Showing posts with label Twitter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Twitter. Show all posts

Monday, July 28, 2014

Personal blogs are dead; long live professional blogs?

I meant to re-post this sooner, "Should we mourn the end of blogs?" I identify with Mel Campbell's sentiments:

I keep on blogging because, compared to tweeting for thousands of followers or posting to hundreds of Facebook friends, the single-digit pageviews my blog now attracts are a paradoxically private way to express myself.

Yep, call me a Gen-X dinosaur, but I'm sticking with my blog, too. ("I'm so 2008; I'm so 2000 and late.") To me, prose is still more powerful and precise than photo or video. Most times I don't even add photos to my posts. Why bother? It's not my content; my value added is the written word.

That said, the format of this blog is mainly re-posts, a kind of Twitter without the character limit. This blog is basically my personal filing cabinet of opinions and what's most important in world events... minus the Kardashians, naturally.

Believe it or not, I get anywhere from 300 to 900 pageviews a day, (over 200,000 overall), and that's without banners, monetization, SEO, linking to other blogs, or otherwise trying to promote it. Most of my acquaintances don't even know I have a blog. Those pageviews are simply because I've got 2,613 posts and counting, some of them on arcane or abstruse topics, and so I get Google's respect.

At any rate, like they say, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, so in honor of all you Millennials with yer Instagrams, enjoy this collection of cheesy, awkward, terrible and obnoxious selfies!




I'm shocked that Geraldo, after decades as a distinguished TV journalist, went in for this venal self-promotion thing on social networks like the kids.


Actually she still looks really f-able.

Inappropriate? I'm on the fence.

Is this what passes for self-expression nowadays?
"These flames make my teeth look really sparkly."
Don't worry, I think it's really Tyler Perry in there, acting.
Good thought, bad timing. 
???
"Well, I'm the only one here so you must be talkin' to me!"
Dude, I tried, but enlarging this photo didn't help.
And this concludes my gettin' with the times.


By Mel Campbell
July 16, 2014 | Guardian

Sunday, June 2, 2013

Can't find hate? Here's a map

This "Hate Map" of the U.S. is very interesting.  Certainly population density plays a role -- there's nobody in flyover country -- but frankly I was surprised to see so much hate speech in the Rust Belt and Northeast, where many of my liberal comrades dwell.  

California really stands out though as a highly populated bastion of tolerance, just as we liberals would expect.  Way to be, Left Coast!

Let me note that this research started from a data base at the University of Kentucky, woo-woo. 

I also note that all this hate speech was brought to us by the great folks at Twitter.  Man, what a worthless fucking invention Twitter is!  And even if you avoid Twitter like the plague as I do, you still see the bilious tweets of celebrity idiots like Amanda Bynes reprinted as mainstream news. (Sigh)

But Twitter's not the only problem.  And at least it's not anonymous. Most open online forums and 'Comments' sections on websites, including sites like CNN and FOX, are filled with nastiness of every kind.  Online anonymity obviously allows many people to turn into raging dicks, racists, sexists, homophobes and political extremists.  The Internet slang word "troll" falsely suggests such behavior is confined to a few malcontents.  It's not true. There is meanness everywhere on the 'Net, from top to bottom.  

I really worry that the Internet is not making us more rude, less tolerant communicators, and terrible listeners.  

By the way, I always try to be polite to commenters on my blog, as my long-time readers (all 3 of you) may have noticed. 


By Kate Chow
June 1, 2013 | NPR

Thursday, May 2, 2013

Cuban: Twitter 'hackcrash' shows danger of HFT

There is an elegant way to solve the problems posed by High Frequency Trading: a financial transactions tax that would be so small as to bother only the algorithm-driven robot traders that make thousands of trades in a second.

UPDATE (05.08.2013): (HT: Ritholtz) Here is a nifty video from Nanex showing 1/2 second of HFT of Johnson & Johnson stock on May 2, 2013:





By Mark Cuban
May 2, 2013 | Blog Maverick

In case you missed it, the @AP twitter account was hacked , which resulted in a tweet that sent markets spiraling down only to recover a few minutes later once it was revealed that the tweet was a fake. Here is more info.

Why did the market head lower so quickly ?  This is from Paste Magazine:

“The events last Tuesday were likely caused by the news-reacting algorithms that are designed to electronically read and interpret machine-readable news,” said in an emailed response by Irene Aldridge, a hedge fund consultant on algorithms and author of High-Frequency Trading: A Practical Guide to Algorithmic Strategies and Trading Systems. “Most of the web content is machine-readable, so lots of algos are built on reading and reacting to news such as the Twitter hack… Clearly in the Twitter case, trading machines did not ascertain credibility of the tweet.”

So how does the future of HFT look in light of Tuesday’s AP hack tweet incident?

Aldridge said in terms of the technology, “going forward, many algorithm designers will take into account the Tuesday situation, and will build ever more sophisticated approaches.”

There is no question that there is an ongoing arms race between algorithm designers, as well as a technology race to improve Language Processing and Translation abilities (disclosure, I'm an investor in Linguasys).  Billions of dollars are being invested to make trading without humans faster, cheaper, smarter. The problem is that no matter how smart you make machines, they will never be smart enough in our lifetime to detect all levels of deceit and fraud. Particularly online.

No one has any idea, other than the traders using the algorithms, which twitter accounts the algorithms follow and read. The same with websites. Which do they track and read ?  If its worth it for someone to hack the @AP twitter feed in order to attempt to destabilize the markets why wouldn’t the same people or others with similar goals set up thousands of twitter accounts that for some extended period are a solid source of news and information, attempting to build  a following that include algorithms reading their feed , knowing that at some point they will tweet market moving fake information ? (Note, you don't have to actually follow an account to get access to their feeds, there are services that provide the twitter hose to financial companies).

It costs absolutely nothing to try to make this happen.  If you follow the writings of Nanex, you know that mini flash crashes happen in individual stocks all the time. That there are algorithms fighting algorithms all the time.  Its to the point where it sounds like the plot of a science fiction movie and it is.

Our markets are at risk.  I can’t quantify how big a risk there is, but I can tell you this, as long as there are algorithmically driven trades that happen in thousandths of a second, we can not eliminate that risk.  As long as that risk exists, there is a significant opportunity for hackers , terrorists (yes terrorists) and crooks to negatively impact our market to the tune of billions of dollars and possibly. This is the rise of the software controlled market. 

There is no such thing as bug free software.  If you are an investor, learn how to hedge.

Saturday, April 20, 2013

Re-post: What makes - and un-makes - young jihadists?

I want to re-post this article from 2009 about what made -- and un-made -- young British jihadists: "What Makes a Young Person Embrace Death and Murder? Former Jihadists Speak Out."

Here's what I had to say then:

It's not really that complicated. If white Western societies can successfully integrate Muslims, they will not feel alienated and look for a radical identity. (I cannot fail to mention that, for whatever reason, I haven't yet figured it out, the USA is light years ahead of Britain in this regard.) And if white Christians would be, well, more Christian, and embrace Muslims with love and acceptance, there would be many fewer terrorist recruits. That is not to say, "It's all our fault," but we do have a role to play, and a responsibility to build tolerant, loving societies -- as saccharine and heretically un-military as that solution may sound in today's post-9/11 world, where violence is always the answer.

From what we know so far about the alleged Boston bombers, they seemed to have been isolated loners who never felt like a part of U.S. society. The older brother said he had never made an American friend; he didn't understand Americans.

It's telling that they didn't have their parents or strong family ties in the U.S. either that could have offered psychological support.

It seems that they sought out a radical Islamist ideology that was ready and waiting for them on the Internet, to fill the void inside themselves, and perhaps to re-make themselves in a heroic image to compensate for their personal failures.

Many people will accuse me of trying to justify the alleged killers with these simple observations. People will accuse me of arguing that Islamist ideology played no role.  I'm not.  Explaining is not the same as justifying. It may make political hay and provocative punditry to paint all U.S. Muslims with the broad brush of "terrorist," but it's a dead-end conclusion. It's not operational. We must be smarter... and more human.

UPDATE (04.21.2013): OK, now a more detailed picture of the younger brother, Dzhokar Tsarnaev, is emerging. Apparently he "partied" in his dorm after the Boston marathon bombings. Maybe he wasn't such a loner after all. 

On the other hand, I know how loosely Americans use the word "friend," and how lonely U.S. life can be even while surrounded by smiling "friends," especially for non-natives.  In the U.S., a "friend" is anybody who says, "hey" to you on the street, shares a table with you in the cafeteria, or once had a drink with you. The American understanding of "friend" really confuses and ultimately disappoints many emigres to America, who after a time tend to seek out other foreigners, especially from their respective home countries, who share a similar understanding of friendship. So how many real friends did Dzhokar have, if any?.... Didn't he confide in a single friend besides his brother? 

Moreover, I think it's telling that Dzhokar Tsarnaev maintained an account on VKontakte, the Russian equivalent of Facebook. The stories I've seen didn't mention his having a Facebook account. Isn't that a bit weird? I don't know a single American teen or 20-something without a Facebook account. This kid emigrated to the U.S. when he was 9 or 10, and yet apparently he felt more connected to people in the former USSR. 

He did have a Twitter feed though, apparently. Here's one of those tweets: "Jahar @J_tsar: a decade in america already, i want out.

UPDATE (05.02.2013): So it looks like Dzhokar Tsarnaev partly confided in three of his buddies, two of them from the ex-Soviet Republic of Kazakhstan, that he knew how to make a bomb; and asked them to take whatever they wanted from his dorm room after his photo appeared as a suspect.

Monday, February 20, 2012

Facebook too shall pass

This gives me hope. We may just outlive Facebook and Twitter. But even if we don't...

... Just think, a thousand years from now digital archaeologists might dig up the remains of your LOL cats and vacation photoblog and ask in awe and amazement, "Who were these people?" and "What were they thinking?" Because you'll be long dead but personal data never dies.

(There won't be LinkedIn then either because everybody knows that in the future there is no more money, hence no need for job networking; it'll be a socialistic paradise enabled by rational scientific advancement and one-world government where everybody wears identical unitards and gets along.)

But for those of you crave constant contact with your Facebook, there is also a bright side to a future without it: Perhaps, just perhaps, the posted minutiae of your trek to Starbucks or to pick up your dry cleaning may actually seem interesting to human beings a few millenia from now, as opposed to people today.



Friday, January 7, 2011

Desperate Facebook suicides: OMG! 4COL!

Another last cry for help in vain on Facebook. Sad.

Here's a thought: next National UnFriend Day, maybe you should perform a little test by posting your intention to kill yourself and see which of your hundreds of "friends" bothers to try and stop you. Anybody that doesn't post at least a lazy "Stop! LOL," "Oh no! LMFAO" or "2BZ4UQT" should be un-friended that very day.

Or better yet, stop using Facebook and Twitter altogether. As I've said before, I just don't get them. And if I don't get it, it must not be that cool.


January 5, 2011 | Huffington Post

Friday, December 10, 2010

Pew poll: Twitter is dumb

This just goes to show Twitter is a total media-driven and Facebook/Tumblr cross-posting phenomenon that normal people -- even avid Internet users -- want nothing to do with.

If you subtracted Kim Kardashian and the people following her tweets and commenting on her tweets and cross-posting her tweets, I bet that number would go down to about 1 percent.

The truth is that Twitter is ideal for people who have a hard time using up all 140 characters allowed.

Back in my day we blogged and sent e-mails, and by gum, we liked it!

Eight Percent of Internet Users Tweet



Eight Percent of Americans Use Twitter
By Adrian Chen
December 10, 2010 | Gawker.com

URL: http://gawker.com/5711522/eight-percent-of-internet-users-tweet

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

I don't get Facebook either

Ms. Jones took a break from reviewing movies to totally read my mind.

She has written one of the best lines ever, IMHO: "I hate [Facebook] without understanding it, like a dog barking at a vacuum cleaner."

Admittedly, I'm on Facebook because I succumbed to peer pressure, too. I look at it maybe once every two months, and I still don't get it. Just like I get Twitter even less. Call me old fashioned, but back in my day, we used to write e-mails and blog. You youngin's with your Walls and thousands of friends just can't understand.

To Jones's credit, she didn't say anything about our increasingly atomized, bowling-alone society which beckons pseudo-social networks like Facebook to step in and fill the yawning void of our lonliness and disconnectedness. Thankfully she left that for me to point out and feel smart.


Facebook Friends: God Died to Get Away From Us
By Eileen Jones
May 23, 2010 | Exiledonline.com

facebook090403_1_560

Maybe somebody could explain Facebook to me. I'm on it and I still don't get it. I hate it without understanding it, like a dog barking at a vacuum cleaner.

Facebook's in the news for violating people's privacy and selling off their information, for general malfeasance and sleaze, the usual stuff. Boycotts are called for. It's made me wonder: is something as apparently rotten as Facebook worth the trouble of boycotting? If you're misguided enough to join Facebook in the first place, don't you deserve everything you get?

[By the way, there have been gobs of articles lately about how Facebook founder, wunderkind, and CEO Mark Zuckerberg is a total prick who cares nothing about our privacy, or people in general. - J]

Let me just say in my own defense, I never intended to be on it. As soon as I heard about it, I sensed it was sinister. "What's it good for?" I'd ask, and the eager Facebook shill would say, "It lets people find you, people you used to know."

"Holy God," I'd say. "I'd pay to make that not happen."

For years, I maintained a semblance of human dignity. But the nagging got so intense, I finally succumbed to peer pressure about six months ago. I set up my Facebook "profile," which was no sweat. Nothing but name, rank, and serial number, that's all you ever give up. As for a photo of me, well, I laughed at the very idea. A photo of somebody could go up there, as long as it wasn't me. Morticia Addams, maybe?

Lots of people hailed me right away, wanting to be "friends." Some of them I actually knew, and didn't hate, so there was a brief interlude that was practically heartwarming. Jolly greetings ("Eileen!! How ARE you?!") and all that. So that was okay.

But I was immediately disturbed about the whole "wall" phenomenon. See, people who are your "friends" write short messages, and any replies from their "friends" also show up, and pretty soon you've got streams of communiqués, many from "friends of friends," aka total strangers, messing up your "wall." For sheer randomness, it's like reading the graffiti in a public toilet, only minus all the interest, because public-toilet-writing generally involves the thrill of anonymous venting, heavy on the obscenities.

On Facebook, nobody vents at all. Nobody even swears. They used to, apparently. During its first phase, as millions of tiresome gasbags will tell you, Facebook was the site for stupid college kids to revile their professors and employers and describe their embarrassing sex lives and post pictures of themselves drunk. Then professors and employers starting reading Facebook, and the feds went after the Einsteins who posted their "Should Obama Be Killed?" poll, and the party was over.

Which meant Facebook was safe for the oldsters. Oldsters are more cagy but still fundamentally stupid. They persist in providing absurdly generous "profile" information about themselves, throwing their identities open to the world, but they're all carefully pretending to be nice and upbeat and not-crazy. Look, I'm all for strangers being nice in public; hell, I'm in favor of bringing back dueling, just to guarantee that everybody thinks twice before being impolite to others on the street. But I don't want to go to a special site for blasts of can-do perkiness ("I had a great day today yodeling in the Swiss Alps!") or random endorsements ("Evelyn is a fan of STP Motor Oil").

The whole point of having friends, as opposed to "friends," is that you don't have to relentlessly keep up appearances and strike poses. You can get out of the public eye and relax and curse and rant and glower and generally express yourself. So I didn't understand the point of Facebook. Pretty soon I was only using it to send private messages to actual friends, and what's the point of that? I already knew e-mail was a great invention.

The queasy blend of friends and "friends" is central to the Facebook experience. People who might get some sane use out of Facebook are advertising something, a business or a service or something. Facebook might have originated as a means of personal connection, but now it seems like strictly business disguised as personal connection, and the rhetoric of it is just as horrible as that sounds. Everybody writes in ad-sized bits, everybody "likes" a million products and services, everybody affirms things and exclaims over things like TV pitchmen. It's as if everyone you know is turning into those horrible shills who blog about things they pretend to like for company kickbacks.

(You might say that's nothing, so what—pretending to like something for cash is no big deal. But if so, you're already a goner. What you like and dislike is fundamental, and if you've lost touch with that, you're a pod-person. Ask Ralph Waldo Emerson, who said the pressure to conform in America is so intense that most adults can't even articulate to themselves what their true preferences are, and that almost no one lives as a free human being but the occasional small boy, who will fearlessly declare the desires of his soul and body, and damn the consequence.)

Coca-Cola-Facebook

After a few tentative attempts at posting on Facebook, I retreated into horrified silence. I couldn't do the lingo. Then I decided not to try to do the lingo. It's kind of like advertising for yourself, if your self was a plastic novelty toy: lots of cute photos and "hurray for everything" patter. I can only stand to look at it once a week. But I can't seem to cut ties, no matter how obviously I should. I mean, many friends are on there, posting like mad, poor sods! Plus there's a terrible fascination about Facebook: it's so godawful, but so generally embraced. It made me start to believe there really is such a thing as "postmodernity," and that most people have cheerfully given up the idea of having an authentic self. Happy artificial constructs! Meanwhile I'm a leftover modern type, still hanging back in the era of alienation, clinging to my likes and dislikes, occasionally fretting about the death of God.

god_farside

Speaking of the death of God, I went to a graduation ceremony the other day, where the keynote speaker was a celebrated sound editor on many famous films. He did a PowerPoint presentation, heavy on the cornball humor that plays so well at graduations, showing the students that they are all "iGrad" units who need to upload the "experience app" and prepare for the world by self-branding, getting a logo, marketing themselves as product. "Because you ARE all products," he said encouragingly. "Universities are in the business of PRODUCING graduates, in the hopes that you will all become PRODUCTIVE in the world." The kids ate it up, and the profs smiled, and the parents applauded enthusiastically.

Way in the back, I broke out in a cold sweat.