tomszekeres:

Nice…
Histo:

Plot charts in the terminal with arbitrary streaming or non-streaming data.

tomszekeres:

Nice…

Histo:

Plot charts in the terminal with arbitrary streaming or non-streaming data.

Staying with solutions, the next prize is the Martin Lukes Creovation Cup for combining two words to make something less effective than either. This was a crowded field as there was “solutioneering” from Yanmar, “innovalue” from the Taiwanese government and “sustainagility” from Atos Origin. All are truly creovative, but I’m giving the Cup to Momentum UK, for claiming we live in a “phygital™” world. I particularly admire the use of the trademark.

"A $496 billion company that builds the latest generation of electricity apps..."

parislemon:

Two good thoughts by Stephen Baker for The New York Times. First on the move towards advertising being fully data-centric:

While the rise of search battered the humanists, it also laid a trap that the quants are falling into now. It led to the belief that with enough data, all of advertising could turn into quantifiable science. This came with a punishing downside. It banished faith from the advertising equation. For generations, Mad Men had thrived on widespread trust that their jingles and slogans altered consumers’ behavior. Thankfully for them, there was little data to prove them wrong. But in an industry run remorselessly by numbers, the expectations have flipped. Advertising companies now face pressure to deliver statistical evidence of their success. When they come up short, offering anecdotes in place of numbers, the markets punish them. Faith has given way to doubt.

Data has spoiled everyone. It can’t just be about the data or advertising will die. It has to be creative and quantified. Don Draper still needs to exist in this world; some people have simply been tricked into thinking data can replace him. Those people are stupid.

Second, on “social media” as a conduit for advertising:

Dave Morgan, a pioneer in Internet advertising and the founder of Simulmedia, an ad network for TV, points to the early years of electricity. In the late 19th century, most people associated the new industry with one extremely valuable service: light. That was what the marketplace understood. Electricity would displace kerosene and candles and become a giant of illumination. What these people missed was that electricity, far beyond light, was a platform for a host of new industries. Over the following years, entrepreneurs would come up with appliances — today we might call them “apps” — for vacuuming, laundry and eventually radio and television. Huge industries grew on the electricity platform. If you think of Apple in this context, it’s a $496 billion company that builds the latest generation of electricity apps.

Brilliant way to think about it. It’s easy to be blinded by the first innovation to spring from a new technology and think that nothing else will follow. Something else always follows.

Apple’s success is partially due to the fact that users have largely ignored the problems with their products, while Apple has been incredibly effective in making those products seem trivial.

Rob Enderle, in an article for CIO entitled Why 2013 Is RIM’s BlackBerry Year — yes, really.

I get accused of being a troll quite often. But come on, Enderle is clearly just playing everyone for a fool and milking it to create some sort of anti-career. There’s no other explanation as to how he could write this entire post — and really, anything he’s written the past several years — and still have a job anywhere.

It’s not just that he’s a moron; he’s simply wrong in nearly everything he says. And yet, people still hire this clown and invite him on national television and to speak at conferences.

I continue to want a job as an analyst. I couldn’t do it full-time, but surely I could go around part-time talking out of my ass and reaping the rewards of being a total jackass that isn’t accountable for anything he says.

These dickbags troll everyone. But I just don’t get why a boy that cries wolf a thousand times doesn’t have his larynx cut out after about the 400th time of the wolf not showing up…

(via parislemon)

M.G. Siegler takes down tech analyst…

theeconomist:

Daily chart: doomsday predictions have a very long history.

Economist visualisation of the success-to-date of apocalyptic predictions

theeconomist:

Daily chart: doomsday predictions have a very long history.

Economist visualisation of the success-to-date of apocalyptic predictions

parislemon:

chartier:

I dig the little animated Psy on Gangnam Style’s view counter.

Also: there are over 443,000 people in this world who are no fun.

Nice touch, YouTube.

Psy animated gif on YouTube views counter

parislemon:

chartier:

I dig the little animated Psy on Gangnam Style’s view counter.

Also: there are over 443,000 people in this world who are no fun.

Nice touch, YouTube.

Psy animated gif on YouTube views counter

"Shadier Than Ever"

parislemon:

Nilay Patel of The Verge (once again) brings up a few good points about the Instagram TOS fiasco. As he points out, the new TOS was actually worded much better than the old one. But the tech press blew it and caused a panic over basically nothing. The end result is the reversion to the old TOS, which technically allows for more of the kind of shady stuff everyone was freaked out about in the new one. Nice work, tech press.

And I think he’s right about the lesson for startups: don’t mess with something no one is complaining about — and lawyers: be as vague as possible in your documents. Both of those things suck.

But…

The notion that Instagram may use this reversion to try to do shady stuff still reads as foolish. Does anyone really think Instagram would try to get away with any such actions — especially now? Why? They clearly stated that wasn’t the intention. Sure, intentions do change. But the story is the same: if Instagram actually does shady things, people will stop using Instagram. No one benefits.

Look, at the end of the day all you have to think about is this: do you believe the services you’re using are out to exploit you? If so, don’t use them. Sure, a good TOS may be able to protect you from some of that, but hardly from all of it. If a company wants to fuck you, they’re going to figure out a way to fuck you. You shouldn’t be using a service that you think is trying to fuck you.

I don’t believe Instagram is that service. Nor do I believe Facebook is. But if you do, it’s simple: don’t use them.

MG Siegler’s précis of Nilay Patel’s argument of how the tech press blew the Instagram ToS thing.

etalex:

A network graph of 109,703 Tumblr users and a sample of the connections they make through reblogging (colored by algorithmic clustering which represents hypothesized topical communities). Large version here.


Tumblr clique analysis

etalex:

A network graph of 109,703 Tumblr users and a sample of the connections they make through reblogging (colored by algorithmic clustering which represents hypothesized topical communities). Large version here.

Tumblr clique analysis

Everyone's Up In Arms Over Instagram's Terms Of Service They Didn't Read In The First Place

parislemon:

More rational thinking from Mike Masnick on the Instagram TOS changes:

Furthermore, even if the terms are worded poorly (it’s mostly boilerplate, and you’ll find somewhat similar terms in lots of places) if Instagram really went out and started selling your photos to appear in, say, a big magazine or TV ad, there would be significant public backlash over that, such that it’s probably in their own best interest not to do that without direct permission.

Exactly. Does anyone believe Instagram or Facebook would be stupid enough to do this? Why? Because they’re “evil”? Only an extremely paranoid or insane person would believe that. To make money? Sure, but that money would quickly fall to $0 when everyone left over actually justified outrage.

Despite what everyone would like to believe, these companies are neither stupid nor evil.

Instagram sanity. At last.