This post is in response to The Apple Killer? on Calculated Exuberance.

So it seems like with the introduction of Chrome, Google’s going for the jugular in the war against that other tech firm that controls your life. By decoupling the web-user's online experience from the OS, pretty soon you'll be able to do just fine with a copy of Chrome strapped onto a barebones Linux OS. Why would you ever want to shell out cash for a bloated Windows system? And why would Macs still even be in the picture?

Well, there is a reason why Macs are still around and doing better than ever. After being thoroughly crushed by Microsoft in the '90s, Apple used a neat trick to bounce back that differentiated its products from competitors, sent profit margins soaring, and virtually inoculated it from future market share erosion: building a brand based on image. Both consumers and Wall Street approved. In a highly competitive, commoditized market, Apple found a way to thrive (or at least survive) by promoting something as intangible and unassailable as coolness/hipsterishness rather than pure performance, price, etc. Of course, that didn't quite top Microsoft's even niftier trick—establishing a monopoly—but it helps explain why destitute college students who fret about their college loans continue to empty their bank accounts (or take out more loans) for outlandishly overpriced MacBook Pros. In the end, Mac-lovers, like religious fundamentalists, base their devotion on something far beyond the realms of reason and basic economics.

Microsoft’s story, on the other hand, is a bit different. In fact, it’s the opposite. Microsoft has to force itself onto users rather than reeling them in with glitz and glamour like Apple. The Microsoft brand is practically a liability, especially the brand of their latest OS, and the company is soberly aware of this as evidenced by their recent Mojave Experiment ad campaign. While users continue to flock to pricey Macs, Microsoft’s iron grip on the world is slowly being pried loose—first by international lawsuits, and then by the introduction of pre-installed Linux PCs. True, specialists may still prefer a powerful OS that can support complex computer-based software, but the vast majority of users just want something simple to get online, check email, and watch that guy dancing on YouTube.

Maybe the time isn’t quite right for Google to flush out Microsoft for good—online apps are still primitive, Microsoft’s monopoly is still very real, and most people still cling to an “If it ain’t broke…” mentality. But it’s nice to see Google make a move and become the change it wishes to see in the tech world (my sincerest apologies to Gandhi). Plus, Google’s not doing too shabby with this whole brand thing either, which is always a nice piece of extra leverage.

In conclusion, Google: buy; Microsoft: sell; Apple: hold.

China Needs To Change Its College Admissions

It's amazing how much college admissions essentially dictates the lives of high school and even middle school students both in China and the U.S. American universities have the right idea in many respects by emphasizing things like leadership, initiative, well-roundedness, activeness, etc. Chinese universities, however, emphasize mainly one thing: the National College Entrance Exam, known to miserable high school students across country as the gao kao. This is little more than a test of rote memorization, which Chinese students prepare for by studying books for hours on end. Like the old Chinese scholar examination system, this modern version fails to incentivize students to develop many of the skills crucial to success in a rapidly growing, modern, entrepreneurial society. China can't afford to repeat this mistake and risk falling behind again.

How Did We Ever Let Humans Drive?

Imagine giving hundreds of millions of people loaded guns to carry around every day and shoot past each other, hopefully aiming to miss. Besides simple human error -- slip-ups, dips in concentration, miscalculations, etc. -- we've also got deeper flaws -- rage, uncontrollable emotions in general, poor judgment, irresponsible drug use, etc. We've basically taken one of the most volatile, unpredictable, chaotic things we know and given it control (whatever that word means) of something very deadly, several hundred million times over. If computers had been around before cars, no one in their right mind would have ever let a human get behind the wheel (there wouldn't even be a steering wheel to begin with). Traffic also would never have existed. Just imagine...

Can a Thing Transcend Itself?

Can a thing transcend itself and simultaneously be the exact same thing? (Reified abstractions are a trivial case.) That things can be self-immanent is basically tautological. Why can't there exist such a recursive equivalence relation with transcendence?

More Reasons for the Humanities

There are many (non-utilitarian) reasons why we need more than just math, science, politics, and economics. Here are two more that may seem oddly framed but get my point across.

In the future, when we all our material needs are satisfied, all our 'major' problems solved, while we sit on our ultra high-tech couches watching whatever sitcoms or reality shows are on TV hundreds of years from now with robots running around satisfying our every whim, what do we do with life? What will give us meaning? Why don't we just go all the way and wire our brains into pure ecstasy machines?

Imagine meeting another intelligent race. They see we've got very advanced technology, a perfect political system (economics are obviated by technology), etc. "Yes, yes, that's very nice, but is that all you've got?" What would make us any different from machines? We'd be lower than tapeworms. (Sorry, tapeworms.) (Is that a reason why so many billionaires become patrons of the arts? Are they just trying to affirm or prove their humanity?)

Linear Efficiency Improvement Versus Order of Magnitude Leaps

The bulk of civilization focuses on producing linear or even post-inflection logistic efficiency improvement: we're given something and we just try to make that as good as possible within our given framework, usually through minor tweaks and adjustments. This is certainly necessary and helpful, but the progress of our species is truly driven forward by order of magnitude leaps, paradigm shifts, revolutions (and we usually count on a handful of individual superstars to do that for us). These tend to be rare (Kurzweil believes they're becoming more frequent). Is there a way we could speed things up a bit? What can we do to increase the frequency of such exponential jumps? Change the educations system? Change the political system? Change the economic system? (Come on, we can do better than democracy and capitalism. I won't even comment here on education.)

Optimize What You Optimize

People always forget to do that. They forget that information, effort required to process that information, interest, etc. are also parameters that can and should be factored in. I believe the word is satisficing. The economists got it wrong here; thank god for the cyberneticists. And of course you shouldn't just stop at optimizing what you optimize. Go ahead, optimize that as well. And then optimize that to an optimal level.

Recursion

Recursion, autoreferentiality, self-catalytic processes, feedback loops. It makes everything so much more interesting. Including itself.

What Would Someone Smarter Than Me Do?

"What would Jesus do?" is a question some might ask themselves when faced with a moral dilemma. Jesus, to them, represents a moral expert or virtuoso, a standard to judge oneself by, a paradigm of virtue to aspire to. I like to ask the intelligence version of this question. I imagine someone brilliant, in every sense of the word: an Einstein, Rachmaninoff, Hegel, Joyce, Buffet, Brin and Page, etc. all rolled into one. And then I ask myself, "What would that very smart person do?" And I don't just ask myself this when I hit a dilemma. I ask myself all the time, "What would someone very smart be thinking right now?" While reading the paper, while reading a book, while listening to music, while talking with people, while waiting for the light to change, I wonder. In any situation, at any given moment, the inquisitive genius sees a much richer world than I do, of which I constantly strain to catch a glimpse.

Casualness as Critical for Social Interaction

Some of the best conversations I've had with people have taken place in very, very casual situations, or 'fringe situations', such as randomly running into a friend on the way to someplace, just before saying goodbye to a friend at the subway or at a door, after a meal after the bill is paid, etc. These fringe situations, these transitory moments between 'real moments' in life seem to create great social environments where there's little pressure to talk. In fact, there is even negative pressure to talk since such situations presume participating parties are expecting to move on to the next moment in life. Conversely, most awkward silences arise when the pressure to speak is greatest. The more you force it, the more difficult it becomes. Also related: Chinese finger traps, insomnia, tar pits, and performance anxiety.

How Do Standardized Tests Stay Consistent?

The Flynn Effect says IQs have been observed to increase from one generation to the next. But who's to say the IQ tests themselves haven't changed? How do we make IQ tests that are consistently equally difficult, especially down to the precision of tenths of an IQ point? The metric that should determine the difficulty of the test itself is, at the same time, the very metric the test is measuring. We have a causational loophole in standards. The same applies to reports on how today's American high school students are scoring on the SAT now compared with past students. The dual relativities of intelligence and intelligence tests make standards of comparison logically impossible.

Wireless Energy

Physicists at M.I.T. have discovered a way to transmit power wirelessly through magnetic resonance. Distance so far: six feet. Combine this with the cell structure of cellular phone networks (in fact, you might as well embed them directly into cell towers) and the result may be continuous, ubiquitous wireless energy. This could herald the end of batteries and perhaps even power lines. One of the big questions is: What are the longterm effects of all this constant wireless transmission on our physical bodies?

Genetically Engineered Supermouse

Researchers at Case have been breeding supermice with elevated levels of PEPCK-C, an enzyme that affects metabolic functions and skeletal muscle energy consumption patterns. They can run at near mouse top speed for 6 hours straight and live substantially longer than their wild-type mouse peers. The implications are enormous. Speculate wildly.

Another Step Towards Brain-Computer Interface

The keyboard and mouse must go. Their limited portability and versatility have been a primary obstacle in the abortive push towards truly mobile computing. Speech recognition software is a possible replacement, but progress on its development has been surprisingly sluggish. The complexity, ambiguity, and creative demands of human language make it particularly inaccessible to computer logic. Recent breakthroughs in brain-computer direct interfaces now bring this option within reach of present technologies. Most recently, Sega has joined forces with NeuroSky, a bio-sensor and signal processing firm, to produce a viable game using brain-computer direct interface. "Sega and NeuroSky to Make Mind-Controlled Toys" (Wired)

Counterfeit Bill Paradox

In China, many Y100 bills are counterfeit and people in China are careful to inspect every Y100 bill before accepting it. Let's say someone pays you with a suspicious-looking Y100 bill that you think might be counterfeit. What matters most is whether other people will accept the bill when you use it to pay them regardless of whether it's truly counterfeit. What's a good way to determine if someone else would accept the bill? Whether or not you would accept the bill. If you accept the bill, then most other people (thinking like you) would accept the bill as well. If you reject it, then most other people would reject it. In short, your decision to accept or reject the Y100 bill justifies itself.

eBooks Can Never Be the Next iPods

The eBook will not take off like iPods did. People love music; nobody reads books. Music is more entertaining, more immediately stimulating, and requires less effort to appreciate. Music is also more versatile (parties, relaxation, focused listening, casual background sounds), faster (one track lasts about three minutes and an album lasts no more than an hour while books take several hours of dedicated reading), and strongly embedded in common culture (books, frankly, are not).

While eBooks may be a hard sell as an entertainment device, they could become standards in business in education. Features such as annotation, highlighting, search, and more powerful organization (basically, the advantages of computers) may allow it to slowly replace books. But it can never have explosive growth as an entertainment device like the iPod.

Stop Wasting Money on Technology for Education

Halt tech funding initiatives. Better computers and better equipment help little compared to good teachers. Good teachers are paramount above all else. Money for tech should be spent on teacher training and teacher salaries. The same applies in Africa. Ditch the One Laptop Per Child program. Spend critically limited resources on what really matters. Stop trying to prime new markets for the tech industry: tech colonialism.

Save Africa by Focusing Resources

Focus resources on a few key regions first rather than spreading them thinly across the entire continent. Very basic concept in military strategy. Establish a base of development including several strategic metropoles and then spread outwards. Concentration of resources and development. Allow development to take root. Then let it spill over.