If you invested one cent in the year 1 AD, earning two percent interest annually, how much money would you have today?
Millions? Billions?
Nope.
You would have over 1.5 quadrillion dollars. That's 1.5 million billions.
What if you received ten percent interest? Well, then you would have more dollars than there are atoms in the known universe.
The math is straightforward. But I was shocked when I first heard it.
Why the disconnect between the math and our mental estimate? Our natural inclination is to think linearly. Most physical things that we have interacted with over the ages behave linearly. If I turn the faucet in my sink, I expect a linearly corresponding amount of water to come out. If I want my cookies to be a little more well-done, I will leave them in the oven a linearly corresponding amount of time.
But compounding interest does not behave linearly. The reason makes sense: each year's compounding means that next year you have more to fuel the process. It's something of a positive feedback loop. Compounding interest thus behave exponentially - and the math shows that.
Technology exhibits this same compounding effect.* Think about the latest darling in technology: the smartphone. That was built upon technologies that came before: cellular transmission and the internet. Those technologies were, in turn, built on prior tech: radio/tv broadcast and computers. We could trace further back to semiconductors, then to metal refineries, and so forth.
Each new innovation doesn't just move us forward, it accelerates us forward. Moore's Law seeks to quantify this effect. It states that computational processing power doubles every 18 months. If that were your bank account, that would mean that you would earn about 60% annual interest.
So what does that mean for us, right now? Well, think about all of the technological progress we have made in the past 30 years. In the next 30 years, we can expect an increase of about one hundred million percent. What does one hundred million percent of our current technology look like?
I certainly don't know. But it sure will be fun to watch it unfold.
*If you read my blog often, you'll notice that I often write about what I'm currently reading. This post was inspired by Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity Is Near. It will likely inspire several more posts.
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Sunday, October 19, 2014
The Power and Subtlety of Spin
I've written before about how pervasive 'spin' is today. But I just happened to read more about it in You Are Not So Smart by David McRaney.
In the chapter entitle "The Misinformation Effect," he discusses an interesting experiment conducted in 1974 at the University of Washington. Participants watched a video of a car crash and were then asked to estimate how fast the cars were going. But the participants were divided into groups and the phrasing of the question was different for each group. These were the different variations:
- About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?
- About how fast were the cars going when they collided into each other?
- About how fast were the cars going when they bumped into each other?
- About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?
- About how fast were the cars going when they contacted each other?
Remember, everyone watched the same video. The only difference is the wording of the question. Here are the average answers for each participant group:
- Smashed: 40.8 miles per hour
- Collided: 39.3 miles per hour
- Bumped: 38.1 miles per hour
- Hit: 34.0 miles per hour
- Contacted: 31.8 miles per hour
The experiment then went a step further. The participants were asked if they remembered broken glass in the video. There actually was no broken glass, but the participants with the 'smashed' question were twice as likely to remember seeing it.
I was floored when I read this. Changing one word in a question can have a powerful impact on what people believe.
Once you understand this concept, you start to see it everywhere. Right now, the big news topic is Ebola. But what phrases are used around it? Those phrases change your view of Ebola, regardless of the actual statistics and facts. Is it possible that the individuals using those phrases are intentionally taking advantage of this effect?
Of course, it's much harder to notice this when what you're reading or hearing agrees with your own stance on the matter. But that's Confirmation Bias and another topic entirely.
The point is, words have connotations. Those connotations make an impact on what we believe. Remember that the next time you watch Fox News.
In the chapter entitle "The Misinformation Effect," he discusses an interesting experiment conducted in 1974 at the University of Washington. Participants watched a video of a car crash and were then asked to estimate how fast the cars were going. But the participants were divided into groups and the phrasing of the question was different for each group. These were the different variations:
- About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?
- About how fast were the cars going when they collided into each other?
- About how fast were the cars going when they bumped into each other?
- About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?
- About how fast were the cars going when they contacted each other?
Remember, everyone watched the same video. The only difference is the wording of the question. Here are the average answers for each participant group:
- Smashed: 40.8 miles per hour
- Collided: 39.3 miles per hour
- Bumped: 38.1 miles per hour
- Hit: 34.0 miles per hour
- Contacted: 31.8 miles per hour
The experiment then went a step further. The participants were asked if they remembered broken glass in the video. There actually was no broken glass, but the participants with the 'smashed' question were twice as likely to remember seeing it.
I was floored when I read this. Changing one word in a question can have a powerful impact on what people believe.
Once you understand this concept, you start to see it everywhere. Right now, the big news topic is Ebola. But what phrases are used around it? Those phrases change your view of Ebola, regardless of the actual statistics and facts. Is it possible that the individuals using those phrases are intentionally taking advantage of this effect?
Of course, it's much harder to notice this when what you're reading or hearing agrees with your own stance on the matter. But that's Confirmation Bias and another topic entirely.
The point is, words have connotations. Those connotations make an impact on what we believe. Remember that the next time you watch Fox News.
Tuesday, September 16, 2014
Sunday, September 7, 2014
Chasing the Latest Trends
I'm an engineer. I love playing with the newest toys. But acquiring those toys has a cost - and not just in terms of money. More important is the time invested to learn the new system and transition from the old.
But hey, for me, the benefit (fun) usually outweighs the cost (money/time).
A problem can arise, though, in domains where the technology is changing rapidly. In such a domain, the technology could potentially change so rapidly that if you keep up with everything, you are constantly in a learning mode and never get to a productive mode.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that is what is currently happening with HTML and JavaScript libraries.
One large-scale web application I worked on started with the Prototype library (heh, yea). In mid-project we switched to OpenRico (remember that guy?). Then we said, "Oh hey, the newest thing is MooTools." Then there was the big one, jQuery. Backbone? Oh, Angular is so hot right now. But what about Google's new Polymer?
Granted, it's exciting to see the evolution of the web platform. But if you spend all of your time moving your project to the latest, hottest library so that you can trash talk all of the old fogies who still use the passé crap, you'll never be able to get any real work done.
But, come on, we can't still be coding in Cobol, right? Nobody wants to spend their whole career working on old technologies. Definitely! So how do we decide if we should stick with something old or jump to the new kid on the block?
Nassim Taleb (author of The Black Swan) gives the answer:
The longer a certain idea or technology has been around, the longer we can expect it to survive.
He uses the example of a chair. We may imagine the future with chairs made of exotic materials that fly. But the simple wooden chair has been around for thousands of years. Chances are, in 50 years, we will still be sitting on simple wooden chairs. Why? They have proven their effectiveness.
In terms of software, "future-proofing" is very very hard to do. But applying Taleb's principle can help us. For example, raw HTML has been around for a long time and so will likely stick around a long time into the future. So maybe we pick a library/framework that is as close to raw HTML as possible.
Another example: Relative to other JavaScript frameworks, jQuery has proven its effectiveness over a good span of time. Sure, there will be a new king someday. But it's prudent to wait and see who can prove more effective over time.
How long is that time? I don't know the answer to that; but I'm sure it varies by domain.
Again, as an engineer, this 'waiting' is against my natural inclination. I want to get the new toy asap. But if I'm responsible for a piece of software that my company will be maintaining years from now, I must force myself to make prudent decisions.
But hey, for me, the benefit (fun) usually outweighs the cost (money/time).
A problem can arise, though, in domains where the technology is changing rapidly. In such a domain, the technology could potentially change so rapidly that if you keep up with everything, you are constantly in a learning mode and never get to a productive mode.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that is what is currently happening with HTML and JavaScript libraries.
One large-scale web application I worked on started with the Prototype library (heh, yea). In mid-project we switched to OpenRico (remember that guy?). Then we said, "Oh hey, the newest thing is MooTools." Then there was the big one, jQuery. Backbone? Oh, Angular is so hot right now. But what about Google's new Polymer?
Granted, it's exciting to see the evolution of the web platform. But if you spend all of your time moving your project to the latest, hottest library so that you can trash talk all of the old fogies who still use the passé crap, you'll never be able to get any real work done.
But, come on, we can't still be coding in Cobol, right? Nobody wants to spend their whole career working on old technologies. Definitely! So how do we decide if we should stick with something old or jump to the new kid on the block?
Nassim Taleb (author of The Black Swan) gives the answer:
The longer a certain idea or technology has been around, the longer we can expect it to survive.
He uses the example of a chair. We may imagine the future with chairs made of exotic materials that fly. But the simple wooden chair has been around for thousands of years. Chances are, in 50 years, we will still be sitting on simple wooden chairs. Why? They have proven their effectiveness.
In terms of software, "future-proofing" is very very hard to do. But applying Taleb's principle can help us. For example, raw HTML has been around for a long time and so will likely stick around a long time into the future. So maybe we pick a library/framework that is as close to raw HTML as possible.
Another example: Relative to other JavaScript frameworks, jQuery has proven its effectiveness over a good span of time. Sure, there will be a new king someday. But it's prudent to wait and see who can prove more effective over time.
How long is that time? I don't know the answer to that; but I'm sure it varies by domain.
Again, as an engineer, this 'waiting' is against my natural inclination. I want to get the new toy asap. But if I'm responsible for a piece of software that my company will be maintaining years from now, I must force myself to make prudent decisions.
Monday, August 18, 2014
Why Ideas Come to You in the Shower
Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, is a surprisingly insightful guy. I've been following his blog for some time and I read his latest book. If you like thought-provoking stuff, I highly recommend them.
He just made this post about creativity:
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/creativity_hack/
There have been several articles floating around the web lately about how inspiration comes to us when we take our mind off of the problem. For example, this one.
The idea always goes something like: "you have to let your subconscious work at the problem." That sounds reasonable, I guess. But it doesn't go far enough.
Scott posits that "creativity is something that happens naturally so long as your brain is not actively suppressing it for some sort of survival advantage... Putting it in simpler terms, creativity is a mental luxury that your brain will not allow until it feels safe or until the watchdog part of your brain gets busy handling some routine task such as driving the car."
He goes on to suggest that research (A-B tests) should be done to determine which distraction methods yield the most creativity. I suppose the challenge here would be how to quantify 'creativity.' But I'm sure that, at the very least, we could measure some proxy for it.
He just made this post about creativity:
http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/creativity_hack/
There have been several articles floating around the web lately about how inspiration comes to us when we take our mind off of the problem. For example, this one.
The idea always goes something like: "you have to let your subconscious work at the problem." That sounds reasonable, I guess. But it doesn't go far enough.
Scott posits that "creativity is something that happens naturally so long as your brain is not actively suppressing it for some sort of survival advantage... Putting it in simpler terms, creativity is a mental luxury that your brain will not allow until it feels safe or until the watchdog part of your brain gets busy handling some routine task such as driving the car."
He goes on to suggest that research (A-B tests) should be done to determine which distraction methods yield the most creativity. I suppose the challenge here would be how to quantify 'creativity.' But I'm sure that, at the very least, we could measure some proxy for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)