It seems to me yet another confirmation that there is no man (or woman) for all seasons and all situations.
Musk looks like the disorganized mess he's making at Twitter, the kind of "visionary" we've all had to work with and who has sucked the will to live out of us: unreasonable expectations, constant changes of trajectory, the feeling that one well-spent night or one too many drinks for them would make our lives heaven or hell.
Zuck is spending billions on a bet that, frankly, seems like nothing more than a nerd's dream. I am cautious in my observation, and I think it is a caution shared by many, for who could have predicted the adoption of the automobile, the personal computer, the internet, the smartphone, social media?
And so much leeway is given to this case as well, forgetting that other supposed "manifest destinies" of technology, such as flying cars and robotic sex dolls, have gone by the wayside partly because of technical limitations and partly because, in the end, no one cares about them, either for now or forever.
But we have seen the same ups and downs in many historical figures, the Churchills, the Napoleons, the Einsteins, who, after proving themselves to be brilliant as well as favored by the stars, failed to repeat later what gave them notoriety, success and admiration. Perhaps they ran out of luck, perhaps no one had the courage to tell them that it was time for retirement.
You are familiar with the phrase "Man's reach exceeds his grasp"? It is a lie. Man's grasp exceeds his nerve. The first time I tried to change the world, I was hailed as a visionary. The second time, I was asked politely to retire. Society only tolerates one change at a time. -Nikola Tesla (in "The Prestige")
Tesla, like Preston Tucker, was his own undoing. Tesla did not manage his business relationships well. He needed someone to help him with that, and didn’t have such a person.
I wouldn't know much about Politicians but I'm certainly curious about Einstein's inclusion in your examples. Just how do you think that the discoverer of Photoelectricity, Brownian Motion, Special & General Relativity, and one of the founding fathers of QM failed later in his life?
"Failed" is a big word, which I do not like to use. I prefer to say that his gamble, which consumed the second part of his professional life, did not pay off.
And the way you describe Einstein's work is the same way someone might describe, in other contexts, the work of Zuck or Musk. How is it possible that Zuck "failed" with the metaverse (remains to be seen, of course, I don't have a crystal ball) after he founded Facebook and had the genius intuition to buy Whatsapp and Instagram?
It is not a "Hot Hand" problem because the context changes. Hot Hand is when you face the same problem (shooting a 3 in basket), not when one has to choose what to bet on, since the variability of the conditions surrounding the bet are likely to make every bet a unique situation.
Like saying that Einstein delivering results that change a whole field of physics every 5 years is a "Hot Hand" problem, is surely misguided.
The search for a unified theory of physics was not unique to Einstein and thousands after him have continued to look for it still. The only "failures", so to speak, of his would arguably be the Cosmological Constant or his denial of the Quantum Mechanics. But, given how profoundly bizzarre these phenomena are, not even the greatest of Physicists can blame him for having doubts, much less you or I.
They were comparing later Einsten to young Einsten, not to the rest of us. Most of the discoveries you listed earlier came during the "miracle year" in his mid 20s. The remaining one (general relativity) came about ten years later, though it's the one that made him really famous. That's more than probably every other physicist so maybe it's unfair to keep ask what he did next. But it makes sense that lots of early success can lead someone to overreach and reduce their later accomplishments. Didn't Feynman say something like that regarding the negative effect of the Nobel prize on physicists.
The thing about Facebook is that it started from connecting people: friends, families, long lost co-worker, etc. Nowadays, there's so much outside content (some of is interesting sure) that it's a lot more like Reddit or Twitter.
And the Metaverse feels like more of a detour away from other people. I liked Facebook when I got to connect with a bunch of people I hadn't seen in year. I don't want it to be like Mike TV from Willy Wonka. I get plenty enough escapism from movies and shows.
It is true that it was started as a way to connect people, and I remember the excitement of finding out whether the old classmate got married, the colleague got fired, or the ex-boyfriend got uglier.
But it also got old pretty quickly, like lunches with ex-colleagues: the first one is interesting and lively, the second one is forced, and when they call us for the third one we say we're sorry, but we just ate a pangolin at the wet market.
To keep engagement high, other activities on Facebook were needed, so groups, news, marketplace, etc. A simplified view, sure, but novelty wears off, and that is especially true and noticeable for fast-growing platforms, sports, tourist spots that cause feverish excitement.
Tbh I am not that quickly to get bored (and neither are many many other people, not all humanity has OCD), and FB would still work very fine for me if it kept to its core mission (and maybe more stability since it was by far the worst working web app from all the big ones).
But social aspect went south as soon as it became big business, feed stopped being chronological, it kept (and still keeps to me) randomly refreshing and reshuffling and since beginning of covid it is full of ads and sponsored content that I couldn't care less about and annoys me to no end. When core sucks more and more no amount of glitter wrapping and psychology/addiciton-driven design makes it even as good as original.
And on meeting former colleagues, it simply boils down whether its a proper friendship or not. Clearly your description falls into "not" category.
The park of Facebook that I was really in to was being able to store all the information about my social life. Tagging photos, making journal entries, checking in at locations, keeping track of birthdays and whatnot.
Before all the newsfeed stuff it was a pure reflection of who I was and who I surrounded myself with and it was glorious.
> we're sorry, but we just ate a pangolin at the wet market.
rofl.
I meet ex-colleagues for lunch every now and then. It ain't that bad... But I mean it depends. There's also a lot of ex-colleagues I never see again. Some are more like friends, some less.
I don't agree with this assessment. Instagram today is rather close to the Facebook back in the day. It does not have groups, marketplace, news (unless you follow a news agency), etc. And it is very popular.
It is similar in terms of the user demographics to Facebook back in the day, but the revealed preferences of the users and way of using the social media are not similar at all.
"Musk looks like the disorganized mess he's making at Twitter, the kind of "visionary" we've all had to work with and who has sucked the will to live out of us: unreasonable expectations, constant changes of trajectory, the feeling that one well-spent night or one too many drinks for them would make our lives heaven or hell."
He has been in control for what, one week? I would examine your own political leanings and motivations for wanting this assertion to be true
It is said that sometimes one can recognize the love of their life at first sight. I say that sometimes one can recognize a disorganized mess in five minutes. And that's what I see in Musk's (early) management of the company.
I have no political leanings, and I'm not particularly interested in the fate of Twitter.
I'm there, I find it instructive, I've learned quite a bit about my areas of interest by reading what other people write on Twitter. I used to tweet more, but I realized that to contribute meaningfully you have to have a position and personality traits that I don't possess.
I am rather incredulous at this statement but if you are being truthful, please help me arrive at this same locality. The closest I can manage is all of my political leanings are derivative of those who raised me. I wish I could be more neutral, objective from my own observation, existence.
Mathematically it (very likely) won't change anything, and you'll find over time that you're not as "team ball" invested in things (because at least the US political system is entirely a massive game theory simulation).
And then try as hard as you can to steelman the opposite position to one you hold (and that people actually hold the opposite of) - you don't have to agree with it but you should be able to identify the priors that cause disagreement, and not resort to "that side is evil/dumb/insane".
And after awhile you'll see lots of similarities and be able to identify them (when people are not arguing to search for truth or the best option, but are arguing for their side or to prove to their side that they are ON their side).
Honestly this view over the long term leads to the worst outcome for everyone, especially when adopted my any number of people.
Possibly the best outcome is getting enough people that would elect politicians that would enact new voting systems like ranked choice and move away from a two party system that will eventually collapse this country in extremism. Just don't blindly and willingly accept that the two party system is the only choice. And do not let an objectively evil person win because you want to remain neutral, cause your neutrality is gone if they get elected.
But this individual does not have control over any number of people, only their own vote. And the effect of a single vote is provably negligible in almost every election in history. So lecturing them about what a group can accomplish with cooperative action is pointless, and assigning "group blame" to them seems unethical to me. The tragedy of the commons for a large number of people often leaves us with no one to assign a significant amount of blame. This is just a sad fact.
>But this individual does not have control over any number of people,
What do you mean by control? I mean if you mean "They don't point a gun at people and tell them how to vote" then few people do (see Russia for an example of that). If instead you mean "They get on social media and tell people not to vote" then they have some control in the form of advertising. You have no idea what they are in charge of and any assignment of blame.
Back in the day, when homosexuality was discussed in fora not frequented by distinguished intellectuals, one of the points presented by "traditionalists" against the social acceptance and spread of homosexuality was that if everyone were homosexual, the human species would come to an end. But we have seen that people continue to have heterogeneous sexual desires, and our science and technology have both advanced. It is very rare that there is a need, in the "discourse" or in the practice, for a "but what if everyone did this" gotcha.
I think the call to vote because otherwise this wins, that loses, is similar in spirit to the fallacious attempt to use some sort of big-society framework to "stop homosexuality."
I think the act of voting is one of the ways in which someone can contribute to society. Other ways are, for example, offering a smile, money or physical help, depending on the situation, to others in a time of need; it is perhaps contributing to the education of the disadvantaged; it is being a good citizen; and many other contributions are possible. It is not necessary to do everything all the time.
If "everyone did what I did" is just another form of game theory, but then at least "lesser evil 2.0 - I'm slightly better than hitler" would win with 0.0001% of the vote or something.
I have policy leanings, but not political leanings.
I reside in the United States, but I was born and raised abroad and have not voted in political elections for more than 10 years. I really appreciate the opportunity to vote and I would never give up my right, but I can't bring myself to go to the polls and support, first and foremost, people I don't admire or don't feel represented by. Curiously, until my early 20s I was very passionate about politics, now I just observe.
> people I don't admire or don't feel represented by
I share this sentiment and can't figure out why politicians aren't better stewards of the peoples' interest. The primary philosophy guiding me at this point is bias against incumbency, on the premise that including more citizens in the political process is worthwhile, like voting.
"I share this sentiment and can't figure out why politicians aren't better stewards of the peoples' interest."
In part, it's the nature of the job, one has to overpromise--since they are voted for something they will do, not something they did, although that may inform what they will do--and then, by definition, underdeliver. Which means first lying and then trying not to get caught, or using one of the varieties of the "things have changed" defense. Unsavory behaviors, no doubt about it.
I like to watch on YouTube some old political debates (60s, 70s, 80s) that used to take place in my country and one of the many things I noticed is that, yes, charisma and speed of thought were important, but there was substance behind the positions politicians took.
My point is not an "oh, the old days" kind of observation; back then there were many terribly incompetent or outright rogue politicians, but the quality of the median politicians was considerably better.
> I share this sentiment and can't figure out why politicians aren't better stewards of the peoples' interest.
Probably because a good steward politician is the easiest to beat with bog-standard tactics.
The closest you might find these days are politicians that their own side is always yelling at; they're likely from a secure seat and can take the blame when needed.
> I share this sentiment and can't figure out why politicians aren't better stewards of the peoples' interest.
THE major component for public involvement in politics are parties. In theory being a unit transcending election cycle they can better ensure continuity of policy. In practice, like any enterprise, the fundamental goal of parties is to remain in power, everything else being secondary.
The goal is always to get votes. Sometimes in the short term, sometimes in the long term, but it is never about policy and always about votes and subsequent power. Parties do not promote and give platform to "good politicians", but rather those who will help the party sustain power and gain more, not overthrow current lords.
If you feel represented by someone on the ballot it is simple coincidence at best and result of politics at worst. This is how politics have worked, do work and will work, by design.
The car, the computer, the spreadsheet, the internet - correct me but I believe most of these examples solved clear problems or dramatically accelerated some type of work. Each time, they succeeded because people loved this new tool enough to throw money at it - far more money than expected. That got the ball rolling to refine the offering.
I'm not sure what new problem the metaverse solves, aside from boredom (video games) or loneliness (social networking).
Blackberry/RIM also saw no problem that the iPhone was solving. Sometimes markets are created with a product everyone didn't know they needed/wanted, even the first Sony Walkman.
I'm reserving judgement until I experience first-hand what it's like to share a virtual space with someone I care about when we're physically hundreds/thousands of kms apart with real-time facial expressions on a photorealistic model of their face.
Meta haven't made anything remotely resembling that yet, though. They've got pretty generic avatars performing canned animations in a VR environment.
It seems like it will probably take them 5-10 years of hard research, likely with many dead ends and false starts, to get there.
In Apple terms, they have announced the iPhone before doing all of the capacitive touch research and UX development that actually made the pubic want the product.
While it might be possible for them to eventually achieve their vision, it seems like a bad idea to try to drive so much hype this early with faked videos. It's very likely that the public (especially Wall Street) will lose patience waiting for them to actually make what they've promised.
Blackberry/RIM would still have a place today if they had not chased the market.
A focused business device with reliable and secure communication between employees and management, as well as a week (or two) of battery life and hardware focused on stable input by hand? There’s still a hole in the market. When was the last time you absolutely trusted iOS to deliver a notification to you?
I think AR & VR can help solve similar things to your list of technologies. Arguably the car, computer, spreadsheet, and the internet all help with the facilitation of communicating information. A case can be made for all of them having a variety of utility but I’d like to focus on the social underpinnings of all these technologies:
-Cars bring people closer to each other faster than ever before
-Computers allow for us to create, present, and process information for each other in standardized ways (spreadsheets are an extension of that)
-The Internet has allowed us to increase the speed of communication previously afforded by telegraphs and phone lines
As Zuckerberg says, he’s trying to further the means of communication between one another by adding the feeling of remote presence. Just like how hearing someone’s voice can be seen as a jump from reading a text from them, seeing someone else’s body in 3D space could bring a new level of connection to 2 individuals.
It also has the potential to change how we perform simulations (something valuable for many different types of work), and can even act as a way for individuals to connect themselves to different physical places on earth in a way that they may have never had the means to see otherwise.
I quite like the idea of the education angle - taking your history class through a faithfully recreated Rome, or watching a re-enactment of a famous battle. Seems like a pretty engaging way to absorb information.
The product design angle also looks interesting.
It seems like the end state isn't what's available now - it's something that is the size of a pair of glasses, no pulling your phone out of your pocket, all the information you need right there.
Interesting description as that's similar to the perception of Facebook when it was first widely launched. It was even popularized in films like The Social Network with the insinuation it was designed by nerds make their lives less isolated.
Musk looks like the disorganized mess he's making at Twitter, the kind of "visionary" we've all had to work with and who has sucked the will to live out of us: unreasonable expectations, constant changes of trajectory, the feeling that one well-spent night or one too many drinks for them would make our lives heaven or hell.
Zuck is spending billions on a bet that, frankly, seems like nothing more than a nerd's dream. I am cautious in my observation, and I think it is a caution shared by many, for who could have predicted the adoption of the automobile, the personal computer, the internet, the smartphone, social media? And so much leeway is given to this case as well, forgetting that other supposed "manifest destinies" of technology, such as flying cars and robotic sex dolls, have gone by the wayside partly because of technical limitations and partly because, in the end, no one cares about them, either for now or forever.
But we have seen the same ups and downs in many historical figures, the Churchills, the Napoleons, the Einsteins, who, after proving themselves to be brilliant as well as favored by the stars, failed to repeat later what gave them notoriety, success and admiration. Perhaps they ran out of luck, perhaps no one had the courage to tell them that it was time for retirement.