Sunday Selection 2014-08-17

Around the Internet

Speaking Polish is no different from speaking “Male”

I had the pleasure of meeting MIT graduate student Jean Yang when she came to visit Cornell a few weeks ago. This post is an account of her internship experience at Facebook and is an interesting look at the different cultures that make up the technology industry (and the clashes between them).

Anthony Bourdain’s Theory on the Foodie Revolution

I’m not a big watcher of documentaries, but I’ve always enjoyed Anthony Bourdain’s shows. I’ve always found him an interesting personality with surprisingly deep (if quirky) observations of the world around him. If you enjoy his shows, you’ll enjoy his views on American food culture and it’s changing face.

Making remote teams work

One of the best things about being a “knowledge worker” is the ability to work from anywhere, assuming there’s a strong Internet connection (which actually narrows things down quite a lot). Mandy Brown’s rules of thumb for making remote teams work is based on her experience at Editorially and covers both things to do (and not do) and tools to use.

Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU

Humans Need Not Apply

If you’re a regular reader of this blog, chances are you’ve already seen this video. It’s about how technology is making obsolete large classes of skills that we often think require human intelligence and involvement. This includes things like customer service, education and medicine. As automation steadily increases and economic progress remains one of the key forces in modern society, chances are likely that large numbers of otherwise skilled, hard-working people might soon be out of work through no fault of their own. Though we may not see massive unemployment tomorrow (or even within this decade), there is definitely reason to be worried and seriously consider what your skills and corresponding job prospects are in the coming decades.

Amazon’s Digital Wonderland

A few weeks ago I found myself in Seattle, WA. Contrary to popular belief, it was a rather bright and sunny few days (if somewhat chilly). Here’s an obligatory picture of the Sky Needle.

Sky Needle

Anyways, on the first day there I fought a mostly losing battle against travel-induced tiredness (I was up at 4:30 in the morning) and walked around downtown for a while, somewhat zombie-like. I spent the most of the next day in one of Amazon’s new buildings attending their first ever PhD Symposium. I got to meet Amazon employees like Swami Sivasubramanian, one of the creators of Amazon’s Dynamo database, as well as fellow graduate students like Rahul Potharaju. The day was full of interesting presentations and the breaks in between were packed with lots of cool conversations. I presented my current project, Merlin(excuse the visuals) and got some good feedback. All-in-all it was a great day, I had a wonderful time and I hope Amazon keeps having more of these research Symposia.

But that’s not what this post is about. Personally, I think of Amazon as a retailer first and a technology company second. In fact, I’ve even written a post about their exemplary customer service. Even though I’ve known about EC2 for years and have used both S3 and Glacier as personal backup, the idea of Amazon as a technology company has always been at the back of my mind. In fact, it was only while attending the symposium that I really thought about the full weight of Amazon as a technology services company.

After coming home I looked up the keynote from Amazon’s recent Re:Invent conference. The keynote shows off some of their more interesting recent technology (including new EC2 instances) as well as client technologies built on top of it (including companies like Netflix and Vimeo). I also stumbled across Dave Winer’s post on Amazon’s support of static JavaScript applications and why that’s so interesting and important.

The more I think about it, the more I like Amazon. They make incredible technology, employ lots of really smart people and have a refreshingly honest and direct business model in an industry dominated by advertising and harvesting user data. From computation, to storage, to scalable DNS, Amazon offers a suite of services that’s just about stunning in its breadth. Though I’ve had little use for their services personally (apart from Glacier for backup), I can see myself extensively using their systems and technology if I was building any of type of scalable, distributed service.

Even as I write this, I’m trying to come up with excuses for trying out more of their technology. What would I build? I honestly don’t know. But looking at the range of Amazon technologies and thinking about the possibilities reminds me of the feelings I got when I first started programming and learning about computers.

In many ways, the world has changed since I started writing code about 12 years ago. I had a lot of fun writing LOGO and BASIC programs and then hacking together little Perl scripts. Today I find myself wondering what the loosely coupled services and technologies offered by Amazon and other cloud computing services enable. I wonder if the new programmers of today, still learning on primarily single-threaded, single-box computing platforms, should be encouraged to move on to the brave new world of instantly accessible, practically unlimited computing power. I wonder what we’ll achieve if we were to take distributed, connected computation as the starting point, rather than the state of the art.

As an ending note, let’s think about Microsoft. It’s become standard to talk about Google as today’s Microsoft, but I’m starting to wonder if that title doesn’t rightfully belong to Amazon. I’m not talking about monopolistic activities or questionable business practices, but rather their similarities in making computing more popular. Microsoft’s goal (ostensibly) was to put a computer in every household. Amazon, for its part, has commoditized high-powered computing and distributed systems and made them available to people with modest budgets. I suppose the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Multiplicity

Over the last weekend I played around with an interesting service called Editorially. It’s essentially a stripped down, online text editor, with support for Markdown formatting. However, it’s most attractive feature is its support for multiple versions, collaboration and editing. It’s an interesting project and it just added WordPress and Dropbox export (I wrote the first draft of this post in it and then exported to WordPress). Like many such services, I’d rather use a text editor and git to get the same effect. However, more than the service itself what interests me is something I read on their blog post announcing their export features:

On the web today, a single article may be published on the writer’s personal blog, collected in an ebook, syndicated on several magazine or news sites, and reblogged across different platforms and communities.

This notion of having the same piece of work shared in multiple places is not new, but is becoming increasingly popular, especially with the rise of of group blogs (often with guest authors), online curation, and services like Medium. Craig Mod, whom I find to be one of the most insightful writers on the intersection of technology and publishing, started one of his recent pieces with this not-quite-disclaimer:

This was originally published in Hiut Denim’s yearbook. I’ve republished it here, over on Hi and over at Medium because, well, the beauty of the web is multiplicity. More on that later.

Multiplicity. I like that word. And yes, there is something to admire in just how easy it is to copy and share on this, the modern Web. But is it a thing of beauty? I’m much less certain than Mr. Mod, especially since this form of multiplicity is heavily dependent on third-party, often proprietary services with motives that are unclear at best and
questionable at worst.

What Mr. Mod dubs “multiplicity” and call beautiful can be explained in older, cruder terms: copy-and-paste. In many ways, the current web does us a disservice — we have been taught to accept and we settled for multiplicity when what we really wanted was transclusion, first described by an early pioneer of applied computation — Ted Nelson.

Whereas multiplicity on the web takes the form of copy-and-paste, transclusion would take the form of reference. Instead of taking the literal text (and perhaps the styling and images) of a document and replicating it for each copy, we have a single canonical copy of a document (and by document I mean any information object) that can be referenced and transcluded from other places. For example, Mr. Mod could have published the original piece on his website and Hi and Medium would simply transclude it in their own versions. When someone visited the Hi or Medium pages, they would reach out and embed the original post’s content within their contexts.

Transclusion offers many advantage over copy-and-paste. For one, any changes to the original are automatically reflected wherever it is transcluded. Second, attribution becomes much easier. Instead of carefully maintaining references to where you found a particular piece of information or text, the transclusion machinery can manage it for you. In fact, such a system needs to keep proper source information to work properly. Transclusion also makes the job easier for automated systems like search engines. Instead of coming across multiple versions of the same text in different places, a crawler would simply follow back the transclusion links and be able to index the original authoritative copy.

Copy-and-paste certainly has a place, even in a hypothetical transclusion-enabled Web. One major application is of course backup and archival, which would be impossible if there was only ever a single copy. That being said, personally I would rather have transclusion than not. For one thing it would make navigating the current morass of social media and publication startups easier.

Today, if I write something (say this blog post) and want to put it online, I have to decide where to put it. I could put it on my own website, hosted on my own server, accessible at my own domain name, where I retain full control. However, maybe I want the attention generated by publishing on a platform like Medium or Tumblr. Maybe I also want to post a link and excerpt to Facebook and Twitter and Google+. Once people read it, they might want to make posts about it on their blogs and reference it. It might get picked up discussed on random forums and message boards, discussion sites and Q&A sites.

To do that today requires a lot of manual intervention and thought. First I’d have to copy and paste the text into all the different services. Then I’d have to copy-and-paste a link into the various social media services. If I wanted to add an excerpt, I’d have to do more copy-pasting and editing. If there was discussion on other places, there’s no guarantee I’d find out about it. I’d have to keep a close eye on all the discussion sites, and hope that any individuals talking about it on their own sites send me an email (or some other kind of notification) about their posts.

In a world where transclusion is the default, things become much simpler. As we’ve already discussed, the various other publishing platforms would simply transclude the content of my post. Social media services would transclude particular paragraphs (or even particular sentences). Similarly, discussion sites and other people’s blogs would transclude the particular parts of the post they want to discuss. This has a secondary benefit: I can look up the transcluders and automatically be aware of who’s talking about my post (and what parts in particular). In summary, transclusion would make sharing and discussion on the web a whole lot easier, smoother and interactive.

Unfortunately, I don’t believe that we’ll achieve transclusion any time soon. In particular, I would say most publishing and social media services have incentives to prevent transclusion — they want a unique piece of your work. Deferring to a canonical copy elsewhere that others can transclude as well is the last thing they want. That being said, we can still dream, can’t we? Perhaps, with the continuing popularity of ebooks and DIY publishing we might even start having some limited forms of transclusion. And maybe, just maybe, people like Mr. Mod and services like Editorially will start pushing for a transclusion-capable world.

Sunday Selection 2013-10-20

Around the Web

Inside GitHub’s super-lean management strategy and how it drives innovation

It’s always interesting to see how groups of people organize to do useful work, especially in the age of startups and distributed workforces. This article takes a detailed look at GitHub’s structure and how their “open allocation” strategy affects their work-style and productivity. Interestingly, it also looks at how non-product activities (like internal videos and social meetups) can be planned and executed without a strict hierarchy.

Should we stop believing Malcolm Gladwell

As a graduate student I’ve become increasingly comfortable with reading scientific papers over the last two years. As a side effect of that, I’ve become increasingly skeptical of popular science books. They’re often lacking in proper references and I’m somewhat distrusting of the layer of indirection between me and the (hopefully) rigorous scientific work. This articles focuses on Malcolm Gladwell and his particular brand of scientific storytelling. It’s been a few years since I read any of books, so I can’t comment from personal experience, but if you’re interested in knowing how much science is actually in popular science, this article is worth your time.

Scott Adams on How to be successful

I recommend this piece with a bit of caution. It’s not your typical “how to be successful” piece. There isn’t much on the lines of “find your passion” or “all your dreams will come true”. In fact, this piece is very pragmatic, very down-to-earth and just a little bit mercenary. It’s for just those reasons that I think it’s worth reading — it’s a good antidote to the cult of “follow your dreams” that seems to have become popular. There are other gems in this piece such as “goals are for losers”. If you’re looking for unconventional and refreshingly honest career advice, read this now.

Books

I’ve been cutting down on video watching in favor of more reading. This week’s recommendation is:

Getting Things Done

GTD is a bit of an obsession in the tech community, spawning an endless number of variants, apps and how-to guides. I’ve been using one of those apps for a while (OmniFocus) and I’ve been familiar with the general GTD approach, but I just started reading the book last week. Surprisingly, the book has a pretty different feel from the GTD articles and guides you’ll find around the web. David Allen doesn’t just give you organizational strategies but also takes the time to explain why particular strategies are a good idea and how they may or may not work for you. I’ve often thought that the full-blown GTD system is a bit overkill, but reading this book makes me think that at a certain level of busy-ness, it’s actually worth it. After reading this book you’ll have no doubts that GTD is a carefully thought out, well-founded system and might be worth a try even if you’re not always super-busy.

 

Google wants your endorsements

Google’s updates to its Terms of Service have been made the rounds of the Internet last week. The particular bit that caught people’s attention was about something called “Shared Endorsements”. What are shared endorsements? From Google’s announcement:

Feedback from people you know can save you time and improve results for you and your friends across all Google services, including Search, Maps, Play and in advertising. For example, your friends might see that you rated an album 4 stars on the band’s Google Play page. And the +1 you gave your favorite local bakery could be included in an ad that the bakery runs through Google. We call these recommendations shared endorsements and you can learn more about them here.

Essentially, if you +1 a particular product, or write a review, then Google can use your name and picture when it displays ads related to that product. This move has understandably ruffled some feathers and merited a piece in the New York Times. John Gruber says that he is “looking forward to hearing from Google fans how this is acceptable” (as if Apple would do anything different if they had a social network).

Personally, I don’t consider this to be a violation of privacy. I consider social networks to essentially be public spaces. For me, that means I rarely upload personal photos and whatever text I post I would be willing to put on a public blog. Now, I would be peeved if Google took a negative review I wrote about a product and turned it into an endorsement. The examples show that Google shows a snippet of whatever review I write and a star rating. I would prefer there be some textual analysis happening to make sure that reviews are actually positive before using them as an endorsement. Since I don’t see any sign of that happening, I’ve decided to opt out. To be clear, my objection is not to Google using my reviews to sell products — I simply want to know that they use them accurately.

I do wish that we had an enforceable expectation of privacy in social networks, but by and large, we don’t. As users of Facebook, Google+ or any other social network we should be aware that their purpose is to make money for their shareholders. Without a payment option, it would be naive of us to expect that our data would not be monetized in every conceivable fashion.

For what it’s worth, I think Google has handled this move in the proper way. They made a public announcement and detailed in clear, unambiguous language what their plans were. They also provide a clear option to turn off Shared Endorsements. The opt-out page reiterates what Shared Endorsements are and provides a single clear checkbox. In contrast, Facebook has been doing essentially the same form of endorsement for a long time now and I don’t remember seeing a public announcement when they started. Their privacy settings are also infamous for being confusing and hard to navigate.

I would love for there to be a social network that’s free of advertisements and whose goal isn’t to data-mine and sell my data the first chance they get. In absence of such a network, it’s up to us, the users, to make the best of what’s available. I do like the utility that these services provide and I am willing to let them have certain information in order to continue providing that service. However I also make sure that I opt out of measures that I don’t want to be a part of. I don’t think Google+ has done the best job of building a social network (see the debacles relating to real names and identities), but this particular move has been better handled than most.

Not so Svbtle

A few weeks ago I got an invitation to Dustin Curtis’ hip new(ish) blogging platform called Svbtle. The original announcement created a bit of a stir around the Intertubes. It was supposed to be both a clean, minimalist writing environment and a fresh new platform for vetted, competent writing. Here’s a relevant excerpt (emphasis mine):

I wrote this engine entirely for myself, without the intention of opening it up to other people. But since realizing that it has improved the way I think and write, I’ve decided to open it up to a small number of vetted bloggers. At least at first. The goal is simple: when you see the Svbtle design, you should know that the content is guaranteed to be great. Network bloggers are encouraged to keep quality high at the expense of everything else.

If it sounds provocative, that’s probably because it was meant to be. The emphasized line in particular, is fighting words, as they say. It’s been about a year and half since that post (at least that’s how long I think it’s been, Svbtle posts don’t seem to have visible timestamps). Now that I have an invite, I thought it would be interesting to see how things have held up. Is Svbtle really all that Mr. Curtis cracks it up to be?

At face value, the original claim seems to have fallen flat. The idea for a minimalist writing platform was copied and open-sourced almost immediately and there’s also a Svbtle-like WordPress theme. Given that Svbtle will let you use your own domain name, it’s hard to tell that you’re reading a Svbtle post unless you care to look. So much for seeing and recognizing the Svbtle design. But what about the rest of the claim? Are we really guaranteed that the content is great?

Svbtle currently positions itself as a “new kind of magazine”. The current About page reads as follows:

We’re a network of great people mixed with a platform that takes the best things from traditional publishing and combines them with the best parts of the web. We want to make it easier for people to share and discover new ideas.

The Svbtle blog announced that they received an undisclosed amount of VC money (good for them). They currently have over 200 writers and hope to build “the future of journalism”. Svbtle is building us up to expect not only good writing, but great writing and journalism. The current state of Svbtle doesn’t give me much confidence. As of this writing, many of the posts on the Svbtle front page would probably only be of interest to a certain section of Silicon Valley resident.s Posts like “The 3 competitive Defenses of Enduring SaaS Companies” and “The Single Best Content Marketing Channel for your Startup” make me think that Svbtle is more a thinly veiled mirror of Hacker News than a magazine devoted to ground-breaking journalism.

To me at least, Svbtle is not so much subtle as confusing. Who are these 200 writers? Why did they get invitations? They claim to span “at least eight disciplines” and journalism doesn’t seem to one of them. If Svbtle is supposed to take the best things from traditional publishing, then where are the editors and expert photographers? If Svbtle is going to be “an important place for the sharing of ideas” then where are the comments and where do I send Letters to the Editor?

Furthermore, this confusion isn’t just on the outward, public face of the endeavor. As a writer, it’s not clear to me what I get from publishing on Svbtle. A group of 200 writers is not exactly exclusive, especially when I have no idea what the invitation criteria are. I don’t see any Terms of Service, or an Export button for that matter. The invitation email claims “One of our main goals is to help members become better writers”, but there’s no mention of how that’s supposed to happen. Is there a peer review or editorial process? If there is, what are the qualifications of the editors and reviewers? I just wrote and published a short post and there doesn’t seem to be any of those things. Can I be kicked out and my posts deleted at a moment’s notice?

I suppose that for people dissatisfied with their current blogging platform Svbtle might be an interesting alternative. But it’s not for me. I’m perfectly content with WordPress when it comes to actual writing and Tumblr when it comes to everything else. I’ve never been distracted from my writing by the various controls and buttons and Svbtle lacks too much of what I’d consider essentials for a modern blogging platform.

Of course, it’s certainly possible that I simply don’t get it and that Mr. Curtis has some grand scheme that I don’t grasp. For the time being, though, it seems like Svbtle is simply just yet another blogging platform. It’s a different flavor than WordPress, Tumblr, or Medium, and some will be drawn to it for that reason. At this point, someone will no doubt point out that I won’t get it unless I try it. While I’m skeptical of that line of reasoning, I would like to give Svbtle a fair chance. Maybe the writing experience really is that much better. If I can think of something that needs publishing and isn’t relevant to The ByteBaker, then my Svbtle blog is where it will go.

(As an aside, I’ve been thinking of starting a research blog, along the lines of Lindsey Kuper’s Composition.al,. I’d use Svbtle for that, but there seems to be no support for inserting syntax-highlighted code snippets.)

In the meantime, if you’re looking for modern, journalistic writing that covers a variety of topics, I recommend a publication like New Republic.

To thine own reading habits be true

It’s been about two weeks since the untimely demise of our dearly beloved Google Reader. Since then many replacements have been stepping up to the plate. I’ve been using Feedly, but I hear good things about Digg Reader too. A few days after that Anil Dash wrote a post entitled “The Golden Age of RSS” where, among other things, he provides a very long list of RSS readers across various platforms. He also makes four suggestions about improving the state of the RSS ecosystem and two of those four are about the actual reading experience. While I have immense respect for Mr. Dash (and Dave Winer), I’m not excited by either of his suggestions.

First off, Mr. Dash seems to not be a big fan of the mailbox style of displaying feeds (a la Google Reader) or the magazine style (a la Pinterest and Feedly). He seems to rather favor Winer’s river of news style. Secondly, he says that he wants a blog reader — essentially a single site RSS reader that kicks in when you visit the site and gives you a content-focused, style-independent view of the site. While both of these suggestions seem interesting (and I hope someone picks them up and does cool things with them) neither of them is particularly appealing to me.

Personally, I like the mailbox-style of reading feeds. I like to be able to look through a list of titles, read the ones that sound interesting, and get rid of the rest (currently by mass marking them as “read” — not the best interface, but it gets the job done). I don’t want a river of news — I want a digest of interesting things that I can read at my own leisure, irrespective of when the author posted them. My RSS reading list isn’t a source of news, it’s a selection of authors who write interesting pieces and whose posts I don’t want to miss. Now, an argument could be made that if some post is really good, it will filter through my Twitter or Facebook circles and I’ll hear about it. But I have neither the time nor the energy to sift through those streams to find interesting things my friends are posting. I’d rather just have the good stuff come directly to a single known location. And this brings me to Mr. Dash’s second recommendation (and why I disagree with it). I don’t see much personal value in the sort of site-specific reader he wants. The whole point of having RSS for me is that I don’t have to visit the website. See above arguments for a central location for posts from approved sources.

Does this mean that river-of-news or site specific RSS readers are a bad idea? No, of course not. Anil Dash and Dave Winer are both very intelligent people with proven track records and if they’re advocating something it’s worth looking into. All I’m saying is that they’re not the best idea for me. Reading habits are a very personal thing. We like to read different sorts of things and we like to read them in different ways. Dave Winer likes to be plugged into a river of news, I prefer to have a stack of articles waiting for me at the end of the day.

I truly believe that the web is a democratic medium — it allows us to define both how we publish and consume content (within limits). While we’ve explored the publishing aspect in lots of different ways (sites, blogs, tumblelogs, podcasts, microblogs, photoblogs, vlogs), the consumption side has perhaps seen a little less action. The death of Google Reader seems to have sparked a new burst of RSS-related innovation. Once we’re done picking our favorite clone, moving our lists and syncing our devices, maybe we can think about how to make the consumption experience as democratic as the publishing experience.