20 somethings 3D printed a plastic AR lower and fired a half-dozen rounds through it before it failed. (I remember seeing the vid. Can't find it now).
Another individual at roughly the same time printed a .22-caliber pistol, based on the AR lower, which reportedly was still fully functional after firing 200 rounds (https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/133514-the-worlds-first-3d-printed-gun).
Since then, 3d plastic printers have dropped in price, and quality of plastics has improved. A good 3D printer can be purchased for less than $500. People are successfully printing standard AR lowers and firing large numbers of rounds without component failure. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKw8VVP5VmU)
Today, 3D metal printers are coming of age. In just a few short years they have dropped from million dollar to half-million dollar items. There are even a few in the low $100k range. There is also talk of start-ups trying to build desktop models, aiming for a price point around $1500.
"But can't we just enact laws forcing the printer manufacturers to prevent printing of firearms?"
Ignoring the difficulty of that being not dissimilar to making an antivirus program that can catch all current and future malware (i.e. people will just start building firearms that look like teapots)...
Many 3D printers use the Raspberry Pi, or the Arduino as their controller. The Raspberry pi is an open standards compute platform. It is trivial to re-program.
The Arduino is an open SOURCE platform. This means, with instructions you can build your own controller from scratch, using off the shelf parts; parts that have no code in them.
We are growing ever closer to the time when someone would actually be able to print all the parts for a printer. And build their own custom code for controlling it. And build tools that allow virtually anyone with a skill level sufficient to set the clock on their microwave to do the same.
"Well, let's restrict access to the 3D models people use to print the guns."
I recall a time when the US tried to control cryptography this way. Some geek published the code in a paper he wrote. He won the court case because of the first amendment right to free speech.
Exactly how much freedom are you willing to surrender in order to get control of firearms?
And will that actually fix the problem? A year ago I was in Ireland, listening to a new report of yet another mass-knifing incident in a UK town. The report showed a group of people demonstrating for tougher knife-control laws. This wasn't an isolated event either. (https://freebeacon.com/issues/knife-control-debate-heats-uk-amid-london-murder-spike-2/)
So, yes, is this gun control conversation really a practical endeavor? Or are we tilting at windmills?
Tuesday, August 20, 2019
Monday, August 19, 2019
Unraveling The free economy
A long time ago (At least a year ago). I saw a clip from a news spot in which a couple of young, popular, stylish progressive commentators were discussing the free economy and making fun of an older lawmaker who "Just didn't get it." They spent a couple of minutes lambasting the out-dated fossil who just couldn't seem to come to grips with how all these internet services could be free.
Problem is, they didn't explain how it worked. They just made fun of the fossil for not getting it. I was left feeling perhaps they didn't get it either.
I thought about trying to unpack it, but just wasn't quite motivated enough.
Recently I watched a Ted Talk presentation by Amanda Palmer Titled "The Art of Asking".
(You can find it here, if you wish to watch it. "Parental warning" I was dividing my time between two other tasks, so I don't know if there was mature language, I do know there is a photo of her - rear-oblique angle - Head to just above buttocks - with no clothes, being drawn on by a crowd of fans.)
The key takeaway: As an artist she has largely stopped selling her music. Instead she gives it away free, encourages people to share it, then asks for donations. (essentially the classic street musician model, enhanced by the global reach of the internet.
It is an interesting business model. She seems to be making a decent living doing it. She isn't rolling in cash like the Beatles ($2 billion+), Metallica ($820 million) or Eminem, ($230 million), or Ariana Grande ($100 million), but she definitely isn't starving ($18 million). Even better in my opinion, The RIAA protection racket, er.. I mean... legal team doesn't get to leech off her work.
This isn't free economy as previously mentioned. It is actually a derivation of capitalism, using an optimistic, abundance mindset, (as opposed to the pessimistic, scarcity mindset used by - as an example - Disney, who historically placed their videos in the vault at regular intervals to create an artificial scarcity of product, thereby artificially keeping the price high), and placing the negotiation power solely in the hands of the buyer. She performs the work/service of creating and publishing her art, and trusts that the general population is mostly good and trustworthy and will of their own free will, with no coercion, pay her a fair wage for her effort. She also gets money from endorsements, which I assume utilize more balanced negotiations, and it is unclear what percentage of her wealth comes from this vs fan... donations?.
So, I maintain a bit of skepticism, but I think It is actually a cool business model, particularly well suited for artistic endeavors, I think. It allows everyone to see the art, and then those who appreciate can pay what they feel it is worth, according to what they can afford. I am working on writing a book (a bucket list item of mine). I am approaching two years working on it - just about done with the first draft, and I have been wanting to publish it using this model.
Sorry, wandering a bit there.
None of that is really about the free economy, just what motivated me to try and unpack it.
The free economy the commentators were discussing was specifically centered around Digital tools (Such as google docs, Facebook, Trello,...) and games (Candy Crush, Empires and Puzzles...). You can use/play them for free. You aren't required to pay to play.
But...
People invested time/calories to build/design these things. Don't they need to be paid, so they can provide food, clothing and shelter for themselves and their families? These applications run on servers. Lots of servers. Someone has to pay for the hardware, and for the power to run them, and for the power to cool the rooms they are in, and for the network connections. And while some of those services might be overpriced in the market. I believe it is fairly obvious they can't be absolutely free. They all require labor to research, design build, and maintain.
So if those services aren't in fact free, and you aren't paying for them, who is?
Many utilize a "Freemium" model. That is; you can use the app in a basic or limited form for free, but there are advanced features that you must pay for. Trello is a good example of this. The basic features of this organizational/project management/collaboration tool are free. But if you want the tools that allow you to automate things, or have more than just a handful of boards, you will need to subscribe to one of the premium versions - approximately $10 per user per month.
Still, it allows anyone to use at least the basic features, by having the more affluent users subsidize the free accounts.
Others - specifically the games - use micro-payments in a somewhat similar fashion. You can play the game for free (and you might be subjected to ads, but we'll get to that later), but you will frequently find yourself making very little progress. To overcome this, you can purchase power-ups, or boosters, which will give you a better chance (not a guarantee) of faster progress. This turns out to be a ridiculously good model, by exploiting human characteristics (impatience, addiction). Once upon a time, a high quality game with cutting-edge graphics, hours of unique game play, complex story line, quality voice acting, etc... was a $50 investment for the player. Today, many of the successful games are simple three-matchers, with an occasional novelty introduced. They're trivial to program, largely unimaginative and incredibly repetitive. Yet in some cases people have paid thousands of dollars per month!
So again, the rich and/or stupid subsidize the poor and/or patient. (there are other problems with these games, but that might be another post).
What about the Facebook's and Google doc's? They rely on marketing revenue (Many/most of the games leverage this stream as well, in the form of in-game ads). One aspect of this is simply putting ads in front of your eyes.
Another is research into your habits. By learning more about you, they can be more efficient with advertising dollars, by showing you ads for the things you are actually interested in. The more sinister aspect of this is the deep-learning that the social media platforms utilize to help marketing firms. They essentially experiment on you; try to understand what makes you tick, so they can figure out how to more effectively influence you to buy their stuff.
Does this work? Certainly seems to. Coca Cola, as an example outspends Pepsi by nearly double, and Dr. Pepper by four times, the second and third highest spenders on marketing. Coca Cola owns 42% of the market share. Repetition of a message is very effective in influencing your attitudes and opinions, whether you believe it or not, whether you like it or not. Repeat a lie enough times and it becomes the truth for all intents and purposes. That is the power of propaganda.
But, Coca Cola doesn't pay for their marketing campaigns. The consumer does. Coca cola spends roughly 12.5% of it's revenue on marketing, and that cost is included in the price of the product. For every dollar you you spend on Coke products, twelve cents of it is a micro-payment for those "free things" you use, so that Coca Cola can propagandize you into giving them more of your money.
So there you have it; the "free" economy unpacked. It would be more accurately described as the indirect economy, or perhaps the sneaky, manipulative economy.
There is a saying "If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product." Turns out, you are the product, and you are paying for it too.
Problem is, they didn't explain how it worked. They just made fun of the fossil for not getting it. I was left feeling perhaps they didn't get it either.
I thought about trying to unpack it, but just wasn't quite motivated enough.
Recently I watched a Ted Talk presentation by Amanda Palmer Titled "The Art of Asking".
(You can find it here, if you wish to watch it. "Parental warning" I was dividing my time between two other tasks, so I don't know if there was mature language, I do know there is a photo of her - rear-oblique angle - Head to just above buttocks - with no clothes, being drawn on by a crowd of fans.)
The key takeaway: As an artist she has largely stopped selling her music. Instead she gives it away free, encourages people to share it, then asks for donations. (essentially the classic street musician model, enhanced by the global reach of the internet.
It is an interesting business model. She seems to be making a decent living doing it. She isn't rolling in cash like the Beatles ($2 billion+), Metallica ($820 million) or Eminem, ($230 million), or Ariana Grande ($100 million), but she definitely isn't starving ($18 million). Even better in my opinion, The RIAA protection racket, er.. I mean... legal team doesn't get to leech off her work.
This isn't free economy as previously mentioned. It is actually a derivation of capitalism, using an optimistic, abundance mindset, (as opposed to the pessimistic, scarcity mindset used by - as an example - Disney, who historically placed their videos in the vault at regular intervals to create an artificial scarcity of product, thereby artificially keeping the price high), and placing the negotiation power solely in the hands of the buyer. She performs the work/service of creating and publishing her art, and trusts that the general population is mostly good and trustworthy and will of their own free will, with no coercion, pay her a fair wage for her effort. She also gets money from endorsements, which I assume utilize more balanced negotiations, and it is unclear what percentage of her wealth comes from this vs fan... donations?.
So, I maintain a bit of skepticism, but I think It is actually a cool business model, particularly well suited for artistic endeavors, I think. It allows everyone to see the art, and then those who appreciate can pay what they feel it is worth, according to what they can afford. I am working on writing a book (a bucket list item of mine). I am approaching two years working on it - just about done with the first draft, and I have been wanting to publish it using this model.
Sorry, wandering a bit there.
None of that is really about the free economy, just what motivated me to try and unpack it.
The free economy the commentators were discussing was specifically centered around Digital tools (Such as google docs, Facebook, Trello,...) and games (Candy Crush, Empires and Puzzles...). You can use/play them for free. You aren't required to pay to play.
But...
People invested time/calories to build/design these things. Don't they need to be paid, so they can provide food, clothing and shelter for themselves and their families? These applications run on servers. Lots of servers. Someone has to pay for the hardware, and for the power to run them, and for the power to cool the rooms they are in, and for the network connections. And while some of those services might be overpriced in the market. I believe it is fairly obvious they can't be absolutely free. They all require labor to research, design build, and maintain.
So if those services aren't in fact free, and you aren't paying for them, who is?
Many utilize a "Freemium" model. That is; you can use the app in a basic or limited form for free, but there are advanced features that you must pay for. Trello is a good example of this. The basic features of this organizational/project management/collaboration tool are free. But if you want the tools that allow you to automate things, or have more than just a handful of boards, you will need to subscribe to one of the premium versions - approximately $10 per user per month.
Still, it allows anyone to use at least the basic features, by having the more affluent users subsidize the free accounts.
Others - specifically the games - use micro-payments in a somewhat similar fashion. You can play the game for free (and you might be subjected to ads, but we'll get to that later), but you will frequently find yourself making very little progress. To overcome this, you can purchase power-ups, or boosters, which will give you a better chance (not a guarantee) of faster progress. This turns out to be a ridiculously good model, by exploiting human characteristics (impatience, addiction). Once upon a time, a high quality game with cutting-edge graphics, hours of unique game play, complex story line, quality voice acting, etc... was a $50 investment for the player. Today, many of the successful games are simple three-matchers, with an occasional novelty introduced. They're trivial to program, largely unimaginative and incredibly repetitive. Yet in some cases people have paid thousands of dollars per month!
So again, the rich and/or stupid subsidize the poor and/or patient. (there are other problems with these games, but that might be another post).
What about the Facebook's and Google doc's? They rely on marketing revenue (Many/most of the games leverage this stream as well, in the form of in-game ads). One aspect of this is simply putting ads in front of your eyes.
Another is research into your habits. By learning more about you, they can be more efficient with advertising dollars, by showing you ads for the things you are actually interested in. The more sinister aspect of this is the deep-learning that the social media platforms utilize to help marketing firms. They essentially experiment on you; try to understand what makes you tick, so they can figure out how to more effectively influence you to buy their stuff.
Does this work? Certainly seems to. Coca Cola, as an example outspends Pepsi by nearly double, and Dr. Pepper by four times, the second and third highest spenders on marketing. Coca Cola owns 42% of the market share. Repetition of a message is very effective in influencing your attitudes and opinions, whether you believe it or not, whether you like it or not. Repeat a lie enough times and it becomes the truth for all intents and purposes. That is the power of propaganda.
But, Coca Cola doesn't pay for their marketing campaigns. The consumer does. Coca cola spends roughly 12.5% of it's revenue on marketing, and that cost is included in the price of the product. For every dollar you you spend on Coke products, twelve cents of it is a micro-payment for those "free things" you use, so that Coca Cola can propagandize you into giving them more of your money.
So there you have it; the "free" economy unpacked. It would be more accurately described as the indirect economy, or perhaps the sneaky, manipulative economy.
There is a saying "If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product." Turns out, you are the product, and you are paying for it too.
Thursday, August 15, 2019
Regrets Revisted
In an April 2014 post, I wrote about my regret for taking a car loan.
I find it necessary to revisit that.
So, I was in an automobile accident, which totaled my car, This was right around the time of my SSRI induced apathy and resulting overspend, so I wasn't in a particularly solvent state at the time.
My wife was driving four kids everywhere, and now she was driving me to and from work as well. So I felt a rather urgent need to get a new car. The accident was my fault; I pulled out to turn left and didn't see the oncoming traffic, or didn't realize how close they were....
As a result, I was feeling very much not-confident in my driving, The medication, and illnesses and so forth were leaving me feeling much older than I feel now, and I feared perhaps I was no longer fit to drive. So, I opted to go with a more expensive, automatic transmission. (On the up side, that has worked out well for my son, who is now driving age).
I know I said I wouldn't do another car loan, but I convinced myself this one was okay. We needed a car, and since interest rates were so ridiculously low, I would end up only paying a few hundred dollars over the life of the loan. It really wouldn't be a big deal.
Except. There is more to it than just the interest. You see, there is also the matter of monthly payments. Those monthly payments, interest or no, are what really make you a prisoner.
A $200 monthly car loan payment means $200 of your monthly budget is now unavailable to you. For the duration of the loan.
We did a road trip vacation across the US this summer, using Tax return money. It was great, I am glad we did it.
But.
We had to do it super on the cheap. We are building a house, at a time when construction costs are outrageous. So we are trying to save as much of that money as we can to help keep that loan from being too outrageous.
One of my favorite things to do when I travel is find amazing, local places to eat. Once when I was in Phoenix decades ago, I randomly drove around until I found this Italian restaurant in a converted house, run by three generations of Italian men. It was so cool! Meeting the family and watching them work and interact while I ate amazing food was a truly memorable experience.
I also have fond memories of a barbecue place in Florida. It was actually an area of pavement, with tables set up under canopies, next to a parking lot. There was a small brick structure which consisted of a pit, a walk in cooler, and a restroom. The owner was a large, friendly gentleman of African heritage. The food was old family recipes. It was amazing! It was kind of like being invited to a (incredibly hospitable) stranger's neighborhood party.
I'd love to share that kind of experience with my family (though perhaps they might not find it as enjoyable as I do. Everyone has their own tastes I suppose, pun intended).
On our vacation we ate peanut butter sandwiches and McDonald's. We did eat at a barbecue place in Nashville one time, but it was a chain, not a local hangout (not that it wasn't good, mind you. The food was good, and it had a fun atmosphere, but it still had that chain feel. It didn't have that special, one of a kind, memorable uniqueness.).
It those little things, those unexpected opportunities that you sacrifice when you commit yourself to the bondage of a monthly payment.
A car payment, even if the interest rate is virtually nothing, is still a car payment. It is still money you can't choose to use elsewhere when an opportunity arises, or when an unexpected series of events tightens the belt.
For serious. Avoid loans like the plague!
I find it necessary to revisit that.
So, I was in an automobile accident, which totaled my car, This was right around the time of my SSRI induced apathy and resulting overspend, so I wasn't in a particularly solvent state at the time.
My wife was driving four kids everywhere, and now she was driving me to and from work as well. So I felt a rather urgent need to get a new car. The accident was my fault; I pulled out to turn left and didn't see the oncoming traffic, or didn't realize how close they were....
As a result, I was feeling very much not-confident in my driving, The medication, and illnesses and so forth were leaving me feeling much older than I feel now, and I feared perhaps I was no longer fit to drive. So, I opted to go with a more expensive, automatic transmission. (On the up side, that has worked out well for my son, who is now driving age).
I know I said I wouldn't do another car loan, but I convinced myself this one was okay. We needed a car, and since interest rates were so ridiculously low, I would end up only paying a few hundred dollars over the life of the loan. It really wouldn't be a big deal.
Except. There is more to it than just the interest. You see, there is also the matter of monthly payments. Those monthly payments, interest or no, are what really make you a prisoner.
A $200 monthly car loan payment means $200 of your monthly budget is now unavailable to you. For the duration of the loan.
We did a road trip vacation across the US this summer, using Tax return money. It was great, I am glad we did it.
But.
We had to do it super on the cheap. We are building a house, at a time when construction costs are outrageous. So we are trying to save as much of that money as we can to help keep that loan from being too outrageous.
One of my favorite things to do when I travel is find amazing, local places to eat. Once when I was in Phoenix decades ago, I randomly drove around until I found this Italian restaurant in a converted house, run by three generations of Italian men. It was so cool! Meeting the family and watching them work and interact while I ate amazing food was a truly memorable experience.
I also have fond memories of a barbecue place in Florida. It was actually an area of pavement, with tables set up under canopies, next to a parking lot. There was a small brick structure which consisted of a pit, a walk in cooler, and a restroom. The owner was a large, friendly gentleman of African heritage. The food was old family recipes. It was amazing! It was kind of like being invited to a (incredibly hospitable) stranger's neighborhood party.
I'd love to share that kind of experience with my family (though perhaps they might not find it as enjoyable as I do. Everyone has their own tastes I suppose, pun intended).
On our vacation we ate peanut butter sandwiches and McDonald's. We did eat at a barbecue place in Nashville one time, but it was a chain, not a local hangout (not that it wasn't good, mind you. The food was good, and it had a fun atmosphere, but it still had that chain feel. It didn't have that special, one of a kind, memorable uniqueness.).
It those little things, those unexpected opportunities that you sacrifice when you commit yourself to the bondage of a monthly payment.
A car payment, even if the interest rate is virtually nothing, is still a car payment. It is still money you can't choose to use elsewhere when an opportunity arises, or when an unexpected series of events tightens the belt.
For serious. Avoid loans like the plague!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)