Pure attention reality and measuring impact

Readily admit did not react well when finally got objective evidence of a decent audience response to some of my ideas. Which is an interesting way to put it. Another way to put it is: struggled with handling properly global interest across several areas from a coding effort with an open source project to my math ideas and beyond.

This blog was made by me over a decade ago to try to get a handle on the beyond would think, from the title. Seems lately to be where I try to process things. And for over a decade there have been people out there keeping up with my content and apparently linking to it, and finally got more thankful. You're all kind of the unsung heroes of my story? Yeah, those of you who fit that description are. I DO focus so much on myself. But for so many years it all just seemed so strange.

For so many years have wondered what is real and how to know. That can really make life a struggle because you still have to make decisions regardless, on the daily.

So much has been and still is a mystery to me. And yeah, mystery matters but I mean that to be about not showing too much to your audience. Some people like to peer behind the curtain, but more just want the performance.

Objective reality here though is telling: have maintained global interest by objective measures from 100+ countries, where THAT number comes from downloads of my open source project for over a decade.

The blogs like here, except for Lost in Commentary, trend to 50+ countries where am relying on third party sources with much from Google. Like I use Google Analytics for country counts as can look at on a yearly basis and even compare between years. I also rely on Blogger stats to some extent, but they are less extensive, for some reason. What's up with that Blogger?

And is very mysterious to me who you all are--out there, all over the world.

Maybe I should work on that, huh? Will consider. There are HUGE positives to me with how things have gone. And have talked here much about the web benefit of being in control, yourself. But the big negative is: then how do you make money? Which to me seems kind of pathetic. Never thought money-making focus would end up driving so much. But also is forcing me to settle things.

We can get a pure attention reality where you share your thoughts and people can be interested, or not. Without so many intermediaries who could too often in the past simply be gatekeepers, who could block people just based on their moods or discretions.

In our times we can know just how terribly that worked as SO many people who would never have done well in the old systems, are getting global now. Guess can count myself as one? Guess I should.

So yeah, I need to work on the mystery. Who are YOU who may be reading now? For those who have supported me through the years, amid the ranting, and the endless repeating of how unsettled I am, and who knows what else wacky, thanks!!! Reality is, most of my global attention is just from ideas that I share without some huge production.

For that to work though, especially to stay at the global level is about the audience for the content.

That is just how such things work.

Measurement though is so much about other people. Sure I can control the content here, and my decisions to post or not, and edit or whatever.

But measuring things like how global this blog is? That is out of my hands.

Information about interest comes from others.


James Harris

Social disruption is good for your attention

Finally have a better handle on how the web is transforming our globe with respect to our attention, which also involves our time. And for YEARS have hyped that wonder of efficient and easy distribution of information that the web provides, but the attention reality is about finding quality content.

That is disrupting prior attention industries. Where I no longer have to talk about the hypothetical of whether or not television shows were good or not, as we can just watch which ones are still here.

Like Star Trek was better than I even realized. And so many other television shows were SO much worse, and people are deciding on the constant now. The pressure against current television shows is not just with each other, but with whatever content is available, including from the past.

The television model was not what I thought, and is now evolving as web completes absorption of television, and folks can learn how such shows actually become successful.

The correct attention model learned with my own content is rather constant, with bursts of attention happening here or there in a way I now consider not terribly interesting. Have had things of mine in their own way go viral for a bit. Have dealt with bursts of celebrity in certain areas here and there.

And realized is a very big world, when you consider billions of people, and what interests them.

Have focused so much on television often and in this post as was so dominant in my life. And I learned some really wrong lessons from what I thought I knew about television. While now I rarely talk in detail and especially stay away from current shows--as I do not wish to accidently crush them.

Being able to channel the interests of millions with such a limited thing as television is, gave a lot of power to certain people and helped fuel a lot of industry, especially advertising. Now advertising has to evolve, and I think is great.

While I had to invest vast amounts of time and attention in figuring out web systems, with the money thing in the distance, until it became the biggest thing. Where I found out you do not need money to be global if you have interesting content.

Right now am stuck in a homeless shelter in Macon, GA, USA as try to figure out the money thing. Yet I can shift the reality for just about anything on television without much effort. And I no longer think being on TV would be a big deal. Am more global than much.

How can someone like me consistently put up content that draws attention from around planet Earth, year after year after year? And how do I connect that safely to some way to make money?

Such things I ponder.

Our species I think is very peculiar. More I pay attention to what from me keeps getting global attention? More I wonder. To me now television industry is tiny, but still kind of interesting, some times. They DO still try. Maybe now they will learn to be much better.

They had better, if television industry wishes to survive and am sure it will. I have an odd faith I think where maybe should question more why. Television industry is competing with a web of attention from all over. And people have standards now unlike before.

Today we can compare past as well as present in our decisions on best content. And choose at a moment what best moves us, or maybe those close to us. And it IS important to each, as is about how best to spend precious time.

Is yours--your time. You only have so much in a life.


James Harris

Talking fair advantage

There can be a HUGE problem with arbitrary lines in a society, where I like to define things.

And will admit have many times noticed situations where are competitive, when some person, usually a guy will SUDDENLY talk race, as is clear he has no advantage.

Which is one thing, but if you have been taught that you have race as a fair advantage, and are losing otherwise so think you can psych out another person by bringing it up? Then can be something where you may feel comfortable.

Where I would look at such a person, at times, suddenly smug. He thinks he has won something, and is sad, as is without merit.

Would find myself mentally shaking my head, thinking to myself, yet another one.

Life lessons for such people can be harsh. Where with me, of course remain polite, but no, not useful as a psych-out. But it does help for me that I have encountered it routinely enough, am not surprised by it. Just disappointed.

And is actually pseudo-class as if say, are in the United Kingdom, and someone notes he is a member of the English nobility, guess what? Is a legitimate class position recognized by society.

But here in the US, there is no such class system at all, not even in decline as is there. So that person? Who thinks he can rely on race to overcome his shortcomings? His belief in fair advantage was probably taught to him, by his parents or community, in a nation that does NOT recognize it.

Which yeah can lead to violence.

Few people realize that actual class does involve violence, as failure to acknowledge social rules is not exactly a good way to get ahead in society. And like to bring up the United Kingdom as one of the most famous where no, am confident class is NO LONGER violently enforced, but it was, in the past.

In Old England--insult the king, could lose your head.

Here in the US, you have people with that attitude and they can go on killing sprees. Which has been big in the news last few years. Where it does help to recognize the problem of pseudo-class and pseudo-nobility who can run rampant in a society when not checked.

Merit rules are just better.

So how did the US get this problem? Well that story have talked much! Where honesty is best. Besides it is an interesting story. People who somehow get taught they are innately superior who just go down in flames when forced to actually compete on merit.

Yet there are others who support them, and believe in things that are not true. And to them? Race is fair advantage.

Web disrupts in a very basic way: facts tell.

Is MUCH harder to simply lie about success in our times. Like in the past not only were arbitrary race rules used for some to steal the accomplishments of others, but also they were as has also been more publicly clear, often brutal to women. So yeah, you'd have guys quite comfortable with lack of ability who would claim credit and rewards of success, for things actually done by others.

The web makes that harder to do.

Web enables merit rules with facts shared. Which is a great thing actually.


James Harris

Why knowledge rules

The discovery that a person can produce a mathematical argument that looks correct by long accepted rules, which can be shown to not be correct by those same rules is remarkable, if true.

Consider also that a world routinely accepts that the knowledge does not exist to keep computer systems from routinely being breached, with massive flows of freed information as a result.

What if the actual answer though is that a subtle flaw allowed people who lacked ability to be put in a position to secure the world's systems? Then would not be much of a surprise.

Evaluating such a scenario presumably would require VAST amounts of expertise well beyond most people. And is the kind of arena where governments play.

However can still show you why knowledge rules, as imagine you're in an airplane, and you learn that the pilot is well-trained but the co-pilot is a fraud. And things are ok, until the pilot becomes incapacitated.

Knowledge rules because there are any number of situations where that person you need, needs to have valid information, which is useful knowledge and be able to use it.

One problem we can have in societies is when systems get vast enough that there is not enough checking of authority at all points, where knowledge rules. And plenty of people can believe odd things, like maybe anyone can actually do the job of the American president? Why not? If you can get elected, what more do you really need to know?

Yet, if our current American president screws up enough you may die in a nuclear blast. And your awareness of this reality does not change it.

The fate of humanity may be simply to mostly die, stupid.

Now then, do you understand better why knowledge rules? Have a nice day. Where ever you may be in this world, there are decisions to be made which will affect you, whether you wish it or not.

So much better if the people making those decisions? Know what they're doing.

Talking obvious things. There is a weird thing in the US though which I call a distorted feudal echo.

Some people have a distorted view that somehow some kind of class has a right to positions, even if that is stated as against American ideals. But even in feudal times, people actually in charge, like maybe a regent, were expected to know what they were doing.

Importance of being able to function well with authority is as old as humanity actually.


James Harris

What I think is the point of college

When I get an angle on something I tend to run it into the ground and in my opinion the point of college is to learn how to learn, versus simply being taught, which is what happens for most in school before college. So I say, that college is to teach the meta of learning itself, so the point is meta learning.

And that's my opinion, and now going to talk a LOT about that opinion for the rest of this post. Where will note that most people don't seem to want that, and if you get a high school diploma or equivalent in the US, you can do quite ok with the rest of your life without an intensive educational environment teaching you how to learn while teaching you lots of others things. Like you can get a job, have a family, set goals and live a great life, which raises the question of why do others take a different route?

Curious I did a search, and not surprisingly found myself with information displayed from Wikipedia, which said that 31.96% of Americans aged 25 or older get at least a Bachelor's degree. That search was:

what percentage of Americans get a college degree?

And that is copying and pasting and italicizing, where I probably figured I'd do such a thing so I did it that way for effect. And Google search just displayed the info I gave here, where the reference given was: Educational attainment in the United States

Plenty of people just want to get on with that being an adult thing, while college at its most intense, where you are there at the college or university as a full time student, means deferring on full adulthood. And college students are kind of like, um, looking for a characterization. Let's just say, college students are not functionally considered fully adult by society, which lets them work still on learning, while usually being legally adult, as in the US that just happens at age 18.

Of course college teaches actual knowledge, but technical school does that as well. But along with knowledge itself, college I say, teaches you how to learn, which can give the additional flexibility later in life, of approaching the subject of learning itself in a certain way enabling greater facility at moving into new areas of knowledge. Whew. I like those kinds of sentences.

Which means that scientists usually need college as being a scientist is a lifelong quest of learning how to learn better, I think, so scientists I suggest never fully grow up.

My opinion of the point of college am sure contrasts with those who think it's about getting a well-paying job which raises the question of, why would it be so associated if my opinion is correct?

Which I think is about the greater flexibility that learning learning itself, so that you are a meta learner, gives greater facility at moving into new areas of knowledge, which can have a greater monetary value, in general. Yeah, still love those kinds of sentences.

Lots of people maybe just want someone to tell them what they are to know, like to do their job most effectively. Or they already know what they need to know to achieve life goals.

Like, if you're great at business, know LOTS of how to do business, and just get at it, you can do very well, and become extremely rich, without ever having a college degree, which plenty of people have done.

That roughly 1 in 3 Americans feels a need to get a Bachelor's degree and get that done is something I find intriguing. To me, roughly 2 in 3 Americans then end up doing that adult thing without grabbing that level of accomplishment of completion from a place that pushes them to learn how to learn, if they do bother to do the adult thing.

But you can learn meta learning without college I'm sure.

From my perspective as a meta innovator, I feel like meta learning from college is just so convenient, and maybe helps to lay those foundations with a solidity that is hard to get otherwise. But is not impossible.

So do you need college? In my opinion it's the kind of question that in answering most people end up deciding no, at least in my country, and for those who answer yes, it's maybe about an inner child that isn't necessarily understood as such, which to me makes it even better. I only recently accepted that maybe growing up is not so bad, but am still working on it. That adult thing? Is so hard.


James Harris

Opinions on timelines for some web things

Found myself thinking how long in my opinion it takes to get certain web things really settled and going well, which got me to thinking, why not post my OPINIONS? So here goes.

For a blog, I think about two years will get a dedicated person or organization a decent handle, where total posts? Well that's one of the things to figure out, how much do you want to post? How much SHOULD you post for purposes of blog? How much will you actually post?

On Twitter, I think about five years, will maybe give you a good sense of things. But more and more I think Twitter is the one place where most people don't realize, including myself, just how huge the challenge actually is. But with that amount of time, there is a tweet history, again showing how much tweeting was done versus maybe one might think will do.

And on Twitter after about five years, I found I could look at all kinds of things and be surprised by what happened, much of it inexplicable to me, still. But at least am now less surprised by what may happen.

With others I think timelines are much shorter. Like a public page on Facebook am thinking should only take a few months to get a feel for what to do, if you know what you're doing. If you don't, like me, yeah you can muddle around for a few years until was like, I don't know what am doing. So I looked around more, and was more like, oh. Not sure if I can do what I need to do to make it more popular, but at least know better how that is done.

With Instagram, have the feeling that I still don't quite know? But I follow on Instagram. Looking at various accounts am thinking, with a guess, around 6 months?

And no clue with SnapChat.

Oh yeah, need to include Google+ as spend TONS of time there. But I don't have a handle on the question for it. So yeah, lots doing with what I prefer to call G+ but know I use it lots, but feel like is still developing much into something which should be rather potent. So later if all goes well with it, will have a firm opinion am sure.

Occurs to me is pointless to make an ever longer blog post when have covered areas where am most confident already, with my OPINION of how long it takes.

But is a great question to ask people I think: how long do you think it takes to get some web thing up and running well?


James Harris

My opinion on modern referral

To me modern referral can be considered abstractly in some simple ways. Where I want to put some opinions down in writing, partly as that helps me check them, and also it helps me see how my thinking evolves on certain subjects over time.

For someone with a potentially global audience it might seem easy to suggest products or services, but I think you have to be more careful, as with modern networks people can rapidly assess your behavior, motivations, and share information which can challenge the validity of that referral.

That efficiency is in a small group as well, as your friends can maybe talk about finding out that, say, your girlfriend is trying to boost her sales if you recommend something as if out of the blue for them to buy. Whether they tell you they found out is a different matter entirely.

IN THE PAST, connections were easier to hide, and do remember being fascinated at times when they'd get outed with someone famous, where didn't suspect ulterior--as in hidden--motives for things they were doing. But in the modern age the web relishes outing such things.

To me best referral happens if you find something relevant to the target audience, which you honestly believe is helpful, where any benefit to you in giving that referral is known.

Like I have an open source project, and have no problems recommending it to people. I use it myself. To me that is optimal referral, and in general if I promote it at all it is to people who might need it. Though also talk about it in general as a concrete example of attention my efforts receive, justifying claims like being global.

So to me, proper referral involves real benefit to those who get it, and information on any benefit to the person giving it. Though I also think that if someone does get compensated for some kind of product or service referral the amount is not necessarily in the public good. But knowing someone got paid can be critical.

And came up with my own rules for when people should get paid for things.

By those rules then someone like myself should get paid for an endorsement for a business entity NOT a community entity, always, which I find fascinating, and wonder if in actuality I hold myself to that one, and have no such endorsements. Just questioning my own opinions. But then again I don't think I actually endorse any business entity. Will mention some at times. May like a product or service, like am a big fan of Twitter. But like that mention in my opinion does not necessarily represent a material benefit to Twitter the company. Though it may be important for branding.

But wait, really do push Chrome OS, but only because I have my own ideas in that direction, where I like to talk the BOS. So that's transparent. To me I'm promoting my ideas as I see them in someone else's. That feeling is natural I think, and very transparent.

So what makes something a referral anyway?

In my opinion for a potentially paid referral there has to be a contract involved as that's how money should flow legally anyway. Emphasizing is my opinion. So involves some thought and work upfront with two parties getting something worked out and signed, and then can be completely legit! As otherwise no way to help promote some product or service to people who might want and need it, so appreciate the effort, without taking a loss, if could make money on it and should.

Oh yeah, may sound strange, but a loss on NOT having a contract in place for what should be a paid referral hits the economy, like in my case is a loss for the US economy, since I'm a tax paying citizen here.

Figuring out actual material benefit of a referral can be a problem to be solved I think, though have addressed this before with my ideas for a limited endorser. Wow, wrote on that over 3 years ago, back February 2012, so was still in San Francisco. Ha ha, kind of full of myself reading it now! That guy.

And yup, talked material benefit. Am guessing that is HUGE in my thinking as spans so much time.


James Harris

Why I like functional ideas

To me functional ideas are those you can check. And much better when that is without a lot of effort also, as the web means we get so much information available, and it can take a lot to be sure something actually works. I don't want to do a lot of work checking ideas.

Can't be helped sometimes. But if you can quickly assess functional ideas as functioning? Then that is SO much better in my opinion.

Before people might rely more on institutions which is forced on us. There is too much knowledge which has been proven over time, or is accepted and you have to act with it in mind or else, for it to be any other way. Much of that information has been wrapped up by some institution or other, which should be the basis for its existence.

But for most for the first time as human beings with so much information accessible, it's often not enough for someone to just cite some authority, if you can find reliable sources disputing in minutes.

Confidence in explanation is not necessarily important. Like, lots of people believe all kinds of things, but what can they predict?

Prediction is where functional ideas really show their worth, when you expect one thing to happen and others either don't know, are guessing, or are just wrong.

There is such a powerful feeling if what you knew would happen does. No one can take that away either. As with the best ideas? You get that feeling relentlessly.

As guess what? The future is not interested in your opinion, your status, your confidence, or anything else about you. Long after you're dead and gone the future will still be here.

The future does not care what you believe is possible. The future does not care about you.

The future is forever the ultimate test. Test your ideas against it. When they fail, let them go.

Or if they don't fail, raise expectations. The best functional ideas are never wrong. And their predictions? Always come true. That perfection is what people can not understand, like when they hear the word "science".

It fascinates me often how accurate predictions from science are, even though without that accuracy you couldn't read these words. In our time, your computer is cycling through at millions of operations a second. That speed just keeps increasing as well.

At millions of operations per second, a glitch is catastrophic. Or, more simply, your computer stops working.

So glad it is still working as you read these words.

But even the rate of glitches in your computer is predictable. Our science explains so much. It's important to understand why. Prediction is key. The future doesn't care, but it can make sense.

Science is our way of making sense of the future.

There is no science without prediction.


James Harris

Information gathering against science

The notion that if you could just suck up all the information there is on every person on the planet and process it with massive computers you could predict, well, everything is a fun fantasy against science. And yes quantum theory can have impact but it's micro, while I think more relevant is chaos theory, which is macro and deterministic but rather dramatic.

Like, the Butterfly effect became very popular even in mainstream culture but seems to elude people as to consequences, as even with all that info, prediction can escape.

And it's like how too many in my country were unfortunately programmed by rather bizarre media presentations in fiction claiming over and over again that torture works, so they think it does, even though it's cruel, evil and does NOT work.

Similarly I think too many naively find it easy to believe that governments studying all their personal data is a way to actually stopping bad people.

Which is why principles are great and smart people put things down in writing, like in constitutions. Yes, people trot them out all the time but the Founding Fathers of the United States were really smart people who deserve all that attention.

They did a great job with the US Constitution without a doubt.

A sad thing in the US today are people who don't quite believe in science and they don't quite believe in the US Constitution but they do believe in SAYING they do.

I want the bad guys caught as much as anyone, which is why I want techniques that work versus fantasy.

Science is so powerful, and mathematics is so powerful, but how many people really understand them?

Of course over time people see reality as the check which forces change.


James Harris

Who will code our future?

One of those subjects that gets a lot of attention is diversity in coding, where I've posted a couple of times already, but maybe feel like I should say a bit more as I am I guess an anomaly though I'm sure that will change.

Being a Black man, from the Deep South, who not only can code but I've been a lead Java developer, one of seven, on a multi-million dollar project, which we delivered by the way, isn't exactly the norm from what I've heard.

But how did I get there?

Reality is I was obsessed with computers from the moment I heard of them, and was lucky enough that my Dad bought one even though I joke he screwed up with a TI-94A instead of a Commodore 64. I joke that if he'd got the latter we would be billionaires by now as it allowed assembly language coding while I was stuck with BASIC.

So I was coding from the age of 12, as that was back in 1982.

When I eventually ended up doing professional software development, writing code was the easy, but also hard part, as it is difficult to get the best code, and I'm fierce at getting the best code, but also wicked fast. It's weird watching other people, but I digress.

The social part was actually harder. Usually, yeah, I was one of few Black guys. But I didn't detect any walls against Black people. I just applied, interviewed, and went to work. And in fact roared up as a developer until maybe I burned myself out as well as left for personal reasons to pursue personal projects.

I have never seen any indications that Black people are barred.

They apparently just weren't applying. Of if they were, lacked the skillsets to get the job, where I think you best start getting those as a kid. Like with writing, people who become writers tend to be focused on writing from childhood. Why? Good question.

I have only some computer science courses from teenage years, and nothing was asked about them when I got my first coding job. The company just thought it worth letting me try, and I demonstrated ability. Getting that ability is about being excited by computers and coding from childhood.

It's like writing. Coding IS writing, for computers.

The people who will code our future will be dominated I firmly believe by people who started out as kids, fascinated by computers and coding on them. You look at big names who helped define things so far, and yes, they tend to be white males, but they were the ones who yup, had computers or access to them at an early age!

Like Steve Jobs is a great example, as check his history as to when he first got his eager hands onto a computer system.

The best thing we can do for diversity in coding is let kids code.

And it can be about priorities: if parents don't buy that computer for their kids, maybe someone should, as where would I be today if I weren't one of those kids with a computer in his hands at the age of 12 back in 1982?


James Harris

My take: contracts, agreement and money

Presenting opinions on my blog where I should note that I'm not pretending to be an expert on money matters, nor am I a legal expert. Simply musing about some things as I work through how I wish to do certain things. I find that talking things out on my blogs helps me figure things out.

And in various posts I've mentioned contracts, but haven't tried to define them, and will not here. Easy enough for someone to look them up and do research from plenty of sources I'm sure. Yet I do need to focus on one aspect of them which is agreement.

To me when you have a valid contract between two parties one can assume they agreed upon it, and that's a huge issue in and of itself, so will move on to consider my view that in contracts that matter to me, you have agreement upfront from both parties.

If that seems like a lot of words for nothing, consider a squeegee man. And I think it so AWESOME that I can link to a Wikipedia article on the subject, but plenty of people probably know about people who in major cities may go up to cars to clean their windows, and ask for money in return.

And my point of view is that if money is to change hands it should be primarily on a contractual basis with prior agreement. That lets both parties outline the boundaries of an agreement and allows for an equal exchange.

An area of relevance here is that if I put out ideas, where others may see value, like on this blog, there is no contract as far as I'm concerned at all, as those conditions are not met.

The other way to look at it is, say someone does you a favor, without asking, and then asks you to pay for it. My default answer is, no. There are limited instances say with a close friend or family member who helps you out by paying for something, like you ran out of milk or something and just pay them back, but otherwise, no way.

That some people will do you a "favor" and expect payment when you didn't ask for it, is the issue addressed here. I don't do it, and I don't recognize it.

And that's it. Fascinating to me how I can go from simple description to complex in talking this out and feel like I need every bit of it. And again, NOT an expert, nor am I pretending to be one. Just expressing some opinions.


James Harris

My fan opinion on support

To me the web is just so unbelievably awesome it's hard to express how wonderful it is, which has meant a lot more great content where I love being a fan. And every freaking time some entertainment executive insinuates that most people are naturally thieves it irritates me, so I have sat down and pondered things like money, and recently wrote about limited social trust on one of my other blogs. Money lets us have limited social trust and is a great system, but we want our money to actually support our favorite artists and not mean or ruthless people exploiting them.

And the web lets you know how that's done with plenty of documentaries where I've just been flabbergasted often watching how brilliant artists, where I've mostly seen ones about musicians, could have major hits, which I'd loved, not make much money, and even owe record companies!

As the web destroys that old system, some of these people turned to the law to try and hold on to ways of keeping the money flowing where thankfully that has been for the most part rebuffed. But I want to also put out there that yeah, if I love a musician's work, and notice that person is associated with an entertainment company which has a demonstrated history of screwing over artists there is a real hesitancy to buy anything.

Not a problem lately as I have no money, so have been relying on web radio, where I have talked about how I love radio, and have my own bought music collection. So yeah, talking about wanting to support my favorite artists but can't do it with money now, but will later as I notice songs I like and will buy when I have money again.

But thankfully I have a decent collection of bought songs, you nasty music executives who push the notion that fans are mostly thieves. Which is SO much a relief, when you have all these restrictions, and feel weird listening to the freaking web radio as if you're wrong, and can just go to the calm, controlled arena of your own bought songs--screw you if you're a nasty, mean executive, if you hate fans we fans don't like you!

Being a fan is great, where the web is making it better. And I think these issues will be worked out soon enough, where the right people will make the money and the mean people will at least have to shut-up versus irritating fans like myself. Even better if artists of all kinds work with people who yes, can get them paid, but also can do it without insulting their fanbase.

And that's my rant for the day. Felt good. Think I'll actually post this thing too.


James Harris

How do we know?

To me the web has greatly shifted things, offering up the opportunity to have VAST amounts of information, but not all of it is correct! Which raises the question of, how do we know when we're getting correct and valuable information?

For me it is a very personal issue having not just to do with what I think I know, but also about how convincing things I claim are to others. And the issue of false information is a giant one, as well, people DO lie. Or they make mistakes. Or rely themselves on flawed sources, who give them false information that they then spread to others, perhaps without knowing.

Like consider the finding of prehistoric paintings at the Cave of Altamira. What if they HAD been created by a fraudster? People engage in willful fraud all the time, sometimes as a joke. And with the web have come a lot of cases, where thankfully in some the fraudsters have revealed their pranks. Where web video has been a favorite area. And computers get ever better at manipulating photographs, so it's harder and harder to just trust what you see in a picture.

But the findings of cave paintings in many other places helped validate the story.

That isn't definitive though, as consider the issue of the crop circle.

Lots of expertise from lots of other sources went into validating the reality that our ancient ancestors actually painted those pictures in caves long ago. Which is important information for our understanding of our own species. So it's not a minor issue.

Or consider the story of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis, here is a quote from the Wikipedia article about him:

Described as the "savior of mothers", Semmelweis discovered that the incidence of puerperal fever could be drastically cut by the use of hand disinfection in obstetrical clinics.

From our more modern point of view it's hard to understand how people could fight over such an issue, but consider this telling quote from just a little further down in the article:

Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands...

But how do we know today? Well lots of things have been learned since then, as that was back in the 1800's, so unlike then thankfully today people understand that killing dangerous bacteria and viruses is very important in patient care. Coming to that knowledge took time, science, and maybe more luck than we like to admit.

Notice that I'm using the web quite a bit in this post! Primarily I'm relying on the Wikipedia which is crowd sourced in that it is generated by the activities of a lot of people, who write the articles, and importantly, edit them as well.

Today the web allows you to get information from one source, like the Wikipedia and then go check it against multiple other sources. Over time I've found the Wikipedia to be highly accurate in my opinion so I've learned to trust it. So I am not going to go over the articles referenced here looking for errors, and feel confident that is the best way to go.

But how do I really know?

Well I think I know from motivations. And again talking about the Wikipedia there are articles where I would check against different sources as I know that a LOT of people have interest in people thinking one way against another on that subject! But with these articles there's little reason for most to care, as they are settled areas.

Not a lot of heated debate out there about whether or not...wait a minute, should shift that to, no heated debate that interests me on these subjects! With the web I kind of figure that somewhere out there people are arguing on just about every subject imaginable. But for me these are areas where I have learned confidence, and the positions given resonate with what I think I already know!

And consensus reality is that information is likely to be accepted as true when it fits better with what one thinks you already know.

We build on what we've learned, and as human beings most of us learn a HUGE amount of information, which is pumped into us during childhood in this thing that a lot of people call school. And in that thing called school they test you on the information they pump into you too!

Society needs us to know things.

Every human civilization or community needs its members to have a certain amount of information in order for it to function. And social ranking within those societies varies based on what people think they know about each other.

Which can be a motivation for fraud. It can also be a motivation for discovery.

Empty tables waiting for customers by James Harris on 500px

The web is a connection engine: it allows information to flow more freely between individual human beings and to be disseminated more easily to a large number of people.

So while many focus on the frauds that we see on the web, I find it fascinating how much we know is fraud because of the web. 

Prior societies often believed much more was truth--which I'll state without proof--and had fewer examples of how often people lie, maybe even because so many high status individuals were doing much of the lying to maintain their status.

You know, like that king who might have images painted portraying him as grand, and powerful when in person he looked weak and pathetic. Today, he would need to work hard to hire some serious people to manage his image, and try to get him portrayed in the best light, as we say.

So one way we know to be skeptical is when we know someone needs us to know something in a particular way, when they know, it's not true! Or we think they know, we might know, so they want to know how to stop us from knowing, if you know what I mean!

I love writing those kinds of sentences.

Or, in other words, motivations matter.

So to find a way to end this post which is getting kind of long, I'm going to try to stop myself on that point of knowing why someone wants us to know something is important!

What's in it for them?

But even with that information, as we may not be able to get it, when many people think something is true, we may be dragged along with them, like pregnant mothers who had to rely on doctors who refused to wash their hands up until our modern age, unless you know enough, and have enough status to force things regardless.

But the consensus opinion tends to find the truth over time, as consider the modern issue of vaccinations! Where I feel confident they are important and should be had, while some wish to disagree where I will not dignify that discussion with any links.

And doesn't that example say so much? I feel VERY confident that vaccinations are very important, and know others have reportedly disagreed, which I see a public health crisis. My position then is to dismiss those who I see as wrong, and I'm very wary of validating them in any way, where I'm stuck pointing out my own behavior given the subject of this post: but how do I really know?

So now I can find an exit: having correct knowledge is a critical issue, where people will probably battle it out indefinitely as it can have such a HUGE impact on our lives at all levels, including helping to keep us or our loved ones alive, and even better than just living, living the best life possible.

Maybe the best thing then is to take the subject very seriously, and just keeping asking yourself the question: why do I think I know this thing to be true?

James Harris

Valuing good referral

Emails received by me earlier today were typical, mostly promotional things from various companies, including some suggestions. Seems social media companies today, like Twitter or Pinterest--both BMSA winners I should note--feel it important to constantly suggest you things. But something was a bit different this morning, as I raced to click on the suggestion, and gleefully added something that interested me! I had received a good referral.

But here's the thing, I find myself reflecting on all the not so good ones, and while it's great to get a good referral once in a while, it's not good enough. It's not human. As human beings I think we tend to value great referral for lots of reasons, like it helps us know when our friends are listening.

Ever have that "friend" who for the umpteenth time is suggesting something you've repeatedly told you don't like, can't stand, refuse to do, or really, really...why are you still having this conversation? Especially when said person just grins and races off to do whatever they want anyway, as yup, not really listening to you! They don't care what you think or want.

Todays social media companies are often like that supposed "friend" in my opinion, except for Netflix--which I'll note is a BMSA BEST nominee.

What follows will seem like a non sequitur but I'm a huge fan of Edward Snowden, think he's an American hero who should come back here as a hero, as defense of the nation is more important than following rules that hide violations of the US Constitution, but I think he gets it wrong when he thinks hearing the NSA can predict what we want is scary.

Anyone else who heard such news kind of secretly feel good that at least maybe SOMEBODY understands them? Hey, if the NSA can refer me to some good content...

And you know, I'm serious in the above! And I think it may be why that particular argument by Snowden doesn't resonate. We DO need to be understood and in the real world being understood takes work, which very few people or organizations will do.

Most of us have to just take what we can get.

So I went political in this post when that was not necessary but it is related. If you stopped reading in disgust that I would dare drag politics into this discussion out of the blue then you're not reading this part anyway, so for the rest of you....

Valuing good referral I think will drive the next phase of the social web.

Social media companies are still novel, so we're giving them a LOT of leeway as they're just so gosh-darned exciting! But soon as the novelty wears off, if a social media company sends a hum-drum referral, like through email, like I often get, then they will be dropped.

Oh yeah, so have a business idea to give away! What about a video referral company that suggests videos for you on the web, like ones on YouTube, which charges you after 30 days. Like say $5.95 US per month. So if you liked the videos, you pay. If you didn't, you don't. And they just bill you every 30 days for services provided. Or maybe for the year, but if you drop them at any time they refund you the money for months where you were dissatisfied.

Can you imagine?

Of course such a company would live or die on the value of its referrals.

As someone who never thought he'd suggest anything that looked like a subscription, I'll note I've learned from Netflix, and also, what I'm suggesting is still consistent with what I call Pay Back Value, as it's pay after you've received a service, not before.

So it just so happens that PBV idea has room for what you could call a subscription model, for what people have received which they value.

And yeah notice, what a burden on the company! If a business were to actually implement they would be getting paid for what value they've given, not what value they're expected to give, which is a flaw in my opinion in the subscription model used traditionally.

They must consistently give good referral or fail as a business.

Where I have speculations on how you might pick content to refer to people, which I can't justify with research sources--that focusing first on what people do NOT want to see, is the first step.

If I were more enterprising I'd put my social theories to the test, and start up such a company. But instead I'll just throw out ideas on my blog.

Which I just did. Done.


James Harris

More on sharing and why push is going away

Feel kind of old these days at 45, which makes me part of what is often called Generation X, and I focus a lot on unlearning, which is about trying to figure out new things that arrived with the web, as first you have to unlearn old stuff from the 20th century.

Like I still get fascinated by having visits from all over the world, but am finally unlearning the old view that says that was mostly impossible except for the rich and famous, and learning the new view that sharing useful content quite naturally pulls attention from people who can use it--wherever they may be.

That's a great thing, and it's removing push, at least definitely for me, and push is what I grew up with, where you have someone forcing content at you, including advertising, knowing you have limited places to go. And when I was a kid in the 1980's we didn't even have cable, and could really just get NBC, and PBS ok through the antenna, and CBS fuzzy, and that was television for us. If you didn't like what was on, all you could do was cut the television off and maybe read a book, which I did, often, but a lot of the time I just watched what was on.

Talking about these things is important as I got stuck for years feeling silly sharing things without knowing what benefit it was except being nice, until started getting those web analytics, and then started trying to process possibly being known--if anyone was curious enough to see who produced the content they were downloading--from over 150 countries.

Which is something I talk about a lot but less lately as I'm trying to process it. And process that information throwing out my old point of view, while bringing in the new 21st century view.

The numbers haven't been there though, which is where I'm still trying to learn. It's just kind of fascinating to have 1 visit from so many countries as you ponder, why this one visit registering from a country with millions of people online?

But things are improving as I improve my perspective, and as I unlearn bad notions from the past, like trying to make people do things. On the web, people sense that immediately and in my experience tend to do the opposite. And I'm the same way! When some person or organization starts trying to herd me, it's SO much easier just to wander off instead.

So I'm learning things. And I think, it IS different for people in my generation who have to unlearn and then learn again. Human beings aren't exactly built to do it that way. Supposedly you get taught things when you're a kid to last a lifetime. But it can also be lots of fun. And can open up a world of sharing options.


James Harris

Benefits of community perspective

Seems to me when you think about community, especially a healthy one, you don't imagine people charging each other for everything. And in fact money is usually considered separately from within community though important for the community to have. And that perspective helped me out immensely when I started trying to figure out what was going on with my open source project.

When I first officially became an open source developer by putting my project Class Viewer on SourceForge back February 2004, I wasn't sure what might happen. Guessed anything from it could simply bomb or that it could bring vast amounts of attention for which I wasn't sure I was ready. And vaguely thought that if the latter there might be some way to monetize to some extent.

Over a decade later I'm puzzling over what actually happened, and gained insights by realizing that I provided a valuable tool for the Java software developers community as evidenced by continuing downloads, and it was best to push the idea of money completely out of the picture.

And from a community perspective I'm quite satisfied as I posted memorializing 10 years, where I noted over thirty five thousand downloads from over 150 countries, which I think can be considered indication of usefulness. And downloads continue.

With so many posts on other subjects some may wonder if project development will continue, and as far as I'm concerned it will as the project is still supported. Just don't have anything else I want it to do as of yet, and I've been pondering other subjects.

It's interesting to me that the more community level your project is, the less money I think will be involved, unless you can pull in advertising, as people don't tend to associate handing money over for community type things. Or that's my theory, as I sat down and worked out my own theory of money, which I've posted about before, as yeah, still need to make it, but a community type project is NOT the way, in my opinion.

And have to emphasize it's my opinion as maybe others find something different, but I've seen plenty examples by now that seem to indicate the truth of that perspective, and why wouldn't it be that way? Fostering community is a different world than trying to get people to hand over money for some product or service.

And in fact profit as a primary motivation has long been seen as detrimental to community.

So there's kind of a conflict I think where people who figure out how to make money are currently the heroes, because hey, plenty of people want to be rich, while those with more community type project, like a lot of the work to build web structure globally, which is mostly open source, are showing up in the news as being impoverished.

Of course if you understand money then you know why, and it's no more of a big deal than noting that water is wet.


James Harris

My contemplation on radio

Was pleased to see on social media that recently was World Radio Day. And I grew up listening to the radio and it was a wonderful gift, as I realize MOST of the music I've heard in my life, I'm sure I heard on the radio. And, um, didn't have to pay for it, which I emphasize to talk about some of the weird that came with the rise of the web.

For instance, I'd see emphasis on this supposedly stunning damage done by the web, where people would claim that every listen of a song by someone who didn't pay was lost revenue!!! It was as if they had never heard of radio.

Um, for those of you who haven't heard, on the radio, gasp, they play music without asking you to pay. Some might retort, but yeah, you have to listen to ads.

Yes, but the ads pay for the radio, they do NOT pay the music artists.

How many people I wonder thought that artists get paid for radio plays?

Well, they do not. Radio is considered promotional. Which is a great perspective, and it's also pertinent I think to open source. For instance, you're possibly reading this post because of my open source project. It may be why you know this blog is here.

Promotion is great! And things operated just fine with a system where artists could hear their music and songs on the radio, being listened to by millions of people and be gratified without getting paid a penny for it.

But what about all this noise about the horrors of the web in supposedly attacking the music industry? My answer: It's all about distribution.

Turns out that music executives had a very profitable way of selling music to people which radio helped promote. All that promotion helped get people into music stores where they would mostly buy albums.

This physical movement of humanity drove a profitable business model which employed lots of people including people in the middle between the artists and the fans, including those music executives!

But, in contrast, the web allowed direct distribution--artists could conceivably get their music directly to fans without any of those people, including the music executives.

And it turns out that people quite prefer downloading their music versus getting up and going physically to some location to buy some physical thing.

After all, they just want the music, right? I know I do. Why do I also have to have some clunky piece of plastic with the music on it?

But those clunky pieces of plastic were profitable to music executives, and others admittedly as well. They wanted people to buy this  plastic stuff with music on it, whether they needed it or not!

So the music executives fought the web, and the web won.

The web is quite simply a much more preferred distributor of music. I know I like it.

Today a lot of listening to music is, I think, still promotional. And a lot of it is still through traditional radio where artists still aren't getting paid--yes web radio is a bit of a different animal, where they may--but do you hear whining from music executives about the horror, horror, horror of it?

People today are listening to music through so many other ways, and yes, people like me, when I find music I love, I love supporting the artists and will pay for it, just like before.

So the web didn't really change what was important. It just helps us to see what that important thing really is.

And with music, the best relationship is the direct one between the artist and fans.

Which the web simply strengthened.

Oh my, given the holiday today, isn't that sweet? I think we can call it a true love.

Such a beautiful thing to contemplate.

So radio, can you please be my Valentine? I do so love you.

You have been there for me and millions around the globe for as long as I can remember. Thank you.


James Harris

Following humans

Wow, it occurs to me that using a certain phrase in a title can drive traffic and with two recent posts high in the list of popular ones with that phrase in the title I will avoid it for this one. I'm not just interested in popular. Don't mind it. Like to study it. But don't chase it.

But the subject area is so fascinating I'll see what happens without explicit mention of that particular phrase with a subject that is important to me, which is trying to be sure you're following an actual human being, behaving like one, when you're out there, on that thing, which I won't mention, like on Twitter.

One thing I will admit I use is the follower to followed ratio. If you have more followers than follow you, then I am unlikely to follow you, unless it's clear you're ok from other sources. For instance I follow a lot of political reporters on Twitter who often follow more people than follow them. That's ok. But I follow them either from their organizations, or from other political reporters, like who follow or retweet them.

To me the issue of following actual human beings behaving like human beings versus a bot, which is following TONS of people, while only a few follow, only to drop them if not followed, and tweeting machine-like with things over and over again, is one of those issues where I'd like to brainstorm an answer, but it's also an area where a solution doesn't occur to me beyond the obvious.

And obvious to me is: if an account is behaving like a machine, maybe those running organizations should do something about it?

What good is such an account?

I mention Twitter but, hey, is it an issue for me elsewhere? Pondering.... Still thinking, but also typing which is interfering with my typing so should stop and serious consider...oh yeah! Have had a few cases on Google+, and roughly same as on Twitter now that I think about it, but that's maybe once a week or two? And only when I'm tweeting a lot? Or on Google+ posting a lot?

It's weird: it's like the very behavior certain companies want from you attract the kind of followers you don't want! While NOT doing that behavior so much, like when I don't tweet that much and post more rarely then I'm more protected, I think. Though haven't done an objective study of it.

I don't think that's the answer companies like Twitter and Google+ want though.

So good luck following humans out there! Interesting that I assume that's what people want. And thanks for the surge of people who web analytics are telling me are showing up, though I'm not sure what you're doing once you get here, or exactly why you came. But you're welcome regardless and I just don't want you disappointed. So let's see without mentioning that certain subject, though this post is actually about it, how popular it will be.


James Harris

Why I like transparency

The idea of transparency comes up a lot around web issues, which to me is just committing yourself to giving people information they need to make an informed decision, so it's a great thing. Now there can be questions about what information is actually needed, but when you are working with folks instead of fighting or trying to fool them, then those can be worked out.

Now here's what I think is a fascinating article on the subject about Reddit:

Reddit hops on to the transparency bandwagon, releases its first report

Where I've linked back to the article on TechSpot.

What jumped out at me immediately was how few requests Reddit got from the government. Quoting from the article:

"... Reddit received a mere 55 requests for data on 78 of its users last year..." (italics mine)

That is amazing to me, but let's contrast with what the article says about someone else:

"Considering that Reddit boasts more than 174 million users, the number of requests the company received is quite low. In contrast, Google’s latest transparency report revealed they had received 3,105 government requests..."

And Reddit didn't even honor all of them or accept requests not to disclose:

"Reddit says that several government requests it receives contain demands to withhold notice from users that carry no legal weight, adding that the company actively disregards these non-binding demands..." (italics mine)

I loved that one.

Kind of have the feeling the government recognizes diminishing returns on pushing Reddit around.

I really like transparency and cheer reports that give people information they need! And that information can tell you quite a bit about so many things of importance.

James Harris

Computers don't care about race

Made a post where I gave my position on diversity in coding, and to me the reality of writing code for computers is extremely important though often lost in commentary on the subject, as computers don't care about any of that stuff. Computers don't care about race, or sex or any of those things that trip up human beings.

And I have thought that to myself while working through compiler errors which the compiler dutifully shows me, over and over again even when I'm struggling for some reason through a massive debugging session which I hate. Prefer pristine code that just runs right from the start, which I actually have more of now, but starting out, there was that dread when doing the compile and screen would fill with compiler errors.

And the compiler didn't snicker at me. Didn't suggest that maybe I just wasn't good enough.

Computers offer that wonderful arena where this brilliant device with awesome computing power will just try to do what you tell it to do. No backtalk. No snide remarks. No questioning your worth as a human being.

So to me writing computer code is where discriminated against people should go! Because the computer is like this brilliant friend which JUST DOES NOT CARE about that stuff.

And only merit should matter when it comes to writing computing code as in actuality that's all that matters anyway.

Computers are tearing down divides like race and sex or other irrelevant stuff. Because if you hire some guy because he looks like you versus someone who can write brilliant code then you will pay the price down the line.

And the difference between good coders and crappy coders is so huge there is no hiding it.

A good coder can do in days what a team of crappy coders can't do in a year.

And I assure you, if you have people paying millions for development, and they have the metrics to see that Team A, which just randomly happens to be very diverse, can code with half the price or less, than Team B, where all the team look the same, they will go with Team A. Without hesitation.

Being someone who has been in the position of looking at what happens in the real world, hey, I was a Java team lead. Got picked out of a diverse group of people, but reality was the people from this country were mostly white guys. Others were from India and Pakistan.

Being in charge of that team was a fascinating experience and I learned everything I need to know about diversity in coding, where it's simple: computers don't care about that stuff.


James Harris