Monthly Archives: September 2019

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S AGAIN: WHO, WHAT, AND HOW WILL THE EU SIGN A NEW AGREEMENT WHEN THERE IS NO WRITTEN CONSTITUTION THAT CAN BE HELD TO ACCOUNT.

26 Thursday Sep 2019

Posted by in Brexit Language., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S AGAIN: WHO, WHAT, AND HOW WILL THE EU SIGN A NEW AGREEMENT WHEN THERE IS NO WRITTEN CONSTITUTION THAT CAN BE HELD TO ACCOUNT.

Tags

,

 

 

(Twenty minutes read.)

In a previous post, I asked the above question:

Just who are the European Union dealing with when negotiating England’s withdrawal from the EU?

The EU is negotiating with three separate entities all under the rule of a Monarchy with no written constitution.

1707, Scotland and England join together to form Great Britain

1801, Ireland was forcibly attached to Great Britain and the name became “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

1922, The southern part of Ireland became a Republic, independent from the UK but a small part of Ireland (the northern part) stay under the UK.

When Northern Ireland is included, the country then gets its full internationally recognised name of ‘The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’.

The United Kingdom is just the name given to the union of these countries and it is not a country.

Difference Between Constitutional Monarchy and Democracy

Where are we at the present moment?

The British Constitution can be summed up in eight words:

What the Queen in Parliament enacts is law.

It is a clear fact that Britain has survived very well until now.

Up to date parliament was supreme and can make or break laws. No parliament can bind its successors or be bound by its predecessors.

Fortunately, without a written constution Brexit is exposing a country with an out of date system.

The UK needs a fully written constitution?

Why?

Because a written constitution would offer protection if an extremist came to power and wanted to disregard democratic procedures.

Because unlike the great majority of countries there is no single legal document which sets out in one place the fundamental laws outlining how the state works.

Because without a written constitution, the UK has no Bill of Rights to protect its citizens.

Because without a written constitution the recent ruling by the Uk supreme court is, in fact, replaced the power of Parlement.

So does the recent ruling by the English Supreme Court open the door to a written constitution as a written constitution are ruled upon by judges?

In Britain judges are unelected and therefore it is undemocratic to take power away from our elected representatives and give it to judges who tend to be quite reactionary.

There is no specific procedure for changing the law, that is, very important law can be changed by a simple majority. This simply means that the decision-making process is not muted in any way by past legislation.

It is a fact that the UK is a unitary state with Parliament sitting at Westminster is the only body competent to legislate for the UK and all laws in the UK including laws relating to the constitution may be enacted, repealed or amended by the Queen in Parliament.

Since both monarchy and democracy are important forms of government one should know the difference between the two.

Democracy is a form of government in which the power of governing is derived from the people. On the other hand, a monarchy is a form of government in which an individual called the monarch is given all the political power.

However, there are different forms of democracy, namely, representative democracy, parliamentary democracy, liberal democracy, constitutional democracy and direct democracy.

In a democracy, the citizens are promised in terms of equality and freedom indirectly through representatives elected by eligible citizens who still hold the sovereign power. In a democracy, the people remain sovereign.

Also, there are different types of monarchy such as absolute monarchy, constitutional monarchy, as well as an elective monarchy and hereditary monarchy.

In a monarchy, it is the monarch, who is the head of state. Unless the monarch dies or someone overthrows the monarch, he or she remains as the ruler as long as he or she lives. This monarch can be a King, Queen, Prince or Princess.

It is very important to know that the individuals from the heritage and bloodline get the power and position in the case of a monarchy.

The constitution of the United Kingdom is the system of rules that shapes the political governance of the country. It is not contained in a single code but principles have emerged over the centuries from statute, case law, political conventions and social consensus.

England with a constitutional monarchy is a democratic government that consists of a constitution and a monarch who functions as a non-party political head of state within the limits set by the constitution, written or unwritten.

The current monarch Queen Elizabeth II is by tradition, commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces with her powers being limited to non-partisan functions such as appointing the prime minister and bestowing honours.

The monarch does not set public policy or choose political leaders although they may hold certain reserved powers. When it comes to decision making in a monarchy, the monarch is the law. That means what the monarch decides as justice is justice, even when it is not so. Moreover, a monarchy is different in the sense that the monarch is not restricted by law as he or she is the one who frames the law in the land.

Also, a monarchy does not restrict the freedom of the individuals but the privilege depends on the considerations of the monarch. That means there is no one to stop the monarch from favouring those he or she likes and punishing those he or she does not like.

In a hereditary monarchy, the position of monarch is inherited by one’s relatives according to the customary order of succession. Countries such as the United Kingdom and Thailand are examples of constitutional monarchies.

Monarch is the head of state in a monarchy. A President or Prime Minister is the head of state in a democracy.

Britain Her Majesty’s Government is the core of its Westminster-style parliamentary democracy and federalism.

This twin status is only avaible and achievable when there is no written constitution.

All compounded by First Past the post-election system which results in Governments being elected on a minority of votes cast. Meaning those in government who are making all the decision does not represent the opinions of the majority of the country.

Couldn’t a future Supreme Court ruling simply repeal the Fixed Term

Parliaments Act?

Without a written constitution all of this is leading to doubts about democratic legitimacy with political disengagement.

Is the Supreme court now able to rule that Britain Taken Into The EU Illegally?

Is it now necessary that a general election or referendum must take place before any related parliamentary debate on any deal in or out?

What would happen if the court repealed the Scotland Act? to stop Scotland

from leaving the Union.

What would happen if Boris Johnson signes an agreement and the Supreme Court overrules it?

You could argue that England problems is now that it doesn’t have strict rules that need a public referendum to be changed. People verses Parlement.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chuked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisement

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S; WHEN WE TALK ABOUT QUANTUM COMPUTING DO ANY OF US KNOW WHAT ARE WE AXICALY TALKING ABOUT.

24 Tuesday Sep 2019

Posted by in Quantum computers.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S; WHEN WE TALK ABOUT QUANTUM COMPUTING DO ANY OF US KNOW WHAT ARE WE AXICALY TALKING ABOUT.

Tags

,

 

( Probably one of the most confusing twenty-five -minute to thirty-minute read I have ever written) 

The computing power that we have available to us at our fingertips is astonishing but even with the most powerful supercomputers on the planet, some problems are still way beyond our reach and there are still some problems out there that would take longer than the universe has existed to solve.

In the past, we believed all computers fundamentally did the same thing—just maybe one a bit faster than another but when it comes to Quantum Computers do any of us know what we are talking about. 

There are loads of attempts to explain Quantum computing in layman terms but the truth is that physicists are themselves in general agreement that no one really understands quantum mechanics which is the basis for a Quantum Computer.

Why?

Because Quantum mechanics can be used to describe many physical systems.

However, there is a common set of core principles that all of these physical systems obey.

So as quantum computers promise to truly transform our world here is another attempt to get quantum computing into an understandable language. 

Just what is a Quantum Computer?

It’s like having a big airport with lots of baggage terminals, and you are looking for a lost suitcase on one of them. You employ the help of some friends to search each of the terminal one by one before you find the suitcase. A Quantum computer will search all the terminals at the same time, and only the terminal on which it is found exists after you look at it.

Weird, Yes, but this is where it gets really complicated.

The goal in quantum computing is to choreograph things so that some paths leading to a wrong answer have positive amplitudes and others have negative amplitudes, so, on the whole, they cancel out and the wrong answer is not observed.

Any the wiser? No!

Here are the dudes that contributed to its discovery, not the suitcase but the quantum Mathematics.   


They all puzzles about matter and light. Coming to the conclusion that was solved by postulating that atoms and particles behave differently from macroscopic objects. Eventually, this led to the theory of quantum mechanics, which explains all of those differences, using a small number of basic principles.

One has to think of quantum mechanics as a generalization of probability theory in which probabilities can be negative.

The idea of quantum computing, however, is to use physics to do the math. For example, to devise quantum algorithms such that all the possible ways to get to the wrong answer interfere with themselves and cancel each other out, while leaving only the possibility of getting to the right answer.

Still none the wiser.

I would love to ask them why should Nature have been quantum-mechanical?

In computers, we can stuff the laws of nature into it mathematically and create the world. Other words if a computer has a sequence of thirty 0s and 1s, it has about one billion of possible values.

However, a classical computer can only be in one of these one billion states at the same time. A quantum computer can be in a quantum combination of all of those states, called superposition. This allows it to perform one billion or more copies of computation at the same time.

But how do we access these billion results?

Experiments in quantum physics are now creating artificial physical systems that obey the laws of quantum mechanics but do not exist in nature under normal conditions.

In order to fully understand the quantum world, you have to develop a new realm of mathematics.

We have little daily experience dealing with elementary particles.

The bizarre world of quantum theory — where things can seem to be in two places at the same time and are subject to the laws of probability — not only represents a more fundamental description of nature than what preceded it, it also provides a rich context for modern mathematics.

If all mathematics disappeared today, physics would be set back exactly one week,” to which a mathematician had the clever riposte: “This was the week that God created the world.”

In the quantum world, everything that can happen does happen and all are considering everything at once.

Every quantum particle, such as an electron, can be considered both as a particle and as a wave offering different perspectives on the same physical phenomenon that underlies quantum theory and, ultimately, reality.

Another words you can look at the world with a mathematical eye or with a complementary physical eye, but don’t dare to open both because the world, is not as certain as our everyday experience of has us believe.

And of course, there is no need for me to tell you that nobody has ever directly seen a single particle in several places at once.

Somehow, measurement causes reality to “snap”. Reality splits into different branches at the point of measurement. In each branch an observer sees one of the possible outcomes. One can never, ever measure both the position and the momentum of a quantum object.

Time and energy are another pair that can’t be measured simultaneously so in real life, we cannot measure states. 

No I am not making this up. So don’t doubt. Just carry on reading.

A quantum computer encodes information into quantum states and computes by performing quantum operations on it. It is using trapped ions. An ion is an atom that has lost one or more of its electrons. An ion trap is a system consisting of electric and magnetic fields, which can capture ions and keep them at locations. Using an ion trap, one can arrange several ions in a line, at regular intervals the more trapped ions the better.

The computation is then performed by using light to manipulate the states of ions. 

This is known as quantum parallelism. The result of this process is a quantum state.

It is not a classical state (A “state”, in general, is the collection of numbers needed to completely describe the physics you are interested in) in the sense that we could ever observe the switch in the “on and off” state, it is a quantum state that exists in an abstract space called Hilbert space. (A space with more than three dimensions.)

Still in a state of confusion. Don’t blame you. It’s wholly abstract.

How about a particle in some state that may interact with another particle in some state…

Now imagine you can make a bit (the smallest unit of data in a computer) that can be in the zero and the one state at the same time. That’s called a quantum bit or qubit. 

The simplest example in nature would be just a single electron. It has a magnetic dipole called spin, which is like the needle of a compass but because it’s a quantum needle, it can be pointing up and down at the same time.

By this time your brain might be in a vat. Mine is. 

They a bit or qubit. must have some form of existence because the Quantum theory is a theory about real objects in nature, what else should a physical theory be about?

The quantum state appears to be something intrinsically holistic ie emphasizing the importance of the whole rather than analysis or separation into parts. 

Every state of a system is represented by a ray (or vector) in Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently of the others, even when the particles are separated by a large distance-instead, a quantum state must be described for the system as a whole.

If we measured a quantum state, we would get just one of the results. All of the other 999,999,999 results would disappear.

So Quantum computing takes advantage of the strange ability of subatomic particles to exist in more than one state at any time.

The goal of quantum mechanics was to understand the laws of nature according to how quantum systems function.

The new goal is to manipulate and control quantum systems so that they behave in a prescribed way.

For a parallel computer, we need to have one billion different processors. In a quantum computer, all one billion computations will be running on the same hardware.

But in order to know anything about anything, some detection scheme needs to happen.

To solve this problem, one uses the second effect, quantum interference. Quantum interference is used to combine the results into something that is both meaningful and can be measured according to the laws of quantum mechanics.

Sorry, we back to Quantum Mechanics which is based on numbers called amplitudes, which can be positive or negative or even complex numbers. In quantum mechanics, the wave function is complex-valued, and the square of the absolute value yields a probability.

All of these achievements of quantum computing are based on the same effects of quantum mechanics. On a high level, these are known as quantum parallelism and quantum interference.

I have no idea what it means for a probability to be an amplitude.

Amplitudes alone are not enough to fully describe a system.

Can someone give me some kind of intuitive explanation of this concept?

Why does probability have to act like a probability?

Why should amplitudes have complex numbers?

Surely a wave is a defined frequency and phase.

Anyway, we are left with the question why do we need it?

We know that they will be faster for many computational tasks, from modelling nature to searching large amounts of data.

With a quantum computer, it is hoped to find a more efficient way to produce artificial fertilizer, having a direct impact on food production around the world, and it is hoped to help with combating global warming by learning how to efficiently extract carbon dioxide from the environment.

They will be used to conduct virtual experiments. For example, quantum chemistry re molecular simulation.

As far as it is possible to know they could be the final step in intertwining us with AI.

(The current record distance for measuring entangled particles is 1,200 kilometres or about 745.6 miles. Entanglement means that the whole quantum system is greater than the sum of its parts.) Entanglement is a fascinating property of quantum mechanics that’s completely counter-intuitive.

I think there are many more applications and, perhaps, the most important ones are still waiting to be discovered.

But there is a line that must not be crossed and that is there use intentionally or accidentally to kill us, i.e. a Quantum magical drone armed with AI and an electro-magnetic pulse would have the potency to annihilate us all.    

Now that your brain is fried I leave you with this thought.  

Our own system is barley understood to this day.

This thing on our shoulders is constantly working out problems even as we work on making breakfast. You are creating a program that thinks and is separate from you, within you.  You are a Quantum Computer. 

We know that our brains receive their signals in symbolic form. The method of transmission and the network of transmission are a mix of electrochemical reactions that are harmonic to our network.

Quantum computing will potentially mark one of the tech world’s biggest revolutions, harnessing the quirks of quantum mechanics to speed up machine computation exponentially but as computers, they have a long ways to go to catch up with human thought and common sense. Considerably more work is needed before we can reach the long-dreamt-of moment when machine intelligence matches the human variety.

This is the huge problem on the horizon, endowing AI programs with common sense.

Even little kids has it, but no deep learning program does. It will take more than a hybrid computer to show that humankind of understanding.

Quantum or not it will still have a capacity for things the human mind can do easily, like abstraction or inference that make it possible for us to “understand” from very little information, or instantly apply insight to another set of circumstances.

A “quantum leap”quantum-ibm-1

The day may come when intelligible sentences combining quantum mathematics with brain function/consciousness/mental functions can be crafted, till that day our free will still come from quantum indeterminacy, not complex hybrid quantum algorithm yet to be devised.

The expectation is that one day when the computer technology industry achieves so-called “quantum superiority” and deliver real commercial benefits we will be best to let the idiot be an idiot. 

Finally, it has just been reported by the financial times that Google’s quantum computer was able to solve a calculation – proving the randomness of numbers produced by a random number generator- in 3 minutes and 20 seconds that would take the worlds fastest traditional supercomputer around 10,000 years.

Sleep tight.  

AS ALBERT EINSTEIN SAID

“As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.”

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. WE MUST REIN IN THE TECH GIANTS BEFORE ITS TOO LATE.

20 Friday Sep 2019

Posted by in #whatif.com, 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Algorithms., Capitalism, Democracy, DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Fourth Industrial Revolution., Google, Modern day life., Our Common Values., Purchasing Power., Reality., Social Media., Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Obvious., The state of the World., The world to day., Wealth., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. WE MUST REIN IN THE TECH GIANTS BEFORE ITS TOO LATE.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

 

( Fifteen-minute read) 

WHY?

These days we are allowing Google, Amazon, Apple, and Facebook do whatever the hell they want. The US sees them as winner-takes-all markets as the law of the capitalist jungle; the EU sees them as an intrinsic threat to consumers.

Because four companies dominate our daily lives unlike any other in human history: Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google. They have aggregated more economic value and influence than nearly any other commercial entity in history.

Because the concentration of wealth leads to concentration of power. Their massive size and unchecked power have and are throttling competitive markets and are keeping the economy from doing its job—namely, to promote a vibrant democracy.

Because all of them have managed to preserve their monopoly-like powers without heavy regulation. 

Because they have effectively ripped the heart out of the journalism, publishing, music, and entertainment industries but, even worse, they are demolishing the ranks of both corporate middle-management and entry-level service jobs and crushed commercial real estate and retail shopping malls, all for the enrichment of a very few.

Because they’re tracking your movements — or, even better, getting you to track yourselves for them, whether it’s “checking in” on Facebook or leaving your cell phone switched on while you travel (and who doesn’t?).

Because as we have seen the harvesting of the personal data use for political purposes.

Because the amount of money they generate, and the volume of content they accumulate, most of it provided voluntarily by you, for free, is stupefying.

Because with the coming of 5G technology they will have  too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy.

Because using black-box algorithms to surface content to users they will have control over the way we use the Internet.

Because they are exploiting their monopoly power to stifle competition; they are spreading fake news; their fantastically rich owners portray themselves as right-on yet go to a great deal of trouble to minimise their corporate tax bills; they are ripping the heart out of communities through the closure of brick-and-mortar retailers.

Because social media is an increasingly key part of how we communicate. Yet legally, nothing stops Facebook from simply banning users from its platform, for any reason it wishes.

Because we’re heading for an Orwellian nightmare the shape of which is just now becoming apparent with climate change is being turned into a product. 

Because this isn’t just abstract concern about what could possibly happen in the future – market power of this magnitude isn’t unprecedented.

Because with a sprawling array of loosely related businesses under one roof they are becoming worldwide conglomerates.

Because no one or any company is now going to penetrate online shopping or the search market.

Google, Amazon, and Facebook are colossal companies. Together they make up almost 10% of the S&P 500. Together, they have a market capitalization of the GDP of France.

These are the 3rd-, 4th-, and 6th-largest companies on earth. Combined, they are worth over $2 trillion. And they’ve grown 470%, 175%, and 95% over the past five years.

Because they will take our choices away.

Because they’ve bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, and tilted the playing field against everyone else.

Because country and companies that dominate technology will gain more power with time and 5G technology, gene editing, nanotechnology, creating what only can be called a profitable circle of global oligopolies.

Because they will soon be introducing their own cyber currencies.

Because our existing computers can’t even scratch the surface of what quantum computers will be able to do via the cloud quantum computers will. Those who own this technology will make supremacy an arbitrary goal.

Such computing power will change the way we do business and the security we have in place to safeguard data, how we fight disease and invent new materials, and solve health and climate problems.

Just like humans, artificial intelligence machines powered by the insights from quantum commercialising technology computers that will learn from experience and self-correct.

They’ll be able to use quantum simulations to design entirely new molecules for use in medicine making it possible for chemists to determine viable drug options quicker. Instead of troubleshooting issues bit by bit as we do now with classical computers, they will allow for a person’s genes to be sequenced and analyzed much more rapidly tackling the entire problem at once.

How do they do it?

By creating what we now perceive to be free platforms run by algorithms.  

( To Big Tech, you’re not the customer, you’re the product they’re selling to others:)

Google offers a vast bounty of free services in order to maximize its data collection and optimize its advertising capabilities. Similarly, Amazon is credibly accused of hurting suppliers, hurting competitors, and even hurting its own employees — but nobody can deny that it’s a cheap and convenient way to shop for a staggering array of things.

Amazon is keeping tabs on you, monitoring your purchases, pushing other products on you and, in the form of the hideous Alexa, listening in on you while you sleep. Throw in the electronic snooping of Facebook, Google and your iPhone.

We know the problems; they’re easy to diagnose, however shaping the solutions is going to be more difficult.

So what if anything can be achieved to restrain their coming power?

The difficulty lies in defining what the real harmful effect is of these companies and establishing a causal link between their creation, their products, behaviour, and trends such as populism, depression, and manipulation. The contribution to society of these companies’ products is not as black and white as some would like them to be. 

We’re heading down an entirely new field of physics, and by its very nature, there will be discoveries, innovations and solutions we have never dreamed of yet.

However we’re living in a capitalists world we should be empowering people to choose where to sell their information, personal data so it would no longer be monopolised by the tech giants.

Competition authorities need to move beyond a reliance on prices towards an analysis of the impact of takeovers and mergers on societal welfare.

As we grapple with how best to protect ourselves against the risks of new, disruptive technologies, policymakers need to understand the roles that ethics and law can and should play. 

If human rights are at risk, and existing law is found wanting, we may need new, legally enforceable rights and mechanisms to grapple with emerging technologies. Citizens should not need to rely on the “ethical conscience” of tech companies to know their fundamental rights are protected. Ethics are laudable—but sometimes they are not enough.

At their core, Google’s mission “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful” and while Facebook’s goal was to “give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together” are both truly admirable and few people would disagree with them but ethical promises made by tech companies are not good enough.

Instead of adding value to our societies, Facebook,  Twitter, Amazon, Netflix, Google, Microsoft, Apple have sucked the data out of us.

They or at least their free platforms which have become essential to daily life should be regulated as public utilities.

Failing to do so risks a backlash which will be bad for everyone.

Why? 

Because there is one indisputable fact.

In front of every great fortune lies a great crime, Immense wealth translates automatically into environmental impacts regardless of the intentions of those who possess it. 

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Google does the same by using algorithms to decide what comes up on an internet search. They hardly pay any taxes and their business practices and technology will help crush industries and companies left and right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 “platform utility.” A platform utility would be barred from owning any of the participants on the platform.

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S : IS 5 G GOING TO CHANGE THE WORLD WE LIVE IN?

17 Tuesday Sep 2019

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Capitalism, Dehumanization., DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Evolution, Fourth Industrial Revolution., Humanity., Inequality, Medical, Modern day life., Reality., Robot citizenship., Sustaniability, Technology, The cloud., The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Internet., The state of the World., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., War, WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S : IS 5 G GOING TO CHANGE THE WORLD WE LIVE IN?

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

 

(Ten-minute read)

 

Right now nobody knows for sure but it is going to radically upend many aspects of our lives, as it is a technological paradigm shift.

3G or 4G was just a trailer, and the movie is about to begin.This picture, posted on Twitter by Inga Sarda-Sorensen, shows dark storm clouds over the New York skyline

Why?

Because it is going to marry data collection and computation with billions of devices.

But there is a debate on the necessity for it, considering human physical and mental limitations.

It will become the underlying fabric of an entire ecosystem of fully connected intelligent sensors and devices, capable of overhauling economic and business policies, and further blurring geographical and cultural borders.

It will create a world populated by digital citizens in continual interaction with their surroundings, their peers and public services.

It will enable communications & computing power to come together creating a hyperconnected ‘Internet of everything’ world.

It will release the spectrum for mobile devices, bring about dramatic transformations in our daily lives.

It is going to change everything about everything else.

It will rock the world economy over the next decade as we haven’t yet

conceived that will be tied into the 5G network.

For example:

Your car will know your every move faster than your mind. Cars will be able to use 5G to talk to other cars and sensors built around cities, from street lamps to gas stations.

Think about your relationship between the smart city and an autonomous car.

Think about predictive care. It will enable advanced data transfer from wearables and sensors, facilitating remote clinical decisions and robotic surgery

Think about bring virtual reality into the classroom, allowing students to face real-life situations without real-life consequences.

Think about living in a world of always-on, always-sharing, cloud applications and services.

Think about it leading to seamless and ubiquitous information control.

It will potential to unlock trillions of revenue across a broad range of industries creating a different hidden economy with wireless consumption.

This revenue will be equivalent to total U.S. consumer spending in 2016, and more than the combined spending of China, Japan, France, Germany, and the U.K. This revenue also represents about 4.6 per cent of all global real output in 2035.

Another words countries without 5G will become less competitive globally, spreading inequality on a scale not seen before. This inequality leads to more than just differences in consumption and wealth distribution. It affects access to healthcare, education, nutrition, employment, financial and technological platforms; it exacerbates poverty, exclusion and violence.

By 2020, analysts estimate that there will be more than 20 billion installed IoT devices around the world, supporting 22 million jobs generating massive amounts of data.

With access to this kind of information, industries of all kinds will be able to reach new levels of efficiency as they add products, services, and capabilities.

It will mean that a surgeon may not need to be in the same room as a patient in the future. A surgeon could use a VR headset and special glove to control a robot arm that would perform an actual operation in another location.

With haptic feedback, you’ll be able to transmit the tactile sensation of experience, enhancing the sights and sounds of a video experience.

It will make drone warfare affordable and drone defence essential.

It will make consumption and production distant and broad concepts that are somehow unattached from us.

So what can we, as consumers, do, instead of feeling powerless and distraught?

We must ensure that 5G respect nature, and the interconnectedness of everything that matters for humanity.

An unofficial trade war is already afoot in the tech industry due to the imminent rise of 5G technology.

But it will not happen overnight. Think in terms of a decade or more for it to fully unfold.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. HUMANITY MUST NOW COME FIRST.

16 Monday Sep 2019

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Capitalism, Climate Change., Dehumanization., Democracy, Environment, Evolution, Fourth Industrial Revolution., Google Knowledge., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Inequality, Life., Modern day life., Politics., Populism., Post - truth politics., Reality., Sustaniability, Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The state of the World., The world to day., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Politics

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. HUMANITY MUST NOW COME FIRST.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

 

( Seventeen-minute read)

The world has been so depleted and is being so depleted even at this moment, that the future sustenance and stability for humanity is now imperilled.

Your future and your destiny will not be determined within the next decades. It will be determined now.

It will be determined by humanity’s wisdom or by its ignorance.

The future and fate of humanity will be decided in the years to come, and it will be determined by how humanity responds to the great change that is coming over the horizon in the form of climate change to the world.

No religion nor religious institution as it stands today can prepare humanity for the complexities of life in the universe or what humanity must know to preserve human freedom and sovereignty within this world.

It is what humanity must do to prepare both collectively and individually for climate change and our collective inability to regulate AI.

But because humanity as a whole is dull and ignorant, self-absorbed and unresponsive to a changing world we are still writing ourselves out of the script.

Our universities for years have taught classical/neoclassic/neoliberal economics; like these theories are unmovable divine pillars of reality.

Therefore, while most people see we need a more reasonable and democratic version of our current extreme capitalism, the dominant discourse insists the story not be changed at all. The dominant political narrative of our times is that we must live as individuals crushed between market and state. The relationship between the individual and the state boils down to a zero-sum game where everyone one eventually looses. The state is a pure and simple force.

With the effects of climate change (to come) people are waking up to the deception, let’s hope we can do right, because on all fronts of civilization as we know it time is running out.

We have political failure everywhere leading to the malfunctioning of our altruistic nature.

There is a disconnect between mass (commercial) media, even political science and common sense or popular wisdom.

Sounds to cynical?

Let me oil up my bow.

Present-day political failures are at heart of our problems.

Why?

Because there is a failure of imagination when it comes to the societal structure we evolved to live in and that our brains are still programmed for.

Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon, etc.

These new organizations are actually not creating a dream environment of maximum social cooperation.

They are instead removing people’s needs to fulfilling each other’s needs!

Gnawing away our collective and individual identity our senses of belonging to a community for the sake of profit.

We need politics of belonging, but the trouble is, it requires a moral, ethical and educated populations which we don’t have and are now with AI are more than likely than ever never going to have.

As we rely on more and more Algorithms to make decisions without a discussion of facts and morals, against a background of pure data narrative can lead society to dark places.

We are unaware of what I call honest pricing that shows the cost of profit for profit sake to the environment.

If we were to charge fees proportional to harmful impacts on the environment, we would create a monetary representation of the value of natural resources.A Brazilian protester stands before gunfire during protests against corruption and police brutality.

So overcoming the material world would be the first step to a sustainable world-shifting us into a new reality.

We are left with the ever-present questions.

Do we give a toss and if so what can be done about it?

What roles do religion and our deepest beliefs play in contemporary life?

What lifestyles are we adopting in an increasingly technological world?

What is the balance of power–and the balance of trade?

What is the pattern of war and peace?

What are the issues facing local and regional communities, and what issues must we confront on a global scale?

What do we remember about our collective past, and how do we see the future?

Have the great issues that preoccupied people since the beginning of time taken new, distinctive forms after more than a hundred years of the fastest technological and cultural change in the history of the planet?

What challenges remain intractable?

What emerging solutions seem to offer the greatest promise?

Social media is full of video on the state of the world.

The need for clear-headed prioritisation of resources to tackle real, not imagined problems.

Despite that long record of success, agricultural production is stressed by floods, deforestation, drought, urbanization (land-devouring cities), and a growing appetite for resource-intensive meat.

More than 150 million people worldwide are at risk from rising sea levels and extreme storms that cause coastal flooding.

In the past 50 years, thanks to education and technology, more than 2 billion people joined the middle class, swelling the human footprint of nearly 50 per cent. At the same time, millions of acres of cropland have been devoured by population growth.

Today more than 6 billion people live in cities—about 70 per cent of the world’s population, roughly double the proportion of a half-century ago.

The Arctic may hold 22 per cent of the world’s undiscovered conventional oil and natural gas resources. Melting ice is liberating immense oil and natural gas reserves.

Although mounting worldwide energy demand continues to stress the environment, it has powered large-scale development of renewable energy.

Artificial intelligence will soon dominate the Earth—it could take decades, it could take millennia. At that point, AI will also take control of the Earths process. Refashioning the planet in ways that are optimal for synthetic life but quite possibly deadly for us.

You can’t help but wonder where it will lead. It’s a very dodgy future.

It may be true that the cosmos started with the Big Bang, some 14 billion years ago, but it took an awfully long time for the consequences of the Big Bang to settle down.

To have an optimistic view is the only one worth having.Our world relies on vast global networks.

So may you recognize that you as an individual must make these decisions and not simply rely upon others to make them for you.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: SHOULD FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY BE BANNED?

15 Sunday Sep 2019

Posted by in Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Face Recognition.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: SHOULD FACIAL RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY BE BANNED?

Tags

, , , , ,

 

 

(Ten-minute read) 

It too late.

This technology is a crucial part of one of the most extensive, intrusive, and oppressive surveillance apparatus in history.

All over the world private businesses, law enforcement agencies, and national governments are using facial recognition algorithm systems.

You only have to look at China home to one of the world’s most powerful facial recognition systems and advanced street surveillance cameras in the world. Equipped with one of the world’s largest photo identification databases and nearly 200 million surveillance cameras, China is at the cutting edge of facial recognition technology, one that is capable of tracking more than a billion people.

Jaywalkers are already learning that they could suddenly find their face projected on screens erected along the streets. Once they identify your face, all your information (like mobile phone number) is linked.

It even has public toilet paper dispensers that remember the user’s face.

All contributing to an overly oppressive surveillance state with unprecedented power to track people going about their daily lives.

You might say that’s all of this is incompatible with a healthy democracy like ours! 

How would you feel if you knew that every time you went out in public you were being watched and could easily be identified through this technology?

How would it change your behaviour?

Large databases — such as social media profiles, financial transactions, and telecommunication signals — may begin working in tandem, as a backend service, with recording devices to correlate, analyze and extract even greater amounts of granular information about an individual once he/she is recognized on a facial recognition device.

The recording is and can extract a host of interconnected inferences about an individual’s associations, subtle proclivities, nascent behaviours, and more.

It is going to end up breaking our fundamental rights.

Think about it, what happens when they know your face?

You can say there are positives which there are but they do not outweigh the negatives.

Cameras around will be so advance they will have the where with all to know you.

Your face and info will be in some random person hands with a click of a button.

It’s too early to completely ban this technology?

If surveillance does have public safety value, is it irresponsible not to use it? Could a ban limit its future development and potential? Or, is outlawing it the best way to make sure it doesn’t spiral out of control?

It is hard to deny that there is a public safety value to this technology.

What is urgently needed is regulations that acknowledge the usefulness of face recognition.  Banning users of commercial face recognition technology from collecting and sharing data for identifying or tracking consumers without their consent.

There are seriously conflicting interests here, but I think my principal objection is the use of data obtained to profile me or target me for advertising.

I think that aspect of technology has advanced much too far beyond what our laws are prepared to deal with.

I don’t believe there is any real expectation of privacy in a public place.

We are constantly watched on security cameras virtually everywhere, and I don’t have a real problem with that, so long as my face is not tied to my name or other personally identifiable information.

Fair restrictions must be written into law to be effective.

The next thing we will see is face recognition combined with body gesture recognition edging over into e-commerce through unmanned stores.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/video-on-demand/why-it-matters/face-off-11086960?t=14&autoplay=1&view=embed

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: SHOULD THE MONARCHY BE DISMANTLED IN LIGHT OF BREXIT.

13 Friday Sep 2019

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Brexit., Democracy

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: SHOULD THE MONARCHY BE DISMANTLED IN LIGHT OF BREXIT.

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

(Ten-minute read)

 

The monarchy has been part of the British constitution for centuries and it symbolises the unity and traditional standards of the nation.An official photograph, released by Buckingham Palace to mark her 90th birthday, shows Queen Elizabeth II with her five great-grandchildren and her two youngest grandchildren at Windsor Castle

However, no matter how it is dressed up in order to marry into modern times it represents a feudal society of medieval England in a modern democratic state that has no written constitution.

This feudal system is now outdated and Britain needs a change in order to revolutionalise the country and live in a more modern and democratic society.

The monarchy’s existence is undemocratic it is unaccountable even if serves no political purpose other than just a figurehead for the country.

Living in modern democratic society and having a constitutional monarchy underlines a string of values which hinder the modernisation of the country.

Having a monarch creates social and class divisions.

The hereditary privilege which the royals are ultimately born in to is no guarantee that the person in the office is fit by birth to be head of state.

As we are witnessing with the ongoing chariot of Brexit the crown prerogative is exploited by ministers, and parliament cannot do anything to take away or reduce these powers as they have been derived from the royal prerogative.

It is said that the queen is powerless and pointless and all her powers are invested in the prime minister. However, officials hide the real nature of this truth by saying the queen “acts on the advice of the prime minister”, meaning she does what she is told.the

“Royal Prerogative” can be described more accurately as “prime ministerial powers” due to the huge amount of power the government exercises.

There are some powers which she can and has used, on occasions when there is a hung parliament. In an event of a hung parliament, the queen will have to choose who to appoint if the incumbent prime minister resigns straight away or is defeated in the commons.

In her position as head of the Church of England, she is in a direct conflict of interest with her role as head of the armed forces and the government. As head of the Armed forces, everyone swears allegiance to her, not the Government. 

At this point the question arises, should the queen consider dissolving parliament again?

It is for this reason some have called for a reform of the sovereign’s personal prerogative.

The call for this reform is one of the arguments for getting rid of the monarchy as many people do not agree with why an unelected and unaccountable monarch should have the right to play any part in the political process.

This brings us again to why the monarchy should be eradicated; she plays no political role for the UK and she gives the government enormous amount of political power which the government take full advantage of because they are not accountable to parliament. She is immune from prosecution?

The monarchy is actually paid for by the taxpayer’s money.

While the official figure is that the Royal family costs only about £40m per annum, this doesn’t take into account security costs, royal visits and others of less significance. The actual figure is estimated by some to be about £200m every year.

Other countries maintain their monarchies at a fraction of the cost of the British monarchy.

In fact, to take the monarchy out of the British constitution you would actually need a written constitution to do this, which currently does not exist. The royal family contributes a lot to the economy through tourism, but it is not sufficient reason to give the government powers.queen elizabeth ii birthday trooping the colour

She is still consulted weekly on government business by the prime minister in person.

Yes, the historic “prerogative powers” of the Sovereign have been devolved largely to government ministers. But this still means that when the British government declares war, or regulates the civil service, or signs a treaty, it is doing so only on her authority.

The Queen’s consent is necessary to turn any bill into actual law.

However, Royal Assent is different than “Queen’s consent.”

Queen’s consent is exercised only on the advice of ministers, but its existence provides the government with a tool for blocking debate on certain subjects if bills are tabled by backbench rebels or the opposition.

There is one exception that allows her to wield power herself. Only “in a grave constitutional crisis,” the Sovereign can “act contrary to or without Ministerial advice.”

With no precedent in modern times, it’s not clear what would actually constitute this, but the possibility remains.

However, due to the Fixed Term Parliament Act, she can not dissolve Parliament, two-thirds vote in the commons is required. But she does play a part after an election when she calls on the MP able to form a government to do so.

All prosecutions are carried out in the name of the Sovereign, and she is both immune from prosecution and cannot be compelled to give evidence in court. But no immunity attaches to the name Elizabeth WINDSOR, which is her legal name as an individual.

God help the idiots that try.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE: OPEN LETTER TO THOSE ATTENDING THE UNITED NATIONS CLIMATE CHANGE SUMMIT ON THE 23 SEPTEMBER 2019.

10 Tuesday Sep 2019

Posted by in Climate Change.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE: OPEN LETTER TO THOSE ATTENDING THE UNITED NATIONS CLIMATE CHANGE SUMMIT ON THE 23 SEPTEMBER 2019.

Tags

,

( Fifteen-minute read)

DEAR ATTENDEE.

You will have heard it all before the conflict between climate change action and the market place but there is no more time to be asking ourselves is the economy more important than climate.

Now is the defining moment to do something about it – Which requires a transformation of unprecedented pace and scale.

We know from all of the scientific advice internationally that global warming is already having a very significant impact on our climate and it’s already having an impact on a range of industries, most notably agriculture, but many others as well.

So there’s is not a clear choice here to do nothing and save all existing jobs and have uninterrupted global growth by undertaking carbon trading schemes that are not and will not be adhered to.

However, this is still the approach that countries are taking, don’t upset growth and this will be reflected in the forthcoming United Nations Climate change summit on the 23 SEPTEMBER 2019.

Take for example the Uk who are bidding to host the next UN Climate Change Conference while distorting the European carbon market by reducing the price of producing carbon to £16 per ton – £10 cheaper than the EU.

No matter what is said at the summit no country is going to take actions that are going to deliberately destroy jobs and growth in their country.

Just because one country or twenty declare a climate emergency, promising to reduce carbon emissions the capitalism market place will ensure that it makes a profit.

Climate change is already being turned in to a commodity. Globally, hundreds of companies are using an internal carbon price to inform operations and investment decisions.

It will, therefore, be no wonder that we the great unwashed will remain pessimistic about the likelihood of ambitious coordinated global action.

However, as you are well aware no country is going to undertake actions on climate change that is somehow or other going to change the climate of the globe.

Unfortunately, the Summit is not going showcase of a leap in collective national political ambitions and it will not demonstrate a massive movement in the real economy in support of the agenda to convert to a Green technological world of Capitalism.

Why?

Because as I have said, no one, no country, no government, no company, no city, no civil society, wants to pay the price.

This is beyond any douth the crux of the problem.

To finance the transition to a zero-carbon economy, markets need full information on climate risks and opportunities, and clear pricing signals and policies that shift global financial flows away from polluting investments and toward zero-carbon products, services, and business models:

Only when the financial markets contribute on an equitable just manner in bearing the costs worldwide will we be able to tackle climate change on a global scale.

Not until this is achieved will there be any just transition to a zero-carbon economy via social dialogue with businesses, workers, and communities, and by integrating measures outlined in the Paris conference and the forthcoming UN Summit.

All will remain unachievable.

To make progress on this important issue and to be effective and credible it must be financed on an equitable base worldwide.

By creating a World Aid fund that is financed by all capitalist marketing functions that are currently exploiting the world for profit for profit sake.

This will allow the scraping of the emissions trading scheme and replace them with a grants-based system to encourage emissions reduction.

HOW CAN THIS BE DONE?

In order to ensure that the transformative actions in the real economy any financing must not create losers or add to economic inequality but creates new opportunities and protections, in the context of a just transition.

By placing a World Aid Commission of 0.05% on all activities within our world markets that produce profit for profit sake. 

THEN AND ONLY THEN WITH decisive business leadership complemented by ambitious government policies, each positively reinforcing each other will we be able to set Science-Based Targets in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement, committing to net-zero emissions by 2050 at the latest, switching to 100 percent renewable electricity, doubling energy productivity, accelerating the transition to electric vehicles and committing to implementing the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) otherwise every good intention will remain verbal diarrhoea.

It’s not that we don’t seek to deal with climate change.

Yours Faithfully

Robert de May Dillon founder of the Beady Eye

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: THE WHOLE CATEGORY SYSTEM CONCERNING STORMS NEEDS SERIOUS RETHINKING.

08 Sunday Sep 2019

Posted by in Climate Change.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: THE WHOLE CATEGORY SYSTEM CONCERNING STORMS NEEDS SERIOUS RETHINKING.

Tags

, ,

 

(Ten-minute read)  

 

Why?

Because the maximum intensity of hurricanes will increase by about 5% this century. 

Because there is growing evidence that the warming of the atmosphere and upper ocean, due to human activity such as burning fossil fuels, is making conditions ripe for fiercer, more destructive hurricanes.

Warming oceans conditions are ideal for spawning hurricanes.

While there is no consensus on the frequency of hurricanes in a warmer world, there is a consensus that the hurricanes are becoming more intense, and hence their impact will be worse.

Meanwhile, natural buffers to hurricanes, such as mangroves and coral reefs, are being stripped away around the world as a result of coastal development, pollution and warming waters.

THERE WAS A TIME WHEN STORMS HAD NO NAMES – A GALE FORCE

Now males and female names alternated because we are less afraid of hurricanes with female names.

Hurricane Florence killed dozens or so people. Hurricane Michael, killed about 70th, Hurricane Harvey unloaded 33tn gallons of water on Texas, Hurricane Irma, which reached a top speed of 177mph, ravaged Florida and several thousand people died in Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria. Hurricane Katrina had 1,833 fatalities. Hurricane Dorian barrel into the northwestern Bahamas ravaging the Abaco Islands, killings 20.

Particularly devastating hurricanes cause names to be retired, which is why we won’t see a Hurricane Katrina, for example, again.

Now Storms are given names once they have sustained winds of more than 39mph so insurance companies don’t have to pay out home insurance policies if named storms are do not specify in their cover. ( Premiums may rise as insurers face ballooning claims.)

The Saffir-Simpson scale is now irrational, in part, because it deals only with wind, ignoring factors such as a storm’s size, rainfall potential and forward speed. 

The scale was designed to measure the amount of damage inflicted by winds, not the severe flooding due to storm surge.

The proportion of tropical storms that rapidly strengthen into powerful hurricanes has tripled over the past 30 yearsHurricane getting stronger

Perhaps its time to classify hurricanes as predators.

DANGEROUS: 

SEVERE- DEVASTATION: Enough force to damage homes and snap trees.

LIFE-THREATENING: 

GET -OUT:  Raze dwellings, causing widespread power outages and result in scores of deaths.

APOCALYPTIC: Stay put and die. 

 

NOAA’s GOES East satellite captured this view of the strong Category 1 storm at 8:20 a.m. EDT, just 15 minutes before the center of Hurricane Dorian moved across the barrier islands of Cape Hatteras.

In general, hurricanes are steered by global winds. The prevailing winds that surround a hurricane, also known as the environmental wind field, are what guide a hurricane along its path.

In 2016, for the first time since 1938, a hurricane formed in the Atlantic in January- Hurricane Alex.

While the eye of a hurricane is typically very calm and nearly windless, the eyewall is the fiercest part of the story, where winds are strongest.

A hurricane can pick up as much as two billion tons of water a day through evaporation and sea sprays. If the heat released by an average hurricane in one day could be converted to electricity, it could supply the United States’ electrical needs for about six months.

Those who deny scientific findings of climate change in favour of magical thinking and other such fallacies will only leave the world a more unstable and dangerous place for future generations to come.

 

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: ALGORITHMS ARE RUNNING OUR LIVES.

06 Friday Sep 2019

Posted by in Algorithms.

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

 

(Twenty-minute read)

So should we be more wary of their power?

Their lack of accountability and complete opacity is frightening.

Some time ago I advocated that there should be a legal requirement that all software programmes/ algorithms be subject to regulation to create an oversight that would assess the impact of algorithms before it becomes alive.

Other words a virtual total transparent deposit world bank where the original programmes are held and vetted to comply with the core principals of humanity.

That, by itself, is now a tall order that requires impartial experts backtracking through the technology development process to find the models and formulae that originated the algorithms.

Who is prepared to do this? Who has the time, the budget and resources to investigate and recommend useful courses of action?

This is a 21st-century job description – and market niche – in search of real people and companies outside political manipulation. In order to make algorithms more transparent, products and product information circulars might include an outline of algorithmic assumptions, akin to the nutritional sidebar now found on many packaged food products, that would inform users of how algorithms drive intelligence in a given product and a reasonable outline of the implications inherent in those assumptions.

At the moment they perform seemingly miraculous tasks humans cannot and they will continue to greatly augment human intelligence and assist in accomplishing great things.  Also, our accelerating code-dependency will continue to drive the spread of algorithms; however, as with all great technological revolutions, this trend has a dark side.

There is no argument that the efficiencies of algorithms will lead to more creativity and self-expression.

However, to days algorithms are primarily written to optimize efficiency and profitability without much thought about the possible societal impacts of the data modelling and analysis.

Humans are considered to be an “input” to the process and they are not seen as real, thinking, feeling, changing beings.

This is creating a flawed, logic-driven society and that as the process evolves – that is, as algorithms begin to write the algorithms – humans may get left out of the loop, letting “the robots decide.

Algorithms will capitalize on convenience and profit, thereby discriminating [against] certain populations, but also eroding the experience of everyone else. The goal of to days algorithms is to fit some of our preferences, but not necessarily all of them: They essentially present a caricature of our tastes and preferences.

The fear is that, unless we tune our algorithms for self-actualization, it will be simply too convenient for people to follow the advice of an algorithm (or, too difficult to go beyond such advice), turning these algorithms into self-fulfilling prophecies, and users into zombies who exclusively consume easy-to-consume items.

It is not possible to capture every data element that represents the vastness of a person and that person’s needs, wants, hopes, desires. When you remove the humanity from a system where people are included, they become victims.

Dehumanization by algorithms has now spread to our police forces, to our legal systems, to our health care and social services, our politics – Brexit, Donal Trump.

So let’s ask a few questions.

Who is collecting what data points?

Do human beings the data points reflect even know or did they just agree to the terms of service because they had no real choice?

Who is making money from the data?

How is anyone to know how his/her data is being massaged and for what purposes to justify what ends?

Companies platforms like Google Facebook, Twitter,  seek to maximize profit, not maximize societal good. Worse, they repackage profit-seeking as a societal good.

There is no transparency, and oversight is a farce.

We see already today is that, in practice, stuff like ‘differential pricing’ does not help the consumer; it helps the company that is selling things, etc.

With it, all hidden from view individual human beings will be herded around like cattle, with predictably destructive results on rule of law, social justice and economics.

There is at the moment only an incentive to further obfuscate the presence and operations of algorithmic shaping of communications processes. The fact the internet can, through algorithms, be used to almost read our minds means [that] those who have access to the algorithms and their databases have a vast opportunity to manipulate large population groups.

Our Economies are increasingly dominated by a tiny, very privileged and insulated portion of the population, largely reproduce inequality for their benefit. Criticism will be belittled and dismissed because of the veneer of digital ‘logic’ over the process.

I will always remain convinced the data will be used to enrich and/or protect others and not the individual. It’s the basic nature of the economic system in which we live.

Algorithms have the capability to shape individuals’ decisions without them even knowing it, giving those who have control of the algorithms an unfair position of power.

The overall impact of ubiquitous algorithms is presently incalculable because the presence of algorithms in everyday processes and transactions is now so great, and is mostly hidden from public view. Our algorithms are now redefining what we think, how we think and what we know.

We need to ask them to think about their thinking – to look out for pitfalls and inherent biases before those are baked in and harder to remove.

Should we be allowing ourselves to become so reliant on them – and who, if anyone, is policing their use?

Will the net overall effect of algorithms be positive for individuals and society or negative for individuals and society?

If every algorithm suddenly stopped working, it would be the end of the world as we know it.

We have already turned our world over to machine learning and algorithms.

The question now is, how to better understand and manage what we have done?

What are the implications of allowing commercial interests and governments to use algorithms to analyse our habits:

The main negative changes come down to a simple but now quite difficult question:

How can we see, and fully understand the implications of, the algorithms programmed into everyday actions and decisions?

The rub is this: Whose intelligence is it, anyway?

Algorithms are aimed at optimizing everything. Our lives will be increasingly affected by their inherent conclusions and the narratives they spawn.

By expanding collection and analysis of data and the resulting application of this information, a layer of intelligence or thinking manipulation is added to processes and objects that previously did not have that layer.

The internet runs on algorithms and all online searching is accomplished through them.

Email knows where to go thanks to algorithms. Smartphone apps are nothing but algorithms. Computer and video games are algorithmic storytelling. Online dating and book-recommendation and travel websites would not function without algorithms. GPS mapping systems get people from point A to point B via algorithms.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is nought but algorithms.

The material people see on social media is brought to them by algorithms.

In fact, everything people see and do on the web is a product of algorithms.

Every time someone sorts a column in a spreadsheet, algorithms are at play, and most financial transactions today are accomplished by algorithms. Algorithms help gadgets respond to voice commands, recognize faces, sort photos and build and drive cars. Hacking, cyberattacks and cryptographic code-breaking exploit algorithms.

In the future algorithms will write many if not most algorithms.

The rise of increasingly complex algorithms calls for critical thought about how to best prevent, deter and compensate for the harms that they cause …. Algorithmic regulation will require world government uniformity, expert judgment, political independence and pre-market review to prevent – without stifling innovation – the introduction of unacceptably dangerous algorithms into the market.

The usage of algorithms and analytics in society is exploding:

From machine learning recommender systems in commerce, to credit scoring methods outside of standard regulatory practice and self-driving cars.

We now spend so much of our time online that we are creating huge data-mining opportunities with algorithms programmed to look for “indirect, non-obvious” correlations in data and over time, if not already will create or exacerbate societal divides.

Algorithms are increasingly determining our collective futures. “Bank approvals, store cards, job matches and more. Google’s search algorithm is now a more closely guarded commercial secret than the recipe for Coca-Cola),

The problem is how the rules are set: it’s impossible to do this perfectly.

The questions being raised about algorithms at the moment are not about algorithms per se, but about the way, society is structured with regard to data use and data privacy.

Humans are seeing as causation when an algorithm identifies a correlation in vast swaths of data.

This transformation presents an entirely new menace: penalties based on propensities.

The possibility of using big-data predictions about people to judge and punish them even before they’ve acted. Doing this negates ideas of fairness, justice and free will.

Parole boards in more than half of all US states use predictions founded on data analysis as a factor in deciding whether to release somebody from prison or to keep him incarcerated.

We risk falling victim to a dictatorship of data, whereby we fetishise the information, the output of our analyses, and end up misusing it.

They can and will become an instrument of the powerful, who may turn it into a source of repression, either by simply frustrating customers and employees or, worse, by harming citizens.

The idea that the world’s financial markets – and, hence, the wellbeing of our pensions, shareholdings, savings etc – are now largely determined by algorithmic vagaries is unsettling enough for some. In currency trading, an algorithm lasts for about two weeks before it is stopped because it is surpassed by a new one.

We’re already halfway towards a world where algorithms run nearly everything.

As their power intensifies, wealth will concentrate on them.

Advances in quantum computing and the rapid evolution of AI and AI agents embedded in systems and devices in the Internet of Things will lead to hyper-stalking, influencing and shaping of voters, and hyper-personalized ads, and will create new ways to misrepresent reality and perpetuate falsehoods.

Climate change is becoming visible while the profits of the capitalist world are going underground thanks to Algorithms.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.