Capitalogix

Billion ... With A B

Humans are notoriously bad at large numbers. It's hard to wrap our minds around something of that scale. We're wired to think locally and linearly, not exponentially (it's one of the reasons I love AI so much).

Here are a couple of ways to help you understand a billion dollars. 

via AskOpinion

Next, let's look at spending over time. If you were to spend a dollar every second for an entire day, you would spend $86,400 per day. You can do that for approximately twelve days if you have a million dollars. With a billion dollars, you can do that for over 31 years. Ignoring the difference between net worth and cash, Jeff Bezos could spend $9M per day for over 31 years.

If you make $100K a year, you can earn $1 million in 10 years. At the same rate, it would take you 10,000 years to make $1 billion.

Here is an example framed around spending money.  Imagine that someone making $50K a year decides to buy a laptop, a car, and a house. Now we're going to make a relative comparison of the cost of those items for people making a lot more than $50K per year.  To do this, we'll shrink the cost of the price of those items (to see the relative cost-to-income ratio). For a millionaire, a laptop might cost the equivalent of $100 dollars, a Porsche would cost $3,000 dollars, and a house would cost $25,000. Now, let's say you're Mike Bloomberg, and you're worth $60B. A laptop's relative cost would be pennies, a Porsche's relative cost would be less than 60 cents, and a mansion's relative cost would be around $500 dollars. You could have everything you ever wanted for a minute fraction of your wealth. 

For a different perspective, here's an interesting visualization from informationisbeautiful. It shows various examples of things worth billions of dollars – including the personal wealth of several billionaires. 

via informationisbeautiful

Okay, last one before I show a video ... 

Let's try explaining the concept of a Billion through time. Fifty thousand seconds is just under 14 hours. A million seconds was 11 days ago. A billion seconds ago from today? 1990. Pretty crazy. 

Here's a video from the 1970s that helps you understand scale through the power of tens – and an exploration of our universe.

 

Hope you enjoyed this.  Let me know what you think.

First Photos From the Webb Telescope

The Hubble Telescope was conceived of in the 1940s, but launched in 1990. It revolutionized our ability to see the complexities of the universe. 

Now, the Webb Telescope is taking it to the next level. 

via NASA

The picture above shows the "Cosmic Cliffs," which is actually the edge of a young Nebula called Carina. 

Below, is a picture of a cluster of galaxies called Stephan's Quintet. 

via NASA

Not only does this help us see far away systems that we've never seen before, but it also provides detail to the things we have seen.

First, bring order to chaos …. Then, wisdom comes from making finer distinctions.  With that in mind, I'm excited to see how this drives the future of science. 

Here's a brief video from Neil Degrasse Tyson on the new telescope. 

 

via NBC News

Here Are Some Links For Your Weekly Reading - July 17th, 2022

Here are some of the posts that caught my eye. Hope you find something interesting.

Lighter Links:

• Biden is Very Unpopular. It May Not Tell Us Much About the Midterms. (FiveThirtyEight)
• The 23 Best New Productivity Apps for 2022. (FastCompany)
• Meet the Man Keeping Blockbuster Alive. (DallasNews)
• Was Warfare Responsible for the Origin of Complex Civilisation? (NewScientist)
• Create an Action Figure Version of Yourself With Hasbro's "Selfie Series". (Hypebae)

 

 

 

 

Trading Links:

• Does Elon Musk Have a Strategy? (HBR)
• JPMorgan CEO Dimon Sums up U.S. Economy in One Paragraph And It Sounds Bad. (CNBC)
• Where Did the Stock Market's $7 Trillion Loss in Value Go? (Marketplace)
• The Speedy Downfall of Rapid Delivery Startups. (Wired)
• Why Hasn't the Russian Economy Tanked Yet? Putin Has Been Preparing for this Moment for Years. (Fortune)

 

 

 

Here Are Some Links For Your Weekly Reading - July 2nd, 2022

Here are some of the posts that caught my eye. Hope you find something interesting.

Lighter Links:

• Musk Breaks 9-Day Silence on Twitter, Posts a Picture With the Pope. (Reuters)
• Your Internet Life Needs a Feeds Reboot Here's How to Do It. (TheVerge)
• Analysis of Compound Curse Words Used on Reddit. (FlowingData)
• The Track Record of Futurists Seems ... Fine. (Cold-takes)
• How Netflix Grew from DVD Service to a Hollywood Disruptor with Over 200 Million Subscribers That is Now Losing Customers. (Insider)

 

Trading Links:

• Here's How Long Bear Markets Last And How Stocks React When They End. (ComplianceX)
• Families May Be Offered Mortgages of 50 YEARS that They Can Then Pass to Their Children. (DailyMail)
• Amazon Delivers Some Bad News for the Economy. (TheStreet)
• Crypto's Domino Effect is Widening, Threatening More Pain. (Wall Street Journal)
• 'A Lot of People are Just Not Understanding What's Going On': A 30-Year Market Vet Lays Out 7 Reasons Why a Recession is Imminent And Says Stocks Will End the Sell-Off Down 60%. (Insider)

 

 

Dall-E .... Not Wall-E: AI-Generated Art

Neural networks creating images from text isn't new.  I wrote about it in 2019 when AI self-portraits were going viral. 

 

Mauro Martino via YouTube

Just like VR is getting a new lease on life, despite its age, AI-generated art is getting another 15-minutes of fame. 

This past week, a new model called Dall-E Mini went viral.  It creates images based on the text prompts you give it – and it's surprisingly good.  You even can give Dall-E absurd prompts, and it will do its best to hybridize them (for example, a kangaroo made of cheese). 

Unfortunately, like our current reality, Dall-E may not be able to produce cheap gas prices.  Nonetheless, it is fun to try.  Click the image to enter the concepts you want Dall-E to attempt to represent.

via Dall-E mini

While the images themselves aren't fantastic, the tool's goal is to understand and translate text into a coherent graphic response.  The capabilities of tools like this are growing exponentially (and reflect a massive improvement since I last talked about AI-generated images).

Part of the improvement is organic (better hardware, software, algorithmic evolution, etc.), while another part comes from stacking.  For example, Dall-E's use of GPT-3 has vastly increased its ability to process language. 

However, the algorithms still don't "understand" the meaning of the images the way we do ... they are guessing based on what they've "seen" before.  That means it's biased by the data it was fed and can easily get stumped.  The Dall-E website's "Bias and Limitations" section acknowledges that it was trained on unfiltered internet data, which means it has a known, but unintended, bias to be offensive or stereotypical against minority groups. 

It's not the first time, and it won't be the last, that an internet-trained AI will be offensive. 

Currently, most AI is essentially a brute force application of math masquerading as intelligence and computer science.  Fortunately, it provides a lot of value even in that regard. 

The uses continue to get more elegant and complex as time passes ... but we're still coding the elegance. 

 

Onwards!

A Look At The Best Athletes

There is a huge difference between good and great.

Apparently, there is often a huge difference between the great and the greatest.

In sports, there are many fantastic athletes whose names we will remember.  Then there are the athletes who stand apart from the rest ... like Michael Phelps or Usain Bolt. 

I recently stumbled upon a few charts highlighting the stratification between the top 1% and the #1. 

Tom Brady

via NY Times

To put that statistic in perspective, no other quarterback has even played in 35 postseason games ...  but that is another measure of Tom Brady's greatness. 

Jerry Rice

sdbernard via Reddit

Some prominent names are missing from this list - like Julio Jones or Megatron - but, clearly, Jerry's performance stands apart from other legends of the game.  For context, Julio Jones only had 61 TDs, which is relatively low on this chart, but averages 92 yards per game ... which is so high that he'd be off the chart. 

Wayne Gretzky

via NumberHound

Wayne Gretzky is a sports legend, but this chart really puts it in perspective.  Leader by a large margin in both assists and goals.  He also has one of my favorite quotes -

“A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.”

Here's another interesting Wayne Gretzky stat: 

Together, Wayne and Brent hold the NHL record for most combined points by two brothers - 2,857 for Wayne and 4 for Brent,^[2] and are second overall in points scored by any number of brothers (behind the six brothers of the Sutter family who combined for 2,934 NHL points - 73 more than Wayne and Brent, although the Gretzkys' combined totals are greater than any five of the six Sutters.) - Wikipedia on Brent Gretzky

Serena Williams 

via Yahoo!Sports

What about Nature versus Nurture?

Genetics and upbringing might play a part in greatness.  There are several great sibling combos like the Gretzkys, the Mannings, and the Williams sisters. 

Both Venus and Serena are dominant athletes, but Serena is in the running for one of the most dominant athletes in any sport. 

Have you seen any other crazy stats like these?  I'd love to see them. 

Are We Alone In The Universe?

Information Is Beautiful has an interactive data visualization to help you decide if we're alone in the Universe. 

As usual, for them, it is well done, fun, and informative. 

For the slightly geeky amongst us, the model lets you adjust the estimate by playing with two equations: the Drake equation and the Seager equation.

The Drake equation estimates how many detectable extraterrestrial civilizations exist in our galaxy and then in the Universe based on factors like habitable planets, change of life, and then intelligent life, and then the amount of time a civilization sends signals into space. 

The Seager equation is a modern take on the equation focusing on bio-signatures of life that we can currently detect - for example, the number of observable stars/planets, what % have life, and then % chance of detectable bio-signature gas. 

via Information Is Beautiful

For both equations, Information Is Beautiful lets you look at various default options – but also to play with your own choices to adjust the outcomes. 

For example, the skeptical default answer for Drake's equation shows 0.0000062 communicating civilizations in our galaxy (which is still 924,000 in the Universe).  The equivalent for Seager's equation shows 0.0009000 planets with detectable life in our "galactic neighborhood" and 135,000,000 planets in our Universe. 

Even with the "lowest possible" selection chosen, Drake's equation still shows 42 communicating civilizations (Douglas Adams, anyone?) in the Universe.

via Information Is Beautiful

One of the most interesting numbers (and potentially significant numbers for me) is the length of time a civilization sends signals into space.  Conservative numbers are 420 years, but optimistic numbers are 10,000+. 

If any aliens are reading this ... don't worry; I won't tell.  But, we will find out if you voted in the last election.

Where Are The Aliens?

This week, there was a U.S. congressional hearing on the existence of UFOs.  While there wasn't any proof of aliens, they did admit to phenomena that they couldn't explain with their current information.

There are many stories (or theories) about how we have encountered aliens before and just kept them secret.  For example, in 2020, a former senior Israeli military official proclaimed that Aliens from a Galactic Federation have contacted us - and that not only is our government aware of this, but they are working together. 

In contrast, I have found it more realistic and thought-provoking to consider theories about why we haven't seen aliens until now.

For example, the Fermi Paradox considers the apparent contradiction between the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial civilizations and the various high probability estimates for their existence. 

Let's simplify the issues and arguments in the Fermi Paradox.  There are billions of stars in the Milky Way galaxy (which is only one of many galaxies).  Each of these stars is similar to our Sun.  Consequently, there must be some probability of some of them having Earth-like planets.  Further, it isn't hard to conceive that some of those planets should be older than ours, and thus some fraction should be more technologically advanced than us.  Even if you assume they're only looking at evolutions of our current technologies - interstellar travel isn't absurd.  Thus, based on the law of really large numbers (both in terms of the number of planets and the length of time we are talking about) ... it makes the silence all the more deafening and curious. 

If you are interested in the topic "Where are all the aliens?"  Stephen Webb (who is a particle physicist) tackles that in his book and in this TED Talk.   

 

via TED

In the TED talk, Stephen Webb covers a couple of key factors necessary for communicative space-faring life. 

1. Habitability and stability of their planet
2. Building blocks of life 
3. Technological advancement
4. Socialness/Communication technologies

But he also acknowledges the numerous confounding variables, including things like imperialism, war, bioterrorism, fear, moons' effect on climate, etc. 

Essentially, his thesis is that there are numerous roadblocks to intelligent life - and it's entirely possible we are the only planet that has gotten past those roadblocks. 

What do you think?

Here are some other links I liked on this topic.  There is some interesting stuff you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand or enjoy. 

• 75 Reasons We Don't See Aliens 
• Wait But Why: The Fermi Paradox
• A New Theory on Why We Haven't Found Aliens Yet
• A List of Solutions to The Fermi Paradox
• Dissolving the Fermi Paradox, Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University

To Infinity and Beyond!

Top 10 Most Overhyped Technologies (From 2008)

Just because something is overhyped, doesn’t mean it’s bad. Gartner's hype cycle is a great example of this. Every technology goes through inflated expectations and a trough of disillusionment, regardless of whether they're a success or failure. Sometimes a fad is more than a fad. 

Humans are pretty bad at exponential thinking. We're not bad at recognizing periods of inflection, but we're very bad at recognizing the winners and losers of these regime changes. 

 

 

There are countless examples. Here's a funny one from Maximum PC Magazine in 2008. It shows that hype isn't always a sign of mistaken excess.  This list purported to show things that were getting too much attention in 2008.  Instead of being a list of has-beens and failures, many of these things rightfully deserved the attention.

 

It's been 14 years since this came out. How did the predictions hold up?

Facebook has become Meta, and is one of the big five. The iPhone has sold more than 2.2 billion phones, and accounts for more than half of Apple's total revenue. And the list keeps going. Multiple GPU video cards, HD, 64-bit computing, and downloading movies from the internet ...

It's hard to believe how poorly this image aged. 

The trend is your friend while it continues. Just because something is overhyped - doesn't mean you shouldn't be excited about it. 

Onwards!

Happy Mother's Day

 To those of you with young children, here's a peek into your future.

After years of hard work and your best efforts (OK, mostly your best efforts) ... I predict that your adorable bundles of joy will someday wish they could send you this card.

So, take a moment to think about your Mom ... and remember that she was very young when she did those things to you ...

... and what you make them mean is up to you.

Here's a funny clip from SNL in honor of Mother's Day.

 

via SNL

Hope you celebrated all the important mothers in your life. And, to the mothers, I hope the people around you recognize how much you sacrificed for them. 

Happy Mother's Day.