Capitalogix

2024 Update: What Happens In An Internet Minute

The Internet is both timeless and timely in an interesting way.  While what's popular changes seemingly instantly, and what we're capable of doing on it continues to grow exponentially.  Ultimately, the Internet is the digital town square of a global village, where all types and professions gather. 

In 2011, I first wrote about what happens in 60 seconds on the Internet. 

I've since updated the article a few times.

• 2014
• 2018

Each time I write the article, I'm in awe at the amount of data we create and how much it has grown.  For example, looking back to 2011, I was amazed that users created 600+ new videos and 60 new blog posts each minute.  Those numbers seem quaint today. 

 

via DOMO

Shortly after I started sharing the articles, Data Never Sleeps started standardizing the data, which is helpful. 

Today, the Internet reaches 5.4 billion people.  Most of them also use social media. 

To add some more perspective, 

• In 2008, 1.4 billion people were online; in 2015, we were at 3 billion.  Now, that number has almost doubled again. 
• In 2008, Facebook only had 80 million users, and Twitter (now X) had 2 million users.
• In 2008, there were 250 million smartphones, and now there are almost 7 billion of them!

It is mind-blowing to consider what happens each minute on the Internet today.  For example, the 104,000 hours spent on Zoom represents a significant societal shift ... and the over 500 hours of video uploaded to YouTube highlights the incredible amount of content that's being created to share. 

In 2023, the world created approximately 120 zettabytes of data ... which breaks down to approximately 337,000 petabytes of data a day.  Broken down even further, it calculates to more than 15 Terabytes of new data created per person. 

The calculations about what happens in an Internet minute will change rapidly again because of AI.  Consider the amount of computing power and data it takes to power all of these new GPTs. Now, imagine the amount of new data that AI is creating.  Then, try to imagine the challenge we'll have figuring out what's real, what's made up, and what is simply wrong or intentionally misleading.

In addition, as more devices and digital WHOs start creating and sharing data, it's hard to fathom the ramifications and sheer increase in data. 

I'm curious about what the next five years have in store for us as we approach the 40th anniversary of the World Wide Web. 

The Law (And Flaw) Of Averages

The law of averages is a principle that supposes most future events are likely to balance any past deviation from a presumed average.

Take, for example, flipping a coin.  If you happen to get 5 "Heads" in a row, you'd most likely assume the next one should be "Tails" ... even though each flip has a 50/50 chance of landing on either. 

Even from this example, you can tell it's a flawed law.  While there are some reasonable mathematical uses of the law of averages, in everyday life, this "law" mostly represents wishful thinking. 

It's also one of the most common fallacies succumbed to by gamblers and traders. 

The concept of "Average" is more confusing and potentially damaging than you might suspect.

Perhaps you heard the story about how the U.S. Air Force discovered the 'flaw' of averages by creating cockpits based on complex mathematics surrounding the average height, width, arm length, etc., of over 4,000 pilots.  Despite engineering the cockpit to precise specifications, pilots crashed their planes on a too-regular basis. 

The reason?  With hindsight, they learned that very few of those 4,000 pilots were actually "average".  Ultimately, the Air Force re-engineered the cockpit and fixed the problem. 

It's a good reminder that 'facts' can lie, and assumptions and interpretations are dangerous.  It's why I prefer taking decisive action on something known, rather than taking tentative actions about something guessed. 

via ReasonTV

Our Brains and the Illusion of Balance

Our brains are wired to find patterns, even in random events.  This tendency, known as apophenia, can lead us to see connections where none exist.

The Misleading Law of Averages

It's this very tendency that fuels the misconception of the law of averages.  We expect randomness to "even out" because we see patterns in short sequences.  This can be tempting to believe, especially when dealing with chance events.

The law of averages is a common idea that suggests future events will even out past results to reach some average outcome.  For instance, going back to our earlier coin-flipping example,  after getting five heads in a row, it's natural to assume the next flip is "due" to be tails.  However, that's not how probability works.  Each coin flip is an independent event (with a 50% chance of landing on heads or tails), regardless of previous flips.  The coin doesn't "remember" what happened before.

Apophenia isn't limited to coin flips.  For instance, you might see your lucky number appearing repeatedly throughout the day, leading you to believe it has a special meaning – even though each instance is completely independent.

This natural desire for order and predictability can lead us astray when dealing with chance events.

Why is it Flawed?

The law of averages often leads to a misconception called the gambler's fallacy.  This fallacy is the belief that random events can somehow "correct" themselves to reach an average.  In reality, every coin flip, roll of the dice, or spin of the roulette wheel is a fresh start with its own discrete probabilities.  The odds remain the same no matter how long the losing streak persists.

Are there ever times when it applies?

It's important to distinguish the law of averages from the law of large numbers, a well-established statistical principle.  The law of large numbers states that as the number of random events increases, the average outcome gets closer to the expected probability.  This applies in situations where many trials happen, and while past results of individual events are independent, the law describes the behavior of averages over a large number of trials.  For instance, the average weight of a large sample of apples will likely be close to the expected average weight of an apple, even if some individual apples are heavier or lighter than expected.

However, in everyday situations (with a limited number of events), the law of averages is generally not a helpful way to think about chance or probabilities.

Understanding these misconceptions can help us make better decisions and avoid false expectations based on flawed reasoning.

Psychological Reasons Behind the Belief

Human decision-making suffers from a range of tendencies and biases.

Earlier, we discussed the tendency to find patterns, even where none exist.  Next, we will consider cognitive bias.  In our coin-flipping example, it is the representativeness heuristic that makes us assume that small samples should resemble the larger population they come from.

Emotional factors also play a role.  The desire for control in uncertain situations can make us latch onto the law of averages as a comforting notion.  Believing that things will "even out" gives us a sense of predictability and fairness in an otherwise random world.

Additionally, social influences can reinforce these beliefs.  Stories and anecdotes about streaks ending or luck changing often circulate among friends and family, further embedding the misconception into our collective consciousness.

Understanding these psychological reasons helps explain why the law of averages persists despite its flaws.  Recognizing these biases can empower us to think more critically about probability and chance events.

Improving Decision-Making in Gambling and Investing

Recognizing the fallacy of the law of averages can significantly enhance decision-making, particularly in gambling and investing.  Understanding that each event is independent can help participants make more rational choices.  Instead of chasing losses with the hope that a win is "due," savvy speculators understand their odds remain constant and may choose to walk away or set strict limits on their betting behavior.

In investing, this knowledge is equally crucial.  Many factors influence markets.  Nonetheless, believing that a stock "must" rebound after a series of declines too often leads to poor investment decisions.  Investors who grasp that past performance does not dictate future results are better equipped to evaluate investments based on fundamentals rather than emotions or flawed expectations.

By dispelling these misconceptions, you can approach gambling or investing with a clearer mindset, reducing the risk of substantial losses driven by erroneous beliefs about probability and chance.

You can also eliminate fear, greed, and discretionary mistakes by relying on algorithms to calculate realtime expectancy scores and take the road less stupid.  Take a different kind of chance.  Just ask our AI Overlords; they'll tell you what to expect!

Correlation Between Market Crashes & Oreos?!

During the Robinhood & Gamestop debacle in 2021, I wrote an article about r/WallStreetBets where I essentially said that most of the retail investors that frequent the site don’t know what they’re doing ... Occasionally, however, there are posts that present the type of solid research or insights you might see from a respected Wall Street firm.

With Gamestop and AMC both surging recently, I thought this was a topic worth revisiting. 

As an example of good research done by the subreddit, here’s a link to a post where a user (nobjos) analyzed 66,000+ buy and sell recommendations by financial analysts over the last 10 years to see if they had an edge.  Spoiler: maybe, but only if you have sufficient AUM to justify the investment in their research. 

Some posts demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of markets, and the subreddit certainly contains more jokes than quality posts.  Nevertheless, I saw a great example of a post that pokes fun at the concept that correlation does not equal causation. 

I’ve posted about the Super Bowl Indicator and the Big Mac Index in the past, but what about Oreos?  Read what’s next for mouth-watering market insights.

The increasingly-depraved debuts of Oreos with more stuffing indicate unstable amounts of greed and leverage in the system, serving as an immediate indicator that the makings of a market crash are in place. Conversely, when the Oreo team reduces the amount of icing in their treats, markets tend to have great bull runs until once again society demands to push the boundaries of how much stuffing is possible.

1974: Double Stuf Oreo released. Dow Jones crashes 45%. FTSE drops 73%.

1987: Big Stuf Oreo released. Black Monday, a 20% single-day crash and a following bear market.

1991: Mini Oreo introduced. Smaller icing ratios coincide with the 1991 Japanese asset price bubble, confirming the correlation works both ways and a reduction of Oreo icing may be a potential solution to preventing a future crash.

2011: Triple Double Oreo introduced. S&P drops 21% in a 5-month bear market

2015: Oreo Thins introduced. A complete lack of icing causes an unprecedented bull run in the S&P for years

2019: The Most Stuf Oreo briefly introduced. Pulled off the shelf before any major market damage could occur.

2021: The Most Stuf Oreo reintroduced. Market response: ???

 - LehmanParty via Reddit

It’s surprisingly good due diligence, but it’s also clearly just meant to be funny.  It resonates because we crave order and look for signs that make markets seem a little bit more predictable.

The problem with randomness is that it often appears meaningful. 

Many people on Wall Street have ideas about how to guess what will happen with the stock market or the economy.  Unfortunately, they often confuse correlation with causation.  At least with the Oreo Indicator, we know that the idea was supposed to be thought-provoking (but silly) rather than investment advice to be taken seriously.

More people than you would hope or guess attempt to forecast the market based on gut, ancient wisdom, and prayers.

While hope and prayer are good things ... they aren’t reliably good trading strategies.

Consider this a reminder that even if you do the work, you’ll likely get a bad answer if you use the wrong inputs. 

Garbage in, garbage out. 

Onwards!

Making News Beautiful Again

My mother watches the news religiously.  To her credit, she watches a variety of sources and creates her own takeaways based on them.  Regardless, there's a common theme in all the sources she watched – they focus on fear or shock-inducing stories with a negative bias.  As you might guess, I hear it when I talk with her.

While I value being informed, I also value things that nourish or make you stronger (as opposed to things that make you weak or less hopeful).

Negativity Sells. 

Sure, news sources throw in the occasional feel-good story as a pattern interrupt ... but their focus skews negative.  History shows that stories about improvement or the things that work simply don't grab eyeballs, attention, or ratings as consistently as negativity-focused stories do.

The reality is that negativity sells.  If everything were great all the time, people wouldn't need to buy as many products, they wouldn't need to watch the news, and this cycle wouldn't continue.

It's worth acknowledging and understanding the perils our society is facing, but it's also worth focusing on the ways humanity is expanding and improving.

As a brief respite from the seemingly unending stream of doom and gloom, Information Is Beautiful has a section focused on "Beautiful News".  It's a collection of visualizations highlighting positive trends, uplifting statistics, and creative solutions.  It's updated daily and can be sorted by topic.  I suggest you check it out.

 

Beautiful News via Information Is Beautiful

If you're looking for more "good news," here's a list of 10 sources focusing on good news. 

Let me know if you have a site you'd like to share.

Have a great week!

Just Sardines In A Tincan...

I fly a lot.

In fact, I hit five million "butt-in-seat" miles on American Airlines in 2019 (back when frequent flyer programs were about flying frequently rather than credit card spending).

It is 2024, and I am now just below 5.5M.  That means I averaged a little over 100,000 miles per year, even through the COVID shutdown.

Yes, I expect that my travel will slow down.  But as I traveled, I didn't expect it to continue at the pace it did. 

Nonetheless, it has been good for me, and the time spent traveling has been productive.

I have a different workflow when I travel, and it works for me.

Ultimately, I believe that good things happen when you are in motion! 

Many people, however, are focused on the hassle.

The practical realities of travel mean I spend some time thinking about the things airlines do well or poorly.  Nonetheless, I appreciate the benefits more than the frustrations.

As you probably noticed, Airline Status means much less today than it used to (which is why it feels even more important to get).  Every week, the airlines seem to make the space between seats smaller while the time it takes to find overhead luggage space gets shorter.  It seems like most airlines could change its slogan to "We are not happy until you're not happy."

Yet the planes themselves are getting better.  Here, for example, is what an empty 787 looks like. 

It looks more like a set from Star Trek than the hellscape passengers complain about regularly. 

What about the boarding process? 

Here is a video that presents the findings from studies on experimental boarding methods that work better. 

via CGP Grey

If you really don't like commercial flying, you can fly on any of the "economical" private options like JetSmarter or WheelsUp. Or, better yet, you could be like this guy and buy the world's only private Boeing 787 Dreamliner. 

via Sam Chui

You can rent it out for a measly $70k an hour ... What a bargain!

Of course, you could also use Zoom.  Times are changing!

I fly a lot.

In fact, I hit five million "butt-in-seat" miles on American Airlines in 2019 (back when frequent flyer programs were about flying frequently rather than credit card spending).

It is 2024, and I am now just below 5.5M.  That means I averaged a little over 100,000 miles per year, even through the COVID shutdown.

Yes, I expect that my travel will slow down.  But as I traveled, I didn't expect it to continue at the pace it did. 

Nonetheless, it has been good for me, and the time spent traveling has been productive.

I have a different workflow when I travel, and it works for me.

Ultimately, I believe that good things happen when you are in motion! 

Many people, however, are focused on the hassle.

The practical realities of travel mean I spend some time thinking about the things airlines do well or poorly.  Nonetheless, I appreciate the benefits more than the frustrations.

As you probably noticed, Airline Status means much less today than it used to (which is why it feels even more important to get).  Every week, the airlines seem to make the space between seats smaller while the time it takes to find overhead luggage space gets shorter.  It seems like most airlines could change its slogan to "We are not happy until you're not happy."

Yet the planes themselves are getting better.  Here, for example, is what an empty 787 looks like. 

It looks more like a set from Star Trek than the hellscape passengers complain about regularly. 

What about the boarding process? 

Here is a video that presents the findings from studies on experimental boarding methods that work better. 

via CGP Grey

If you really don't like commercial flying, you can fly on any of the "economical" private options like JetSmarter or WheelsUp. Or, better yet, you could be like this guy and buy the world's only private Boeing 787 Dreamliner. 

via Sam Chui

You can rent it out for a measly $70k an hour ... What a bargain!

Of course, you could also use Zoom.  Times are changing!

The Evolution of Michael Jackson

This lighthearted post has something to do with artificial ...  but nothing to do with artificial intelligence.

While doing my weekly reading and web browsing (which is how I pick those links you probably think an algorithm selects), I happened upon a post about Michael Jackson on Twitter (now called X), and I enjoyed it (or at least was drawn to click and watch it). 

I grew up a huge Michael Jackson fan. As a kid, I watched the Jackson 5 Saturday morning cartoon show. His albums were the soundtrack to my college years. Later, my first wife and I saw him in concert several times. We shared that love with our youngest son, Zach. 

It's funny to look back on, but Zach used to dance to Michael Jackson's songs on stage at his Elementary School talent shows or at random restaurants. There was no choreography ... but lots of movement. I still smile when I think about it. 

You might smile (or shake your head) while watching this short video chronicling the evolution of  Michael Jackson's face changes from birth to death. 

 

via MikeBeast

It's a staggering difference. I won't pretend to know what led him to make the changes, but they're substantial. 

That being said, his music is both timely and timeless - which is very rare. He managed to make music in each era that fit in with the times but still felt very Michael Jackson. 

 

via MikeBeast

 

Gone too soon!

March Is Always Madness ...

March Madness is in full swing and will have the world's attention for a few more days.  As you can guess, almost no one has a perfect bracket anymore.  Yale beat Auburn, James Madison beat Wisconsin, Michigan State beat Mississippi State, and by the end of day 1, only 2,000 brackets remained intact.  That's .008% of all brackets submitted. 

Before 24/7 sports channels, people watched the weekly show "The Wide World of Sports."  Its opening theme promised "The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat!" and "The human drama of athletic competition." That defines March Madness.

The holy grail is mighty elusive in March Madness (as in most things).  For example, the odds of getting the perfect bracket are 1 in 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 (2.4 trillion based on a Duke Mathematician's formula that takes into account rank).  It's easier to win back-to-back lotteries than picking a perfect bracket.  Nonetheless, I bet you felt pretty good when you filled out your bracket.

 

via Duke University

Here's some more crazy March Madness Stats: 

• 80 million tournament brackets were completed
• Companies expect $4 Billion of corporate losses due to employees tracking games
• The highest-paid NCAA coach, Kansas's Bill Self, makes a salary of $9.6 million
• In 2018, it was estimated that March Madness generated $10 Billion in gambling (twice as much as the Super Bowl)

 

Feeding the Madness

"Not only is there more to life than basketball, there's a lot more to basketball than basketball." - Phil Jackson

In 2017, I highlighted three people who were (semi) successful at predicting March Madness: a 13-year-old who used a mix of guesswork and preferences, a 47-year-old English woman who used algorithms and data science (despite not knowing the game), and a 70-year-old bookie who had his finger on the pulse of the betting world.  None of them had the same success even a year later.

Finding an edge is hard - Maintaining an edge is even harder.

That's not to say there aren't edges to be found. 

Bracket-choosing mimics the way investors pick trades or allocate assets.  Some people use gut feelings, some base their decisions on current and historical performance, and some use predictive models.  You've got different inputs, weights, and miscellaneous factors influencing your decision.  That makes you feel powerful.  But knowing the history, their ranks, etc., can help make an educated guess, and they can also lead you astray. 

The allure of March Madness is the same as gambling or trading.  As sports fans, it's easy to believe we know something the layman doesn't.  We want the bragging rights of that sleeper pick, of our alma mater winning, of the big upset. 

You'd think an NCAA analyst might have a better shot at a perfect bracket than your grandma or musical-loving co-worker.

In reality, several of the highest-ranked brackets every year are guesses. 

The commonality in all decisions is that we are biased.  Bias is inherent to the process because there isn't a clear-cut answer.  We don't know who will win or what makes a perfect prediction. 

Think about it from a market efficiency standpoint.  People make decisions based on many factors — sometimes irrational ones — which can create inefficiencies and complexities.  It can be hard to find those inefficiencies and capitalize on them, but they're there to be found. 

In trading, AI and advanced math help remove biases and identify inefficiencies humans miss.

Can machine learning also help in March Madness?

“The greater the uncertainty, the bigger the gap between what you can measure and what matters, the more you should watch out for overfitting - that is, the more you should prefer simplicity” - Tom Griffiths

The data is there.  Over 100,000 NCAA regular-season games were played over the last 25+ years, and we generally have plenty of statistics about the teams for each season.  There are plenty of questions to be asked about that data that may add an extra edge. 

That being said, people have tried before with mediocre success.  It's hard to overcome the intangibles of sports - hustle, the crowd, momentum - and it's hard to overcome 1 in 9.2 quintillion odds. 

Two lessons can be learned from this:

1. People aren't as good at prediction as they predict they are.
2. Machine Learning isn't a one-size-fits-all answer to all your problems.

Something to think about.

 

Feeding the Madness

"Not only is there more to life than basketball, there's a lot more to basketball than basketball." - Phil Jackson

In 2017, I highlighted three people who were (semi) successful at predicting March Madness: a 13-year-old who used a mix of guesswork and preferences, a 47-year-old English woman who used algorithms and data science (despite not knowing the game), and a 70-year-old bookie who had his finger on the pulse of the betting world.  None of them had the same success even a year later.

Finding an edge is hard - Maintaining an edge is even harder.

That's not to say there aren't edges to be found. 

Bracket-choosing mimics the way investors pick trades or allocate assets.  Some people use gut feelings, some base their decisions on current and historical performance, and some use predictive models.  You've got different inputs, weights, and miscellaneous factors influencing your decision.  That makes you feel powerful.  But knowing the history, their ranks, etc., can help make an educated guess, and they can also lead you astray. 

The allure of March Madness is the same as gambling or trading.  As sports fans, it's easy to believe we know something the layman doesn't.  We want the bragging rights of that sleeper pick, of our alma mater winning, of the big upset. 

You'd think an NCAA analyst might have a better shot at a perfect bracket than your grandma or musical-loving co-worker.

In reality, several of the highest-ranked brackets every year are guesses. 

The commonality in all decisions is that we are biased.  Bias is inherent to the process because there isn't a clear-cut answer.  We don't know who will win or what makes a perfect prediction. 

Think about it from a market efficiency standpoint.  People make decisions based on many factors — sometimes irrational ones — which can create inefficiencies and complexities.  It can be hard to find those inefficiencies and capitalize on them, but they're there to be found. 

In trading, AI and advanced math help remove biases and identify inefficiencies humans miss.

Can machine learning also help in March Madness?

“The greater the uncertainty, the bigger the gap between what you can measure and what matters, the more you should watch out for overfitting - that is, the more you should prefer simplicity” - Tom Griffiths

The data is there.  Over 100,000 NCAA regular-season games were played over the last 25+ years, and we generally have plenty of statistics about the teams for each season.  There are plenty of questions to be asked about that data that may add an extra edge. 

That being said, people have tried before with mediocre success.  It's hard to overcome the intangibles of sports - hustle, the crowd, momentum - and it's hard to overcome 1 in 9.2 quintillion odds. 

Two lessons can be learned from this:

1. People aren't as good at prediction as they predict they are.
2. Machine Learning isn't a one-size-fits-all answer to all your problems.

Something to think about.

Overhyped Technologies (Or Not)

Just because something is overhyped doesn’t mean it’s bad.

Gartner’s Hype Cycle is a great example of this concept.  It highlights the likely cycle of inflated expectations, disillusionment, and, ultimately, utility.

The key takeaway from the Hype Cycle model is that much of what happens is predictable ... and that a significant portion of the extreme swings are based on human nature rather than technical merit.

Haters are going to hate, and sometimes a fad is more than a fad.  For example, here is a front-page article from the New York Times in 1879.  It questions the utility of electric lights as a replacement for gas-powered lighting.  In case you were wondering, that one might have been a bright idea.

 

 

The point is that humans have proven themselves to be pretty bad at exponential thinking.  We’re not bad at recognizing periods of inflection, but we often have trouble recognizing the consequences of the change (and the consequences of those consequences) and predicting who the winners and losers will be as a result of those 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 and hype they were getting.

 

 

It’s been over 15 years since this came out.  How did the predictions hold up?

Apple has become one of the world’s biggest and most successful companies (with a market cap approaching 3 Trillion dollars).  The iPhone has sold over 2.2 billion phones and accounts for over half of Apple’s total revenue.  Meanwhile, Facebook has become Meta and is also one of the biggest and most successful companies in the world (with a market cap of well over a Trillion dollars).  And the list keeps going: HD video, 64-bit computing, downloading movies from the internet, and multiple GPU video cards. 

Take just that last one. Nvidia has been the primary beneficiary of GPU growth, and it is one of the highest-performing stocks of the past few decades (with a market cap of well over 2 trillion dollars). 

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

Remember that the trend is your friend while it continues.

Just because something is overhyped - doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be excited about it. 

The key is to stop thinking about the thing that’s being hyped and, instead, to start thinking about how to use things like that to create what you really want.

Onwards!

The U.S. Is Back On The Moon!

When I was young, the Space Race captured the hearts and souls of Americans.  But, for the past few decades, it was in the background.  Recently, that has changed.  The space race is getting hot again.  Resources are pouring into this area, and SpaceX is leading the pack. 

In 2018, I shared excitement that the boosters he used were reusable.  Today, people are talking about how his ship, Starship, could render other rocket programs obsolete. 

Fifty-one years after we last landed on the moon, the U.S. is back, and it wasn’t Elon, but the private company Intuitive Machines finally accomplishing the feat. 

Odysseus, the unmanned lander, is now sending data back to Earth. 

Despite the massive leapfrog in technology over the past 51 years, this is still a massive achievement for several reasons.  It was done by a private company, it was still very expensive, it precedes a 2026 manned flight from NASA, and it’s the first commercial flight - not just from the U.S. - to make it to the moon.  The trip’s goal is to research the area NASA plans to use for an upcoming mission.  They believe there are beads of frozen water in the area, which could help sustain a permanent settlement. 

For many years, landing on the moon wasn’t getting any money.  Money was scarce.  We brought back over 800 pounds of moon rock on our last visit, and what little money there was went to more novel missions.  The moon landing symbolizes excitement about the long-term potential of the moon, not just space travel. 

I love spaceflight for a lot of the same reasons I love AI. 

It’s a global initiative heralding innovation and improvements that transform the world.  It’s the genesis of many exponential technologies. 

Many astronauts, even from back in the Apollo days, talk about the incredible feeling they get after a few days in space.  As they gaze on the Earth from above, they lose their sense of borders and nationality.  The Saudi astronaut Sultan bin Salman Al-Saud, who flew on the Space Shuttle in 1985, commented on this, saying, “The first day or so we all pointed to our countries.  On the third or fourth day, we were pointing to our continents.  By the fifth day, we were aware of only one Earth.”

It reminds me of Carl Sagan’s video on “The Pale Blue Dot.” 

In 1977, five years after we left the moon, the Voyager 1 launched into space.  Just over a dozen years later, the Voyager 1 spacecraft had traveled farther than any spacecraft/probe/human-made anything had gone before.  It was approximately 6 billion kilometers away from Earth.  At that point, the Voyager 1 was “told” by Carl Sagan to turn around and take one last photo of the Earth ... a pale blue dot. 

The resulting photo is impressive precisely because it shows so little in so much.

“Every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.” – Carl Sagan

Earth is in the far right sunbeam – a little below halfway down the image.  This image (and the ability to send it back to Earth) was the culmination of years of effort, the advancement of technology, and the dreams of humankind.

The resulting speech from Carl Sagan is still profound, moving, and worth a listen. 

 

via Carl Sagan

Here’s the transcript: 

_____

Look again at that dot.  That’s here.  That’s home.  That’s us.  On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives.  The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every “superstar,” every “supreme leader,” every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there--on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena.  Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot.  Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light.  Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark.  In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life.  At least in the near future, there is nowhere else to which our species could migrate.  Visit, yes.  Settle, not yet.  Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience.  There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world.  To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.

____ 

Today, we have people living in space, posting videos from the ISS, and high-resolution images of space and galaxies near and far. 

We take for granted the immense phase shift in technology.  You have more computing power in your pocket than we first used to go to the moon.

As humans, we’re wired to think locally and linearly.  We evolved to live in small groups, fear outsiders, and stay in a general region until we die.  We’re not wired to think about the billions and billions of individuals on our planet, or the rate of technological growth - or the minuteness of that all in regard to the expanse of space.  

However, today’s reality necessitates thinking about the world, our impact, and what’s now possible.

We created better and faster ways to travel, we’ve created instantaneous communication networks across vast distances, and we’ve created megacities.  Our tribes have gotten much bigger - and with that, our ability to enact massive change has grown as well. 

Space was the first bastion of today’s innovation, but today, we can look toward AI, medicine, epigenetics, and more. 

It’s hard to comprehend the scale of the universe and the scale of our potential ... but that’s what makes it worth exploring!

Onwards!

Here Are Some Links For Your Weekly Reading - February 18th, 2024

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

Lighter Links:

• OpenAI's Product Page for Sora – Their AI Model That Creates Video From Text (with Examples). (OpenAI)
• You Are Not Late to Artificial Intelligence. (TheAlgorithmicBridge)
• ‘Mental Time Travel' Can Help You Make Better Decisions. (LifeHacker)
• ‘The Alternative' is Just the Book Economists Should Read — And Won't. (Washington Post)
• Musk Says Putin Can't Lose in Ukraine, Opposes Further Funding – “Prolonging the War Does Not Help Ukraine.” (Bloomberg)

 

Trading Links:

• OpenAI Staff Granted Permission to Liquidate Shares at Astounding $86 Billion Valuation - Insider Report. (Cryptopolitan)
• What Sam Altman's Chimerical Trillions Say About AI Hype. (Axios)
• The US-China Chip War is Escalating. (Apricitas)
• In Memory of Byron Wien, Here Is a 2024 "Ten Surprises" Tribute. (BlueFoxAdvisors)
• How Big Is the Commercial Real Estate Mess in the U.S.? Expect Losses in the Trillions of Dollars Over Time. (TheInstitutionalRiskAnalyst)